The Serious Threat to
National Security of Iran by Anti-Democratic Forces.
For every country, a rational policy is nothing more
than the pursuit of the long term national interest with due consideration to
the facts present, both internally and externally. The same is true for foreign
policy which reflects national goals while considering the facts present when
dealing in the international arena. In democratic societies, national goals are
set by the people according to their collective will, as is manifested through
democratic process. If a policy deviates from national interests or is ignorant
of present internal and external facts, then it is either wasting the resources
on a local or international level or will have to face the resulting negative
gains. The core problem facing the present regime in Iran, while transmitting
those problems to the country, is that the interest of the regime has priority
over the interest of the country. These interests are almost always opposing to
each other. At the same time, the regime is suffering from illusions in
evaluating its powers and the powers of its real or imaginary enemies.
While the concern about Iranian nuclear ambition is still at the center of world
attention, with the escalation of the crisis in the Middle East, the national
security of Iran is faced with challenges that are capable of becoming
disastrous for the country. The civil war raging on in Iraq and the ongoing
armed clashes in Afghanistan both have the potential to drag Iran deeply into
the affairs of its neighbors. The Iranian involvement could reach to such a
point that armed conflict with US forces, as wells as some Iraqi groups and
their regional allies such as Turkey, Israel and several Arab countries opposed
to Iranian meddling, becomes inevitable. On top of that, other economic powers
in the world (European Union, Japan, China and India), in the long term cannot
be expected to sit idle and passively witness the expansion of Iranian influence
in Iraq which would lead to a stronger Iranian influence over the oil supply to
international markets. Although the West has been successful to a degree in
taming of the per capita consumption of oil, because of rapid economic progress
in China, India and other developing countries, the world’s demand for oil has
been increasing. Due to an increase in the demand for oil and the ongoing
turmoil in the area, the trend indicates higher prices with no signs of reversal
in sight. As a consequence, the world’s great powers, indeed, all oil consuming
nations cannot be indifferent to Iran’s increasing influence in the oil
producing areas.
Freudenfeier nach der Entführung
zweier israelischer Soldaten |
The bigger problem is the guarantee of the free flow of oil to
the international market. About 40% of oil exports pass through the Strait of
Hormuz. Consequently, this Strait has been transformed into one of the most
important strategic places in the world. Lack of stability, plus the adventurous
behavior of the Islamic Republic, while considering Iran’s position as the most
powerful nation bordering the waterway, makes guarding it especially sensitive.
In order to guard this water and insure the free flow of oil to international
markets and because of the constant threats posed by the Islamic Republic, some
twenty countries have dispatched war ships to the zone. In addition to all the
most powerful nations, second class military powers such as Italy have naval
forces in the region as well. As a result, most of Iran’s borders are in a face
off position with military forces of nations that have little confidence in the
regime.
The possibility of Iran acquiring grade plutonium and nuclear capabilities has
united all major powers in opposing such possibility, although they still
disagree on how to proceed. The Iranian regime’s delay in coming up with the
clear reply to the offer made to them, has caused the group of 5+1 to come
closer to adopting punitive measures. To a large extent, the delay in response
is because of the regime’s lack of clear standards for measuring and choosing
their policies. With the nuclear question, Iran is not only faced with
possibility of punitive measures both political and economic imposed by UN, but
also military aggression. During the past 30 years and without possessing high
military technology, the Regime of the Islamic Republic has been one of the
prime sources of destabilizing sources on the world stage. It is easy to
understand the concerns of neighboring countries, oil consuming nations and
economically advanced countries, facing with the possibility of the Islamic
Republic armed with nuclear weapons.
Beirut, Hauptstadt des Libanon |
The direct result of the regime’s actions is that Iran is now
surrounded by hostile superior military forces and faced with economic and
political sanction. This brittle situation is drastically destabilized further
by military conflict in Gaza and Lebanon with Israel. With generous monitory,
political, military and propaganda assistance to both Hezbollah and Hamas by
Iran, and since the president of the Islamic Republic has called for extinction
of Israel, many consider Iran as the instigator of present conflict. Many
politicians and mass media in the world and in the region, consider the Islamic
Republic to be the godfather of the present military engagement. Some have even
advanced the idea, that the Islamic Republic, in order to divert the attention
from regime’s nuclear ambitions, has intentionally created this conflict. This
is a grave accusation in which those primary culpable are not those directly
present in the war theater, but 1500 kilometer to the east in Tehran.
