| |
SPEAKING FREELY
Iran: The road not taken
By Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online
feature that allows guest writers to have their say.
Please click here if you are
interested in contributing.
Fifty years
ago on August 19, 1953, the Americans, with the help of
the British, overthrew one of the few democratic
governments in the Middle East. The Central Intelligence
Agency carried out a coup against premier Mohammad
Mossadegh of Iran and brought the Shah, who was in exile
at the time, back to power. The success of this
subversion emboldened the US for the coming decades to
carry out similar actions in Guatemala, Chile, Cuba,
Vietnam, and many other countries in the world (The Bay
of Pigs fiasco in Cuba and the coup against Salvador
Allende in Chile that led to the ascendance of Augusto
Pinochet to power are just two examples).
Although the whole operation in Iran cost the US
less than US$1 million (including money given to mobs
and looters to create chaos in the capital), the coup
proved to be much more costly for Washington than anyone
could have imagined at the time. Today, it is quite
clear that that operation paved the way for the Islamic
Revolution of 1979, which in turn inspired
fundamentalist movements in the Muslim world for
decades.
In its Cold War against communism, the
US staunchly supported the Shah for 37 years, a move
that allowed him to imprison, torture and kill
dissidents and squash any criticism of the government to
the point that the opposition had no other way but to
overthrow the Shah's regime. He forcefully implemented
his selective modernizing and Westernizing policies,
which did not include democracy or liberalism. His zero
tolerance approach alienated moderate and democratic
dissidents and his anti-religious and
de-traditionalization prescription caused the emergence
of religious fundamentalism in Iran. In such an
environment, it was not surprising that the wide variety
of opposition groups (from Marxists to nationalists, to
Islamists) eventually united behind Ayatollah Khomeini,
a religious and revolutionary figure, whose
uncompromising attitude appealed to the masses who
vividly remembered how 25 years earlier Mossadegh, a
moderate lawyer, had failed to peacefully bring about a
government independent from foreign interference. Hence,
the Islamic Revolution of 1979.
Not having
learned from this negative experience, the US continued
its destructive policy towards the new regime in Iran by
trying to destabilize it. Less than two years after the
revolution, in the summer of 1981, Saddam Hussein
attacked Iran. Throughout the eight-year war, he enjoyed
the strongest support from the US. As the Americans
would clearly understand now - as a result of the
Americans' "war on terrorism" - the Iran-Iraq war
reduced civil liberties in Iran, and gave the government
an upper hand to suppress any form of opposition.
After the war, some religious-intellectual
circles gradually emerged in Iran. Many of the
participants were among those who established the
Islamic government in 1979. In these circles, new ideas
about the role of religion in politics, and the
separation of mosque and state emerged. The climax of
this intellectual movement was the election of 1997 when
Mohammad Khatami, who ran under the platform of civil
society and rule of law, surprised the world by winning
the presidency. More than 76 percent of the eligible
voters participated in this election, out of which 70
percent voted for him. By comparing this election with
the 1980 referendum, (when 88 percent of the people
participated, and 98 percent of them said "yes" to the
establishment of "Islamic Republic") it was obvious that
a new political culture had been born in Iran. But it
took the Iranian society almost 50 years to be able to
create a semi-democratic condition similar to
Mossadegh's era.
Surprised by the emergence of
"democratic elements" in Iran, the Bill Clinton
administration modified its approach towards Iran and
called the US intervention of 1953 "short-sighted". This
shift, however, was rather short-lived. With the slow
process of the reform movement in Iran and then the
September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, the new
administration decided to not only follow the old policy
again but to do it in the extreme way: the Bush
administration branded Iran part of an axis of evil,
along with Iraq and North Korea. Some in Congress even
talked about regime change in Iran.
Naming
Tehran a member of the "axis of evil" in 2001, when even
the US State Department is acknowledging that Iran is a
kind of democracy, is reminiscent of Jimmy Carter
calling it "an island of stability" (just a year before
the revolution). The statements are the opposite sides
of the same coin. Both ignored the fact that Iran was
undertaking a major development. In 1977, Iran was on
the verge of major turmoil. Today, Iranian society is
experiencing a movement as pivotal for the Muslim world
as the Reformation was to Christianity. This movement,
if it succeeds, could affect the whole Muslim world and
lead them toward democracy, without repeating the same
experiences of Iran. Today, the US is investing $4
billion a month, and one American life per day in Iraq
to materialize the dream of creating a democratic model
for the Middle East. Iran and Iraq could provide a great
political laboratory for the US to examine how its
involvement or lack of involvement in a country could
affect that country's path toward democracy.
Americans who go to Iran are often surprised to
see how friendly Iranians are towards them. Many believe
that the Iranian people are the most pro-American in the
Muslim world. If this is the case, then it certainly has
something to do with the absence of the US from Iran for
a quarter century. By looking at the rest of the Muslim
world, we can see a very strong but negative correlation
between Washington's support of the Muslim governments
and the popularity of the US among the people of those
countries. The overflowing anti-American sentiments in
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, all traditional key
allies of the White House, are three examples. The same
is true in all other 53 Islamic nations.
If in
the past, Washington, in the name of "war against
communism", was supporting Middle Eastern and South
Asian dictators, now in the name of "war against
terrorism", it is increasingly backing the brutal
governments of Central Asia, whose human rights records
are among the worse in the world. Therefore, it's not
surprising that according to recent reports, the
fundamentalist movements in this region are flourishing
and US involvement is only helping these movements to
become stronger and more popular. If the US follows its
old policy and does not force these evil governments to
respect human rights and the rule of law, the moderate
elements of the opposition groups will be marginalized
by the revolutionaries and "a second Iran" could very
well be on its way.
Some policymakers in
Washington justify the current policy by arguing that a
lack of US support will lead to the establishment of
Islamic theocracies in these countries. But both support
and lack of support could lead to that end. It would be
just a matter of time. However, there is a third way.
Through international organizations, including the
United Nations, the US should hold these governments
responsible for their domestic as well as their foreign
policies. The US should abstain from getting involved in
political conflicts within these countries and instead,
by using multilateral approaches to put pressure on the
governments (whether secular or theocratic) and
indiscriminately force them to respect human rights and
rule of law. This could provide a peaceful environment
in which a democratic political culture could take root.
Had the US adopted such an approach half a century ago,
Iran's path toward democracy could have been shortened,
more peaceful, and less costly. It would have
undoubtedly been in the interests of the United States
too.
Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar is a
PhD student in the Department of Government at
Georgetown University.
Speaking Freely
is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest
writers to have their say. Please click here if you are
interested in contributing.
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
