Unrest in Iran

It is interesting to note that once again Iranian students have captured the centre stage in what could eventuate into a regime change situation. One may recall that in the nineteen seventies uprising against Reza Shah Pahlavi in which armed groups like Mujahadeen-e-Khalgh-e-Iran and Fedayeen-e-Khalgh-e-Iran (drawing sustenance from Islam and Marxism respectively) recruited their members from the universities. Indeed during the 1971-1977 period students became increasingly involved in political activities. Today's student movement is not an extension of the student movement of the seventies simply because two thirds of the Iranians "either were not born at the time of the 1979 Islamic Revolution or were too young to remember that dreadful event" (When a Nation's Patience Runs Out-Shaheen Fatem-June 15th). The support the students are receiving now from their parents and other layers of society is a sort of penance for bringing in the clerical rule and no less due to mismanagement and harmful economic and social policies being followed, unemployment of the youth, and stifling political environment. So the students of Iran are as counter-revolutionary as the youth of Eastern European countries or USSR during the dying days of the Soviet rule. Besides in Iran's demographic structure the youth account for sixty percent of the total population, a unique phenomenon in Iran's history.

In Western perception Iran is accused of three gross sins -- pursuit of nuclear ambition, support of terrorism, and interfering in the reconstruction of post-Saddam Iraq. Jeffrey Simpson of Canada's Globe and Mail wrote "Nuclear weapons. Support for terror. A regime run by mullahs. It adds up to a country that Bush administration is predisposed to dislike". Ironically Iran's nuclear programme began under Reza Shah Pahlavi but was suspended following the Islamic Revolution. The programme was reluctantly resumed by late Ayatollah Khomeini during the eighties because he regarded nuclear weapons as immoral. With Russian and Chinese help Iran began to develop a civilian nuclear structure. It has now been revealed that two additional nuclear facilities have been built. President Khatami's recent disclosure that Iran has been mining uranium and pursuing technologies to reprocess spent nuclear fuel has rung warning bells in Washington. Iran has also declared that the spent fuel, which can be used to make nuclear weapons, may not be returned to Russia. The worrisome situation has been compounded by the existence of uranium enrichment facility and plutonium production plant making fuel supply from Russia eventually unnecessary. This has upset Russia goading her to announce that Russia will supply nuclear fuel to Iran (still needed by Iran) only if she pledges to return the spent fuel. Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov advised that it would be in Iran's own interest for all arrangements to be transparent and controllable in order to avoid ambiguity or divergent interpretations. Centre for Defence Information based in Washington D.C. in an assessment (of June 12, 2003) concluded that Iran has decided to develop its civilian infrastructure to a point where a military applied nuclear programme could be quickly put in place. Iran could exercise two plausible options: covertly produce fissile materials capable of producing nuclear weapons or withdraw from NPT citing "extra-ordinary circumstances".

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

From Iran's point of view potentials threats abound. Two of her immediate neighbours have been invaded and pulverised by the US and Bush administration is openly talking about regime change. Though vanquishment of Saddam Hussein has removed one potential threat, nuclear armed Israel which is not a member of NPT remains a threat as does Indo-Pak rivalry in the vicinity of Iran. These could be cited by Iran as "extra-ordinary circumstances". US determination to stop proliferation of WMD is a fundamental tenet of Bush administration's policy. Therefore US will be relentless in ensuring that Iran does not become a closet nuclear power. Brenda Shaffer of John F Kennedy School of government at Harvard advises that in order to succeed the US should work quietly with President Putin and avoid pressurising Moscow. Beyond demanding that Tehran sign IAEA Inspection Protocol Moscow must insist that Iran returns the spent fuel to Russia and join international pressure group regarding insistence on Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment and plutonium production programmes. Russia, suggests Brenda Shaffer, should also encourage its scientists and engineers in Iran to provide information on their projects.

