Western Governments’ Hypocrisy Concerning Iran

Editor's note: Mansour Koushan penned this commentary piece shortly before the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved a resolution authorizing sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend its uranium enrichment program. Gozaar has elected to publish this piece in its original form in order to illustrate circumstances inside Iran shaped by the sanctions negotiations process. Mr. Koushan believes that the economic sanctions recently approved by the UN are an important first step for the international community to demonstrate its solidarity with people inside Iran facing repression and human rights violations by the Iranian government, but much remains to be done.

 

 

Human rights violations and the suppression of critical voices in Iran have increased significantly in the past year. The crisis surrounding the Islamic Republic’s development of nuclear weapons, its refusal to compromise despite the powerful Western countries’ stern demands that Iran suspend these activities, the debate over economic sanctions at the recommendation of six countries in recent weeks, as well as the inevitability of punitive measures by the United Nations have become the most important factors in the increased suppression of freedom and human rights abuses in Iran. A glance at the policies of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government and the remarks of Khamenei, clerics, and decision-makers within the Islamic Republic demonstrates that, compared to previous years, Iran’s domestic situation not improved. In fact, the Iranian people’s cultural, political, and economic conditions have worsened. The increasing repression facing people inside Iran are the result of policies that have guaranteed the continuity of the Islamic Republic’s regime for over 27 years.

 

A quick look at the regime’s political and economic decision-making processes in the previous years reveals that whenever this regime has been on the verge of instability and disintegration due to domestic pressures, its leaders have resorted to using “foreign agent” or an “imaginary enemy” as scapegoats. In this way, the regime has targeted members of so-called “anti-revolutionary,” “monarchist,” and “anti-war” groups as well as “CIA agents.” By referring to these “dangers,” the regime’s leaders have been able to provoke gullible fundamentalists, as well as suppress well-informed but disgruntled elements in society. Similarly, the presence of a U.S. fleet in the Persian Gulf, which coincided with the circulation of a 1994 open letter against censorship written by 134 writers, gave the regime an excuse to crack down on independent writers, striking fear into the hearts of Iran’s cultured societies. As a result, many groups had no choice but to remain silent and forgo the fight for their rights. The West’s overlooking of the Islamic Republic’s human rights violations, deliberate or not, is the result of the regime’s careful strategy.  

 

This same strategy includes pressure on Khamenei to allow Ahmadinejad to prepare the terrain for the possible suppression of political competitors within the regime. The current “war against economic corruption” – which Ahmadinejad described as “revealing the identities of individuals who have received billion-dollar loans from banks and are not repaying them” – suggests that, after economic sanctions, there will be many opportunities for individuals within the regime (including fundamentalists) to voice their objections. Individuals who have, for years, relied on Iran’s banks for a huge volume of trade with the West will not tolerate economic sanctions or limitations on their enormous incomes and are more likely to object to Ahmadinejad’s policies. Therefore, the strategy of suppression of these “corrupt” individuals is similar to the suppression of dissenters. The West is either unaware of this policy or, if it is aware of it, then chooses to ignore it.

 

Western governments’ relationships with the Islamic Republic have demonstrated that the West turns a blind eye to the existence of the Islamic regime in Iran. They continue to pursue their “diplomatic” agenda, while tolerating a government whose very existence relies on the suppression of human rights. On the one hand, Western governments do not wish to compromise their political and economic interests; on the other hand, they stand behind their toothless “principles.”

 

While Western leaders are ignorant of power relationships inside the Islamic regime in Iran, those who wield power in Iran are ignorant of power relationships in the rest of the world. Western leaders, based on their diplomatic agenda and policies, seek to achieve suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran by threatening economic sanctions against Iran. The regime of the Islamic Republic, relying on taghiyyeh, a long-standing policy in the Shiite world which allows Shiites to bend the truth in the interest of self-preservation, has tried to buy time in order to stay in power. Taghiyyeh allows the rulers in Iran to insist on their demands without considering any disadvantages or losses to others, to society, or to the country. Furthermore, the Islamic Republic’s regime may resort to taghiyyeh whenever their interests or existence is under serious threat. For example, during the eight-year war with Iraq, Khomeini ignored the hundreds of thousands killed and huge losses. Despite his claims that “waging war is a more important religious duty than praying or fasting,” when his power base became unstable and he realized that soon the casualties of war would include him and his associates, he resorted to taghiyyeh and, in his own words, drank “the cup of poison.”

