The continual uprising of the people of Iran against the Islamic regime has many in the media worried that the issue of human rights may cause the Obama administration to abandon its policy of the political engagement with the theocratic dictators of Iran.
In an apparently desperate attempt to intimidate public opinion, Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett brought up the war issue in a recent article in New York Times. They know the image of the brutalities of the Islamic regime is still fresh in the minds of the Americans.
But they misrepresent facts, primarily that in 1979 the people of Iran wanted an Islamic regime. Not true. I was there. The Revolution of 1979 was for more democracy, not a Islamic regime. It was for more political freedom, not for zero political freedom, especially under clergy rule.
The Leveretts quote Mir-Hossein Mousavi as calling the uprising “unacceptable radicalism.” Of course Mr. Mousavi would make such statement: he has been a part of this regime since its inception. But he never called for the uprising, nor was he its leader. Mousavi was not the issue: he was simply another window of opportunity for the people to show the world community their discontent for the Islamic regime.
The Leveretts then asked three questions:
First: What does this opposition want?
Well let us start with the words: Freedom, Human Rights and Being Able to Improve the Lives of Iranian Children by not building nuclear bombs and by not terrorizing other people’s children. The Iranian people want jobs to feed, cloth and educate their children. They want to be a part of the international community, to live in peace with respect, not in fear with terrorism. Young Iranians are tired of being ruled by a group of old fanatic Clergymen of the 6th century. Iranian women want to be free from the oppression of the Islamic patriarchal hierarchy.
One Iranian asked: “Why would progressive free Western journalists deny the people of Iran their freedom? Why are the media so opposed to human rights for the Iranian people?”
The second question was: Who leads the opposition?
This is what in America is called a “Grass Roots Movement” -- the most effective and powerful of movements that progressive, democratic, civil societies also refer to as “civil disobedience.” Civil disobedience movements do not need leadership: it is a spontaneous show of discontent. Although there is no leadership yet, one might recall that after World War II in German, it took seven years for Conrad Adenauer to come to power. The message is clear and united: all are hungry for freedom, which is more important than a movement with a leader with an agenda and an ideology. We just had that.
The third question was: Through what process will this opposition displace the government in Tehran?
Well, several ways:
Internally: A mass, nationwide strike of oil and government employees could make this regime fall in a few weeks, as it did in 1979.
Externally: The Iranian Diaspora is active, and persistent in making sure that members of the international community do not forget the United Nations Charter of Human Rights, no mater how important the Islamic regime is to their economic interests.
Internationally: The same process that removed the South African white, racial, apartheid regime could support the removal of the theocratic gender- apartheid regime by Iranians.
The same process that supported the solidarity movement in powerful communist Poland could support the green movement in Iran.
The same process could convince European governments to regulate their banks, insurance companies and corporations to keep them from selling hundreds of billions of dollars of arms, military supplies, missiles and rockets to the Revolutionary Guards.
The same process could require European Oil and Gas companies to stop using this corrupt regime to make oil and gas deals for the well being of their bottom lines, but against peace, humanity and freedom.
There are many other economic factors that this regime have supported this regime. The Shi’ite clergy is well known among the Iranians for its corruption and cunning; there is no doubt that it has bribed Westerners, Russians and Chinese to stand by them, against the people of Iran.
Let us hope that the Leveretts and the media are not proposing endless diplomacy -- without any results -- addressing the nuclear bomb program of the revolutionary guards.
Diplomacy is normally carried out to try to achieve a treaty. Endless diplomacy, however, can be a danger for the world.