|
The gathering
storm
Here comes Hurricane Ahmadinejad
October 11, 2005
iranian.com
Mahmood Ahmadinejad stunned the diplomatic world on
September 17 with his bellicose and vitriolic speech at
the United Nations General Assembly. This portends a
serious confrontation between the fundamentalist regime
and the Bush administration.
The diplomatic world was awaiting Ahmadinejad's
proposals to resolve the dispute over the regime's
nuclear program, an 18-year old clandestine program that
was exposed in 2002. The International Atomic Energy
Agency, the UN agency responsible for monitoring
compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
has been investigating possible violations by the
regime.
IAEA's 35-member Board of Governors meeting in Vienna
the week following Ahmadinejad's speech adopted a harsh
resolution on September 24. The resolution threatened to
refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible
sanctions if the fundamentalist regime failed to
establish confidence that its nuclear program is
peaceful. The Board will meet again in November.
Ahmadinejad's speech came as a surprise to many
non-Iranian observers. For those familiar with factional
politics in Iran, there were few surprises. There are
three major factions among fundamentalist oligarchy
ruling Iran: reformists, expedients, and hard-liners.
All factions wish to prolong fundamentalist rule but
disagree on the policies which would best serve that
end.
Led by Hojatolislam Mohammad Khatami, the reformist
faction had proposed to improve relations with the
United States, suspend uranium enrichment indefinitely,
and reduce repression at home.[1] These policies were
opposed by the Supreme Leader Ali Khamanehi, the most
powerful person in the oligarchy. Nicknamed Ayatollah
Gorbachev, events proved Khatami to be Iran's
Khrushchev. [2]
Led by Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, the expedient
faction proposes what is called the Chinese model:
detente with U.S., entente with EU, increase political
repression, and laxer enforcement of social restrictions
such as those on music and Islamic dress for women.
Led by Khamanehi, the hard-line faction proposes to
increase political repression, increase social
restrictions, and increase confrontation with the United
States. Hard-liners believe that the United States is on
the verge of collapse similar to what occurred to the
former Soviet Union.
In its October 20, 2001 issue the Keyhan daily wrote:
"Today is the end of history for the failed liberal
democracy. The train of progress has collided against
the fortress of capitalism. In the midst of the ruined
remains of democracy we will be able to lead mankind
towards salvation and security, with the light of
guidance which Imam Hussein, peace be upon him, has
placed in our hands for shedding light of the bewildered
humanity at the end of history."[3]
Another hard-line conservative paper, Jomhuri Islami
opined that "The U.S. is imploding, because of its
growing budget deficits and the fact that it is no
longer on the cutting edge of science, knowledge,
democracy, and freedom."[4] Another conservative
hard-line paper, Resalat, editorialized that "no
philosopher or sociologist has any doubt about the fall
of the West."[5] In another article entitled
"On the Brink of Collapse," a Resalat writer
argues that America is in the brink of disintegration
because of its lack of morality.[6]
Hard-liners believe that the U.S. is in an unusually
weak position and thus unable to impose its will on
them. They believe that American armed forces are
overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and in a standoff
with North Korea. For the hard-liners, these and the
unusually tight global oil market render UN Security
Council sanctions, American surgical strikes on nuclear
facilities, or an all-out invasion highly unlikely.
Ahmadinejad has named a cabinet packed with members
of the most extreme wing of the hard-line faction known
as "Young Conservatives." Like himself, they
are in their 40s and 50s and are true-believers who
risked life and limb in the 1980s in the war against
Iraq as well as in the violent struggle against domestic
opposition. They rose to positions of power not because
of connection to clerics but because of their services
in the intelligence and military agencies, a service
marked by extreme violence and brutality.
For example, Mustafa PourMohammadi, the new Minister
of Interior, was Deputy Minister of Intelligence for
Foreign Operations in the early 1990s, under whose
stewardship, several dozen Iranian opposition activists
were assassinated in Western Europe. Gen. Mohammad
Bagher Zolghadr is the new Deputy Chairman of the
Supreme National Security Council, the body responsible
for formulating foreign, military, and domestic security
policies. Zolghadr, is the second highest ranked
official in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
In February 2002, he advocated targeting oil fields in
neighboring countries if U.S. attacked Iran.[7]
Another violent extremist member of the oligarchy,
Gen. Ghalibaf has become mayor of Tehran. Gen. Ghalibaf
was one of the high ranking IRGC commanders who signed a
letter to Khatami threatening him that if he did not
restore order, they would take matters into their own
hands during the July 1999 pro-democracy rallies and
marches. Ahmadinejad, PourMohammadi and Zolghadr served
together in the intelligence section of the IRGC.