 

Western leaders have no choice but to continue their activities and insist on the suspension of uranium enrichment because they must answer to their constituencies and because they must guarantee the security and peace of mind of their citizens. This security will help to ensure reelection and other political successes. Any threat to this security will result in Western leaders, governments, and political parties to justify their actions and policies.

 

Beyond U.S. President Bush’s aggressive remarks and economic policies, efforts towards the suspension of uranium enrichment in Iran are due to the fact that, post-9/11, the West cannot ignore the threats posed by Islamic fundamentalists, and at the center of it, the Islamic regime in Iran. For the Islamic regime, Islamic terrorism has become an instrument of fear to accomplish its goals. The more the Western media, and especially leaders such as Bush, try to make the Western world fearful of the Islamic regime in Iran and its potential actions, the more those in power in the Islamic regime will persist in their policies and defend their power bases. Through this framework, those in power in Iran implement two effective strategies. The first strategy is playing the “wronged victim,” which has been a longstanding pattern for the Shiite world. Relying on this strategy, the Islamic regime has continuously imposed its presence on the world stage. The second strategy is creating an “imaginary enemy.” By resorting to this strategy, the Islamic regime denies its citizens basic freedoms, including freedom of expression.

 

With these strategies and complicit Western governments in place, not only will the Islamic regime in Iran not have to back away from its dangerous policies, but it could actually move toward reaching its stated goals. As suppression increases in Iran, so will poverty and social ills. A corrupt and poverty-ridden society will lose its ability to confront injustice and to demand its rights. Such a society will ensure the continuation of the existing regime.

 

With all their talk of defending freedom guaranteeing human rights in various societies, not only have Western governments not done anything significant to free the people of Iran from the shackles of the Islamic Republic or responded to pleas of Iranian “opposition” groups, but, when necessary, they have supported the survival of the regime.

 

The common denominator among most groups, organizations, political parties, freedom-seeking institutions, and individuals who criticize the Islamic Republic is that they all completely oppose the regime. These days, even many reformists within the regime believe that the Islamic Republic has fundamental flaws making it impossible to restructure or reform it. The West, however, beholden to its inefficient “diplomatic” agenda, still seeks ways to recognize the Islamic Republic as a legitimate regime and then, according to its own interests, push for the implementation of certain reforms. Experience demonstrates that the policies of powerful Western governments of the last 27 years have not protected reliably the rights of the Iranian people. Therefore, the Iranian people must ask themselves: what is next?

 

In the past, economic sanctions may have been considered a potential fatal blow to Iranian society, especially to the poorest people, keeping this option off the table. But today Iranian society itself is such danger that political, economic, and cultural sanctions cannot endanger it any more. Iranian society is so deeply stricken by corruption that, sooner or later, this corruption will affect all Iranians and only those in power and the clergy will benefit from it.

 

Given the failure of the government of Khatami and the reformists, hasn’t the time come to criticize the policies of the powerful Western governments regarding Iran? Hasn't the time come to demand that Western governments cut off political, economic, and cultural relations with the Islamic Republic regime? Shouldn't there be boycotts of Iranian cultural exhibits and performances held with the cooperation of the European governments, espcially France and Germany? Hasn’t the time come to reveal and criticize the economic ties between the leaders of the Islamic Republic’s regime and the immigrants connected to and cooperating with them in the Western countries? Hasn’t the time come to accept the reality that when one Iranian is condemned for any political reason, the entire Iranian nation has been condemned? Isn’t it time for Iranians in exile to learn from the patterns of freedom and prosperity in the West? While maintaining our identity and independence, we can join our voices together and support our compatriots in Iran. Hasn’t the time arrived for us to roll up our sleeves and take action ourselves instead of looking to and pinning our hopes on others? Isn’t it time to make news ourselves and represent freedom ourselves?