Next item in the culpability statement is Iran's alleged support for terrorism. US State department's 2002 report describes Iran as the most active sponsor of terrorism. The report cites Iran's backing of Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad, and PFLP. These groups allegedly received money, weapons and shelter from Iran. In recent past Bush administration has accused Iran of harbouring and colluding with Al-Qaida operatives. This allegation is difficult to establish as the Bush administration is yet to prove linkage between Al-Qaida and Saddam regime to the satisfaction of the international community. Iran is a clerically ruled Shia majority country. Al-Qaida subscribes to a fundamentalist version of Sunni Islam. Besides Al-Qaida controlled Afghanistan and Iran were mortal enemies. Common enmity towards the US could have created a common bond between non-state actors. But it is difficult to readily accept Iran-Al Qaida linkage without proof beyond any doubt in order to avoid a situation now being faced by Tony Blair as a result of Robin Cook-Claire Short testimony to the British parliamentary enquiry body to which both former Ministers accused Tony Blair of selling half-truths and exaggerations to the British government and the public. British public may not be as supportive of Blair as Americans are of Bush when he pushes under the carpet the vexing question of Saddam Hussein possessing WMD which was the raison d'etre of Iraq invasion. US case of Iran's complicity with terrorists have been chronicled many times by US government officials. Louis Freeh, former Director of FBI publicly stated "Hezbollah, the exclusive terrorist agent of Iran, has killed more Americans than any other group besides Al-Qaida".

The third issue in the charge sheet is about Iran's meddling in the reconstruction of Iraq. Though it has not yet been possible to draw up a coherent and immaculate context and linage of the alleged meddling it is possible that Iran may consider, Iraq being an immediate neighbour and an enemy in the past, any evolving situation in Iraq as a matter of legitimate concern for her own security. In this context one should be cautious in his belief that just because both the countries have Shia majority population Iran would have an automatic advantage in establishing her influence in the war devastated and chaotic Iraq. Ethnically Iraqis are Arabs while Iranians are Persians. They fought an eight-year war. Iraqi clerics have not embraced Velayet-e-Faqih, the doctrine from which Iranian clerics draw their legitimacy and exercise power. In today's US ruled Iraq where even the UN and the Europeans have to line up for entry permit it is difficult to imagine how an Iran in turmoil can get a foothold in Iraq in the face of unrelaxed American vigil.

Prudence would dictate that Bush administration may wish to deal with Iran peaceably instead of threatening Iran with rapacious lapidary of its military might. Convoluted expression of might which can have cataclysmic consequences may be seen by the world as being viscerally communal. Despite protestations to the contrary the fact remains that both Afghanistan and Iraq are Muslim countries as is Iran. In its quest to deny proliferation of WMD Bush administration may be looking at the Muslim world in a simplistic manner. Fundamentalists refer to people returning to the original practice of religion. Fundamentalist strand can be found amongst the followers of all faiths. Islamists, on the other hand, want to create a new modern political structure informed by a strict reading of the Holy Quran and Hadith and create an Islamic state or make Islam the sole basis of law in the society. Most Muslims are not Islamists. Indeed Azar Nafisi, an Iranian scholar now based at John Hopkins University holds the opinion that the main problem in dealing with Iran has been US policy makers' difficulty in gaining the right "perspective" on Iran. The main tendency in the US policy making circles, Azar Nafisi felt, has been to reduce various tensions and contradictions in Iranian society as conflict between the "good guys" led by President Khatami and the "bad guys" led by the clerics. Slogans like "death to America" and the "Great Satan" are not reflective of the voice of the people, rather these are orchestrated voice of a small segment of the population controlling the resources of the country.

Since the US of today is unlikely to care if the world were to pronounce the US' Iran policy of support to the Iranian people's desire to be free as an interference in the internal affairs of Iran, one may perhaps hope that the Iranians would be able to bring about necessary changes for their own betterment which the US would find less threatening to its self-defined security parameters. In a world where even the route to the UN is getting blurred, where US truimphalism has primacy over security concerns of lesser powers, where traditional concepts of sovereignty and territorial integrity are being given new meaning, one would hope that the Iranian problem would be solved by the Iranians themselves and help to establish the fact that despite occasional democracy deficit the Islamic world is not an Antarctica of freedom.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is former Secretary and Ambassador.