Both Khamanehi and Ahmadinejad have repeatedly and
explicitly stated that Iran has the right to develop a
nuclear program and that this right is non-negotiable.
They insist that the nuclear program is solely for
peaceful purposes, but few believe it.
 There
are many reasons why the world mistrusts the regime.
First, the regime leaders have a long proven history of
lying. For example, it is well-known that the regime has
assassinated numerous Iranians abroad while IRI
officials lie and publically deny the fact.
Second, many leaders of the regime have made
contradictory statements. For example, on the one hand
they claim that IRI's nuclear program is solely for
peaceful purposes and on the other hand they state that
Iran needs nuclear weapons to counter threats to it. For
instance, Mustafa Tajzadeh (one of the top leaders of
the reformist wing of the oligarchy) has said that
"Israel says, if I don't have it [nuclear
capability], I don't have security, and we say, as long
as Israel has it, we don't have security."[8]
Third, the regime has engaged in mass killings,
horrendous torture, and even assassinations and murders
of non-violent political and literary figures (e.g.,
Parvaneh Eskandari-Forouhar, Jaafar Pouyandeh, Mohammad
Mokhtari, Piroz Davani, Zahra Kazemi).
Fourth, the ideology of the regime is a combination
of martyrdom and violent expansionism.
Fifth, the main slogans of the regime are the
genocidal slogans of "Death to American," and
"Death to Israel."
Sixth, the regime has funded and continues to fund
terrorist organizations such as Lebanese Hezbollah,
Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Therefore, for Khamanehi and Ahmadinejad to have
access to nuclear technology is as disconcerting to much
of the world as Osama bin Laden and Mohammad Atta to
have such access. One may not worry if Perviz Mosharaf
has nuclear weapons, but one should be most worried if
the likes of bin Laden, Atta, Khamanehi, or Ahmadinejad
possess such weapons.
Ahmadinejad and Khamanehi have declared that nuclear
weapons are against the religion of Islam.[9] In his UN
speech, however, Ahmadinejad threatened that "we
will reconsider our entire approach to the nuclear
issue" if U.S. provoked Iran. Apparently
Ahmadinejad and his speech writers did not grasp the
logical inconsistency of his threat with the position
that nuclear weapons are against the religion of Islam.
 The
fundamentalist regime's propaganda machine has attempted
to portray its nuclear ambition as a nationalist issue
similar to the nationalization of oil, and to compare
Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN to that of Dr.
Mossadegh's speech there. This has provoked a strong
response by Mossadegh's National Front who strongly
objected to any comparison between Ahmadinejad (regarded
as the most reactionary, dictatorial and bellicose
leader in recent memory) and Dr. Mossadegh (regarded as
the most liberal, democratic, and peaceful leader in
recent history).[10]
The pro-democracy nationalist forces have strongly
criticized and condemned any comparison between the
fundamentalist regime's putative covert nuclear weapons
program with the struggle to gain Iran's economic and
political independence from colonial control under the
leadership of Dr. Mossadegh.[11] The pro-democracy
opposition regards the regime's propaganda to be an
attempt to deceive the Iranian people by creating
unnecessary and dangerous crisis with the world in order
to divert and undermine the struggle of the Iranian
people for freedom and democracy.[12]
It is clear that any country has the right to develop
civilian nuclear technology. Moreover, one may
legitimately argue that Iran needs to develop nuclear
weapons to protect its national interests because Iran
is located in a dangerous and volatile region. The
problem is the nature of the fundamentalist regime,
which many legitimately regard as extremist, fanatic,
genocidal, and terrorist.
