Over Iran, enemies become friends


By Grace Nasri
Asia Times
Dec 11, 2009


As international attention has turned from the disputed June 12 Iranian presidential election and the regime's crackdown on opposition protesters to the negotiations surrounding Tehran's nuclear program, neo-conservatives in the United States, Iranian opposition leaders and some within the Iranian diaspora have begun employing the same tactics to achieve contradicting outcomes for Iran.

Neo-cons are among many groups in the US that have sat by quietly - at best - through decades of human-rights abuses in Iran. Now, however, after Tehran's unprecedented move in coming to the negotiating table in October, the neo-cons have emerged as apparent advocates of Iranians in their domestic fight for human and civil rights.

The actions and claimed motivations of the neo-cons, however, remain suspicious; but they are not unique to this group. The leadership of the Iranian opposition has begun employing the same tactics as the neo-cons in their own effort to stall negotiations between Washington and Tehran. Meanwhile, some within the Iranian diaspora see themselves as sharing with the neo-cons a similar goal for Iran - not realizing their desired outcomes are in stark contrast.

The history of relations between Iran and the US has been marked by interference from Washington in Iranian affairs - intervention that was generally in contrast to the Iranian struggle for human rights and democracy.

Events such as the US Central Intelligence Agency overthrow of the democratically elected Mohammad Mossadegh regime in 1953, the sending of chemical weapons to the Saddam Hussein regime to use against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, and the Iran Contra Affair, in which the Ronald Reagan administration sold weapons to the Ruhollah Khomeini regime when it was killing en masse the Iranian opposition, are just a few examples of events when hardline conservatives in the US remained silent - at best - even when the most atrocious human-rights abuses were being committed against the Iranians.

If history is any guide, behind the neo-cons' newfound concern for human-rights and democracy promotion in Iran lies an agenda not of behavior or even regime change, but system change in the Islamic Republic - a change that could potentially allow the West increased control over a strategically located and oil-rich country.

Human rights are becoming an instrument with which to push for military action or other confrontation under the guise of moral outrage. Preferring system change to regime change in Tehran, the neo-cons are raising an issue close to the heart of liberals - human rights - in a final attempt to persuade the Barack Obama administration to increase pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program.

Iranian opposition leaders are employing the same tactics. Seeing the hardline Mahmud Ahmadinejad regime open to negotiations with Washington, the Iranian opposition's leadership fears further talks will give legitimacy to and solidify control of a regime many Iranians see as illegitimate.

In an attempt to draw support for their leadership from other groups in Iran, and for their goal of regime - not system - change, opposition leaders have taken up a cause dear to the conservatives in Iran - Iran's nuclear rights - in a similar attempt to stall negotiations between Tehran and Washington. As such, opposition factions in both the US and Iran are working to thwart negotiations.

When Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, initially agreed on October 1 to send up to 80% of Iran's low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Russia for reprocessing and then to France to convert the 20% LEU into fuel rods for medical use in Iran, the regime in Tehran did not come out and say Jalili had no authority to do so. Nor was Iran using this as a delaying tactic, as the US had set a short deadline for Iran to respond by October 23.

Continued pressure neo-conservatives, however, compelled the Obama administration to hold strong to the original draft deal without compromise, while opposition leaders in Iran pressured Tehran to hold strong to its nuclear rights, that is, that Iran, as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is fully entitled to a civilian nuclear program.

With these two groups pressuring their corresponding regimes, there was no room for either Washington or Tehran to show any sign of giving in, ultimately leading to the current situation in which Ahmadinejad announced Iran would enrich its own uranium up to the 20% level.

Many within the Iranian diaspora have the same goal as the neo-cons - system change - but for starkly opposing reasons. While the neo-con agenda ends in system change for the removal of the perceived threat to Israel and the US with the potential of control and exploitation, the Iranian diaspora seeks system change in the hopes that a new one will usher in improved human rights, democracy and enhanced freedoms.

Yet, system or regime change in and of itself does not necessarily bring about more freedom or democracy, as the 1979 Islamic revolution has shown. The Iranian diaspora, the neo-cons and Iranian opposition leaders, in their push for confrontation without knowing what will come in place of the current regime, ought to be careful of what they wish for.

Grace Nasri is an assistant editor at an international Iranian newspaper based in Washington, DC. She received her MA in international relations with a focus on the Middle East at New York University. Her articles have been published by the Digest on Middle East Studies, Iran Times International, Asia Times Online and openDemocracy.net. She may be reached at gracenasanine@gmail.com.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KL11Ak01.html