Page 2 of 2 Hardliners, hard
options By Massoud Khodabandeh
be spent on "supporting civil
society, democracy and human rights in Iran" with
new offices in London, Frankfurt and Dubai.
Emadaldin Baghi, human-rights activist and
winner of the Civil Courage Prize in 2004, wrote
last week to human-rights organizations from
inside Iran complaining about the US budget. He
pointed out, "The allocation of yearly funds has
led to the Iranian government's widespread concern
and suspicion towards
civil-society organizations
and human-rights activists, clearly exacerbating
in a significant way pressures on them and the
number of arrests."
Similarly, US
constraints imposed on Iranian financial
institutions and trade recently could not have
been possible if the Iranian regime had not openly
threatened the West, at least verbally, at every
opportunity possible.
But for Iranian
opposition groups, particularly those inside Iran,
history has arrived at a crossroads. For 30 years
the platform for "peace and dialogue" has been in
the hands of reformists - or moderates - inside
Iran and exiled opposition groups. In this they
have been supported by Western liberals,
human-rights organizations and anti-war
campaigners, who have in turn vigorously argued
against the use of confrontation, sanctions and
military solutions.
However, certainly as
far as Iran is concerned, the reformists of the
Mohammad Khatami era faced stiff resistance from
hardliners and would no doubt have reached total
deadlock had they chosen to push any harder to
begin direct dialogue between Iran and the US.
Instead, it has been necessary for the most
ideologically antagonistic elements of both the
Iranian regime and the US administration to sit
down at the table and negotiate. In this way,
perhaps it is only under the "fanatic" leadership
of Ahmadinejad that such talks could have come
about. After all, what is the point of negotiation
if the parties who agree with each other are
present without the presence of the hostile
parties?
Whether next week's meeting will
lead to future rapprochement remains to be seen
but the steps that are being taken both by Iran
and the US are certainly irreversible, and the
impact on the variety of opposition groups and
factions inside and outside Iran will be as
profound as it is inevitable.
At such
turning points it is most likely to be the
advocates of democracy themselves who are absent
from the negotiating table. And in many examples
once a thaw in relations begins, an ensuing
crackdown on the democrats creates the focus for a
joint initiative by both the parties now accepting
to give and take.
A wave of political
change can easily sweep aside the very same people
who have been struggling for years for democracy,
freedom and peace. They can find themselves in
denial. The phrase "a snake will never give birth
to a dove" is too comforting and familiar for
them. Losing their slogans to the antagonistic
heads meeting around the negotiation table can
push them to staunchly resist the change that is
now unfolding before their eyes but without their
participation.
The liberal press and
moderate voices in both countries that predict
failure simply because of the internecine nature
of the enmity also read as an expression of alarm.
Iranian website Roozonline reported on May 17,
"Some students demonstrated against the meeting in
various cities claiming that while the US has
ratified a budget for interference in Iran, the
two sides should not have meetings."
As
the gap between Iran and the US closes, Iranian
opposition groups will feel the pinch more than
anyone else. While opposition groups that have
support from among the Iranian people have nothing
to fear from this rapprochement, those that have
lost their contact with the people and have relied
totally on exploiting the West's grievances with
Iran are clearly going to face a seriously uphill
battle.
The MKO, which lost popular
support by working under the Saddam Hussein regime
during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, has tried
to tuck itself under the protective umbrella of US
neo-conservatives since the fall of Saddam, but is
already facing the possibility of being "spent" as
a bargaining chip over Iraq.
In the latest
review of the list of terrorist organizations, the
US State Department upgraded the MKO to a
"terrorist cult". The MKO's representative in
Iraq, Abbass Darvari, condemned the talks.
In contrast, Iranian lawyer and
human-rights activist Shirin Ebadi - winner of the
Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 - has maintained links
with the Iranian people under extreme conditions
inside Iran. She told the Washington Post that she
"personally welcomes the talks".
"These
negotiations must not be limited to foreign
ministers of the two countries or even the
presidents," she said. "The key point is the need
for exchange between civil society in Iran and the
United States."
Ebadi is capable of
playing the regime on its own field.
Massoud Khodabandeh is a former
member of the Mujahideen-e Khalq, and mainly
served in the organization's intelligence/security
department. Khodabandeh left the Mujahideen in
1996 and currently lives in the north of England,
where he works as a security consultant. He has
been active in Iranian opposition politics for
more than 25 years. He works closely with the
Centre de Recherche sur la Terrorisme in Paris as
an expert on Iran.
(Copyright 2007
Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