It is like accepting that every citizen has the right
to own a gun, but that we could wisely deprive someone
of this right if he has committed major crimes. A
criminal possessing a gun poses such a serious danger
that a community may wish to deprive him from possessing
a gun. If the fundamentalist regime were replaced with a
normal regime (e.g., a secular and democratic republic,
especially one that has a record of leaders who are
decent and who respect human rights), then no one would
worry about this government possessing nuclear weapons
as deterrence.
 Early
in August, Khamanehi rejected economic and political
incentives offered by EU-3 (Britain, France, Germany),
and uranium conversion was resumed. President Bush then
explicitly re-stated his earlier position that all
options, including military strikes, are on the table in
order to prevent the completion of the nuclear program.
If we take the words of President Bush and Iran's
fundamentalist rulers seriously, then, military
confrontation is a strong possibility.
The Bush administration may be able to avoid military
confrontation, or at least to postpone it, if it can
convince the Security Council to impose sanctions. Such
sanctions may undermine the fundamentalist regime's
ability to control the people, thus enabling Iranians
themselves to overthrow the regime. However, Security
Council sanctions seem unlikely as Russia and China are
likely to veto them. The hard-liners in Iranˆlike the
Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraqˆunderestimate
American military might and political will, and
overestimate their own. There is a gathering storm that
would make the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem like
minor tornadoes.
Endnotes
[1] AFX
news: IRI's ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Javad
Zarif was "involved in closed-door talks with the
United States in 2001 on the formation of a post-Taliban
government for Afghanistan, followed by secret contacts
prior to the US invasion of Iraq."
[2] I owe this sentence to a friend who wishes to be
acknowledged as "J."
[3] Cited in Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar, "The
Portrayal of the U.S. in the Iranian Media Since
9/11," pp. 4-5, paper presented at U.S.-Iran
Relations Conference at the University of Utah,
September 9-10, 2005.
[4] Jomhuri Islami, 1384/5/20, cited in Ayatollahi
Tabaar, ibid.
[5] Mohammad Kazem Anbarlouie, "The Capital
Crime of Western Civilization," Resalat, July 30,
2005, p. 2, cited in Ayatollahi Tabaar, ibid.
[6] Pejman Karimi, "On the Brink of
Collapse," Resalat, August 22, 2005, cited in
Ayatollahi Tabaar, ibid.
[7] http://europe.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/02/09/iran.warning/index.html
[8] Karl Vick, "Iranians Assert Right to Nuclear
Weapons: Issues Unites Conservatives, Reformers,"
Washington Post, March 11, 2003, p. A16 cited in John
Miglietta, "From Ally to Adversary: A Comprehensive
Analysis of American-Iranian Relations, 1975-2005,"
paper presented at U.S.-Iran Relations Conference at the
University of Utah, September 9-10, 2005.
[9] For an excellent analysis see Khodayar Afam,
"ŒHaram Sharii' Shemordan Bomb Atomi ŒKolah-e
Sharii' Ast," iranian.com, September 28, 2005.
http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2005/September/Nukes4/index.html
[10] See Dr. Parviz Davarpanah, "Mossadegh
Koja va Sheikh Koja".
[11] Iran National Front-Abroad (U.S. Branch): Also see
editorial of INF in "Gorg Hokumat Islami dar
Lebaas-e Mishe Melli" [The Islamic Regime Wolf in
Nationalist Sheep Clothing] in Neda Jebhe Melli Iran,
#21 (October 2005): http://jebhemelli.net/htdocs/publications/Neda/2005/21.pdf.
Also see the views
of Mossadegh's grandson, Dr. Matin-Daftari, who
heads the National Democratic Front, a democratic
socialist organization.
[12] In addition to the Iran National Front (Jebhe
Melli Iran) also see
the statements of the National Movement of the
Iranian Resistance, and the republicans.
Also see Ramin Kamran, "Ham
Atom Ham Azadi," Iranian.com, October 3, 2005.
About
Masoud Kazemzadeh is Associate Professor in the
Department of Political Science at Sam Houston State
University in Huntsville, Texas. He is the author of Islamic
Fundamentalism, Feminism, and Gender Inequality in Iran
Under Khomeini (Lanham, MD: University Press of
America, 2002), and The Bush Doctrine and Iran:
Alternative Scenarios and Consequences
(forthcoming).
*
Send this
page to a friend
|