Iranian-Americans voices have been heard in the United States. Yes, America did support the Shah of Iran and even undermined democracy there. Yes, America may be largely responsible for the current radical Islamic regime in Iran.
However, American foreign policy as it relates to Iran has been an even bigger failure since 1979, when Iranians shocked the world and overthrew the American backed regime. Indeed, America was shell-shocked and since the days of the hostage crisis, the U.S. government would always be extra cautious in its dealings with Iran. In fact, the United States leaders went beyond cautious – they decided not to have public dealings with that government at all, for 30 years now.
Meanwhile, citizens inside Iran fought in 1999, they fought again in 2003, and are now fighting in 2009 for representation and freedom. And where is the United States in all of this? We are completely absent, with not a dime going toward opposition groups and no apparent plan of intervention.
Americans have become allergic to the idea of interference, especially since Iraq. After all, Iraq and Iran rhyme. They are both in the Middle East and they are both Muslim.
Of course, the difference is Iran’s deceptive leadership is in all likelihood actually trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. The difference is that Iran is mostly a united country, interested in a successful united Iran. And now we are realizing that it is a country that is ready for change.
But back in the United States, Iranian-Americans are mostly united with only one consistent message: that the American government should “be careful” and not interfere as they did with their beloved Mohammad Mosaddeq, a popular democratically elected leader who the CIA toppled 55 years ago. Let me say that again: 55 years ago. Nostalgic Iranian-Americans are also displaying the older regime’s flag of 30 years ago, apparently out of lack of recognition of this Islamic regime. They are led for the most part by older Iranian entertainers and peace activists living abroad for decades. Their top organizations proclaim no foreign policy political positions, which are at least partially influenced and conforming to the present American foreign policy on Iran. That is, no foreign policy.
All of this is how the American government and Iranian-Americans have thus far actually undermined regime change in Iran. It seems they believe that without weapons, Iranians can throw out their government or produce significant change. They apparently believe that with protests and internet communication, the Iranian regime can be reformed.
Their thinking is dead wrong. America should be funding opposition and even considering invasion. For one thing, the Iranian government cannot be allowed to access weapons of mass destruction. This is a regime that supports Hamas and Hezbollah and openly picks a fight with Israel without any practical self-interest. Their interests are decidedly religious, illogical and unpredictable. And now we know, they are capable of overt lying and merciless violence against their own people.
This regime should be stopped and American and United Nations intervention will likely be the only way. By the time the Iranian people have the power and will to overthrow or reform their government, we will have seen many decades go by.
It is important to understand how American foreign policy actually went an extra step in more recently undermining opposition of the Iranian government. In 1997, President Bill Clinton did an unthinkable gesture of good will toward the Islamic Republic when he labeled the Iranian government’s main opposition group, Mujahedin, a "terrorist" organization. With thoughtless naivety, Clinton thought that the newly elected president Khatami would help moderate the country’s positions. The Clinton administration had apparently not read the Iranian constitution which places most of its government’s powers in the hands of religious “guardians,” “experts,” and a “supreme leader.”
After September 11th, George W. Bush’s administration promptly bombed and eliminated most of what was left of the Mujahedin. After all, they were a militant group located in Iraq. It did not occur to them that an Iranian opposition group could be in no other place but Iraq and that it might be a good idea to rethink the policy as it related to that anti-regime “terrorist” organization. Recently, The European Union removed the Mujahedin name from their terror list and many members of Congress are trying to do the same in the United States. But the damage has been done and Mujahedin is now irrelevant. Meanwhile, America’s tragic foreign policy decisions against the citizens of Iran persist to this day.
The correct thing to do now is not to bomb Iran, but to invade Iran. Perhaps Bush got Iraq and Iran confused in his foreign policy meetings. The supposed breeze that was to be Iraq would actually work out in Iran. Iranians are united in their significant pride for their national identity. The situation in Iraq was entirely different. Iraq is unique in the Middle East as an Arab nation with two large opposing branches of Islam. Iraqis were led by a dictator who represented the minority branch, Sunni Muslims. After the American invasion, Iraqi Sunnis saw themselves losing political power. So it was natural for American hating terrorists like Al Qaeda and other well known Sunni Muslim extremist organizations groups to become involved.
This was apparently a surprise for the United States State Department. Meanwhile, Iranians are not an Arab speaking people and are not aligned with Al Qaeda. Yet, they are led by a fundamentalist religious government who supports the funding of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah for political purposes. The Iranian people are not aligned with these organizations and are even mostly embarrassed to be associated with terrorism. Again, Iranians are most interested in their national identity. Iranian citizens are averse to being seen as supporting terrorism.
Back in Washington D.C., President Barack Obama will have to make tough decisions about Iran. Unlike the American populace, it is hoped that he will learn about the dramatic difference between Iraq and Iran. Iran is ready for real change, not Clinton era bomb-and-go campaigns. An American leader bringing together a coalition of nations, in the name of nuclear proliferation and human rights intervention in Iran, has the opportunity to make a brilliant decision. It may be at first misunderstood. But the results would be a Neo-Conservative’s wet dream – a democratic oil-rich ally of the United States in the Middle East (USO, USL). We will soon find out whether Barack Obama is as sharp and thoughtful as the world hopes him to be, or if he is just all talk, another Bill Clinton who tries to make deals with so-called moderate leaders of an oppressive religious authority.
