What to Do About Iran

(Washington, D.C.): The front page of today’s New York Times confirms that what has been predictable — and predicted — for some time has eventuated: The Islamic Republic of Iran is not, as President Bush put it today, a “positive force” in the war on terrorism. It is, instead, part of the problem, “against us” rather than “with us.”

The Times reports how this is currently the case in Afghanistan, where Iran is seeking to exert its influence to the detriment of that war-torn nation’s interim government, regional stability and U.S. interests. It is also apparent in the seizure of a shipment of Iranian arms by Israel last week in the Red Sea — fresh evidence that Tehran continues actively to promote terrorism in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There is every reason to believe, moreover, that the same Islamist regime responsible for past attacks on Americans in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Pan Am 103 are still gunning for us elsewhere in the world, as well.

The question that can no longer be deferred is: Can the United States safely, responsibly and constructively construe Iran as a member-in-good-standing of the so- called “anti-terror coalition”? The short answer is a resounding “No.”

Fortunately, as articles in today’s Washington Post and this week’s New Republic indicate, there is an alternative: Working with the people of Iran — who have at least as much reason to detest their government and its terroristic policies as we do — to liberate their country from Islamist misrule. Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late Shah of Iran, is both inspiring and helping to animate the sort of popular opposition to the regime that led to the downfall of his father’s government in 1979. The United States should seize the opportunity to encourage and empower such opposition — and the coming to power of a democratic, pro- Western regime that respects its people’s aspirations and eschews terrorism in all its forms.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 tragedy, new hope arose for better relations with Iran, as a few positive signals flickered out of Tehran. Ordinary Iranians genuinely shared the grief of America; Iranian youth made that sentiment clear in the streets of Tehran and several major cities.

Among the citizenry of the Islamic republic, some called openly for dialogue with the United States. This was a bid to end Iran’s pariah status and salvage its economy from catastrophic downturn. In the West, there were some who were, yet again, thrilled by the seemingly civil discourse of Iran’s president, Mohammad Khatami, as he rushed to condemn the terrorist attacks. Many Western analysts concluded that Iran might be ready to cooperate in the anti-terror campaign.

But to the astute observer of Iran it came as no surprise when, four weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, the regime’s “supreme leader,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, did his best to stamp out all these high hopes. Any negotiation, much less cooperation with the United States was, he declared, inimical to the interests of the Islamic republic. His injunction was accompanied by threats to punish heretical tendencies within the political community.
Khamenei’s threats were enough to cow dissent in the government apparatus. “President” Khatami publicly acknowledged that foreign policy was the prerogative of the “supreme leader.”

Whatever Western pragmatists think, the clerical rulers of Tehran cannot become a bona fide partner in the global war against terror. Through the past 22 years, the Iranian theocracy has thrived on terror. The prime victims of this practice have of course been the people of Iran. But the regime has also championed terrorism of global reach, and since 1983 persistently tops the lists of states sponsoring terrorism…..

Behind a benign facade of electoral process and claims of an Islamic version of democracy, the Iranian regime remains one of the world’s most cynical oppressors and an enemy of democratic values. Candidates for elected office, including the presidency, are carefully screened. They are allowed to run only on proof of indisputable allegiance to the established theocracy and its leadership. And even when they are elected, their decisions on subjects that matter most are systematically reversed by nonelected bodies, with names such as the Council of Guardians and the Expediency Council…..

Khatami’s advocacy of democracy within the confines of a dogmatic state is self-defeating and ultimately doomed. Democracy is not merely the rule of the majority. It is based on free and undeterred expression of thought and respect for human rights, including full and unadulterated recognition of equal rights for women and among ethnic and religious minorities.

It is the realization of these indisputable facts that has given birth to a new political movement in Iran, called the “Third Force,” that is today chanting: “Beyond Khatami!” A new generation of alert and restive Iranians is stirring. This past fall, they were seen in their distinct colors throughout Iran during defiant street demonstrations calling for a “national referendum,” as a means to rid themselves of the regime, chanting “Death to the Taliban, whether in Kabul or in Tehran!”

In no uncertain terms, the 50 million youth of Iran want secularism, freedom, economic opportunity and modernity. They have come to the painful realization that a prerequisite for attaining these goals is a complete change of regime. Our world has witnessed the dawn of new democracies, brought about by successful nonviolent civil disobedience and mass resistance movements from Africa to Latin America and through Eastern Europe. Let there be no doubt that Iranians thirst for the same chance to restore their unalienable right to self-determination, thus restoring the civility, dignity, tolerance and sovereignty for which the land of Persians was known for so many centuries….. 

Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late Iranian shah, closes his speeches about Iranian democracy with a signature flourish: “This is a cause I believe in and am committed to see to fruition, even if it were at the expense of my own life.” At public appearances, his plainclothes security force searches bags for bombs and stands over the crowd like guards watching the prison mess……

For years Iran-watchers have dismissed Pahlavi’s pretensions to leadership. “I don’t take him very seriously,” says Bar-Ilan University’s Barry Rubin. You can understand the skepticism: Although his father’s regime still has die-hard supporters, they don’t represent a growing fraction of the Iranian polity; many Iranians remember the shah as repressive and corrupt. But to see Reza Pahlavi as simply a restorationist underestimates his appeal. His is a story of reinvention, the tale of a prince who lost his title, fortune, and the love of his people, and in the process came to appreciate the virtues of democracy. He has bucked the crude monarchism of many of his supporters and serves up frank criticism of his father’s regime. In fact, with Khatami’s support eroding, Pahlavi’s moment may soon arrive. He’s rallying the fractious diaspora opposition and supersaturating Iran with posters and video messages calling for insurgency. Once exiled as the successor to a discredited throne, he has become Iran’s most unlikely, and most important, spokesman for democracy……

Ideologically, Pahlavi has made his message as broad as possible, focusing on the major point on which most exile opposition groups agree: a new secular constitution. “I don’t care if the referendum on Iran’s future results in a republic or constitutional monarchy,” he says. “It is simply important that believers in secular democracy come together to achieve that goal.” And one reason Pahlavi’s star is on the rise is that secular democracy is increasingly the rallying cry inside Iran as well. In 1997, when the voters elected philosopher Mohammed Khatami, the most liberal candidate the ayatollahs could stomach, the idea of an Islamic democracy–a political system that allowed greater freedom but kept Islam at its core–held great promise. With his talk of “dialogue of civilizations”–a repudiation of Khomeini’s Great-Satan attitude toward the United States–Khatami caught the imagination of the Iranian public and Western journalists. The Washington Post’s John Lancaster called him “Ayatollah Gorbachev,” predicting he would usher in Iranian perestroika.

But now Khatami really is looking like Gorbachev–a reformer, not a revolutionary. Khatami was, after all, trained in the conservative seminaries of Qum….. And even if Khatami sincerely wanted to overhaul Iran’s strange theocratic-democratic political system, the limits of his power have been made abundantly clear. The ayatollahs have aborted every one of his tentative steps toward perestroika. While Khatami promised to lift the ban on satellite television, the regime has gone door-to-door ripping dishes from roofs and balconies. Despite his pleas for tolerance, according to the Paris-based Reporters without Frontiers, Iran has more journalists in prison than any country in the world. And under Khatami’s watch, dialogue of civilizations hasn’t replaced the excoriation of civilizations. When 4,000 attended a Tehran vigil at the Swiss Embassy for victims of September 11, government-aligned militias broke it up. In November the conservative head of the powerful judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmud Shahrudi, created a committee to confront political officials “if ever they called for starting dialogue with the United States.”

Today there are indications that Khatami’s supporters are growing disillusioned. Even his deputies, like Mohammed Ali Abtahi, warn that “people will lose confidence in the system” without more substantive reforms. During the soccer riots protesters screamed, “Death to the Islamic Republic” and “Death to Khatami.” For the past two months students have gathered for anti-Khatami rallies in the sports hall at Tehran’s Amir Kabir technical university to chastise Khatami, chanting, “Moderation is a hindrance to reform.” “There’s no opinion polling,” says Michael Rubin of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “but the events of the past months are a big deal.”…..

….. From America’s point of view, Pahlavi should be a deeply attractive figure. He’s a liberal who, with our help, could challenge a regime in Tehran that sponsors Hezbollah, defends Hamas, and is developing weapons of mass destruction. He calls the United States a “true beacon of freedom”; he has even quietly met with Israeli officials. When I interviewed him, he took my notebook, wrote the words “secular democracy,” and underlined them twice. Yet the risk-adverse diplomats in Foggy Bottom remain entranced by the prospect of dtente with the Khatami regime. “We have been in discussions with the Iranians at a variety of levels and in some new ways since September 11,” Colin Powell remarked last month after shaking hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi.

It’s not hard to understand Foggy Bottom’s behavior. Pahlavi doesn’t have an army, he’s been outside the country for decades, and even supporting him obliquely might wreck a dialogue with Tehran that could, perhaps, enhance America’s influence in the region. On the other hand, the regime in Tehran looks weaker today than it has in more than 20 years. And symbolically, Pahlavi has become its most potent opponent. Earlier this month I traveled with him to a basement set of the Voice of America’s (VOA) Farsi TV service. He was there for a live broadcast of “Political Roundtable,” hosted by Ahmad Baharloo, an exiled anchor with a Ted Koppel stack of hair. Pahlavi spent an hour fielding calls from Iran. Phoning Baharloo is not like dropping a line to Larry King. It’s an expensive act of resistance that could land you in the prison. (A VOA official estimated that a call to the States costs several hundred dollars.) One of Pahlavi’s aides translated the calls for me in real time. A veteran of the Iran-Iraq War announced in a teary voice that he had “nothing in my life.” A dissident cleric from Isfahan claimed, “In my city the electricity is out because they know you’re here. I’m getting you with radio and battery. Please send more of your pictures and statements. Send it to us and we’ll distribute it.” A woman pleaded, “I need to ask you to come as soon as possible. Iran is like gas, ready to blow up. Do something before we blow up.” Pahlavi stared at the camera and reprised his line: “I’ll fight until death.”