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 55 years
ago. Let me say that again: 55 years
ago. 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 Eastern 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 Sunni Muslim 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. We will soon find out
whether Barack Obama is as sharp and thoughtful as the media makes
him out to be, or if is he just all talk, another Bill Clinton who
tries to make deals with so-called moderate leaders of an
oppressive religious authority.