In the end, whether the regime had a direct role on the newest conflict in the
Middle East or not, the Islamic Republic is the loser. Israel has publicly
announced that until such a time that the forces of Hezbollah are effectively
tamed, the military campaign will continue. The Islamic Republic had always
threatened to retaliate to the military attack on Iran using the forces of
Hezbollah, among others; but this weapon is no longer available to the regime.
Syria, the only strategic ally of the Islamic Republic and one of the main
players in the Middle East conflict, is conspicuously silent during the present
military campaign, which is taking place in the immediate sphere of influence of
that country. This has been interpreted as inability of the Syrian government to
take any retaliatory action. It could be expected that in not a distant future,
Syria might tilt to the middle and to a large degree, shed its ties with the
Islamic Republic. A military coup in Syria could not be ruled out either. In any
event, the internal developments in Syria will isolate the Islamic regime
further.
The actions of the Islamic regime has driven the national security of Iran to
the brink. While ignoring the long term interests of Iran, the present regime in
Iran which is comprised totally by security and Sepah (presumably an army loyal
to the regime) establishment has followed the policy of destabilization in the
region. This ultimately results in internal destabilization. This policy is
being followed with the goal of strengthening regime’s internal rule despite
their entire economic and social programs being discredited. As the Islamic
regime becomes more radicalized, so do responses by adversaries which further
augments the threat to the national security of Iran. Although the threat itself
is nothing new, the probability of serious engagement becomes immediate.
* * *
One of the more radical and irrational means of confronting the Islamic regime,
(endorsed by the great powers) is the enforcement of policies aimed at
strengthening the separatists movements in Iran. This policy not only is
disapproved by the people of Iran but at the same time can cause a long period
of internal instability and even civil war. Such a development can potentially
plunge the whole area to the mayhem and bloodshed, far exceeding the present
situation in Iraq. Such development is not in the interest of any of the
neighboring countries or bigger powers. Included in such activity are support of
separatist movements in Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, Khuzestan and Belouchistan. These
movements, while having no significant support in Iran are being supported by
one or more of the big powers plus some neighboring countries. Another group
which is enjoying financial, political and propaganda support from foreign
powers is the People’s Mujahedin. This group, with their Stalinist internal
structure, was once the pawn in the hands of ‘Great Leader’ Saddam Hussein and
effectively participated in his military aggression to Iran. This group had
publicly supported and signed the documents with Baathist for disintegration of
Iran. With their potential physical strength as an effective threat to the
Islamic Regime, this group is presently enjoying protection and support of the
U.S. and European Union governments (although both of them have placed this
organization in the list of terrorist groups) plus several countries in the
area.
As a source of destabilization in the area, the Iranian problem can only be
solved by the creation of working liberal democracy in that land. Such a
democracy, which protects and respects the rights of each and every Iranian, as
well as the rights of minorities (political, religious, ethnic or dialect …),
through the Human Rights charter of UN can deliver credible guarantee its
function as stabilizing force. It has already been 100 years since the Iranian
Nation began fighting to obtain the right to have a government of the people.
Now more than ever and more than any other country in the region, the people’s
psychological foundation is ripe to embrace such a system. Such a desire and
such psychological foundation must be fully supported and strengthened by all
the free and peace loving people and governments of the entire world. The
Iranian people and the foreigners also must fight against any authoritarian
movements, even if they offer tactical advantages.
It must be noted that the Nation of Iran, despite many defeats and occupation,
has survived for thousand of years. The key to this resilience is the solidarity
persistent in their history. Such solidarity is alive and functioning well. Any
policy which aims at weakening the solidarity of people of Iran in exchange for
short terms gains, such as supporting such organizations, in the long term will
prove to be counter productive.
Newsletter – Nr. 4 August 2006
The Iran Referendum Movement
اعلامیه
جهانی حقوق بشر
