@@ Zionist 'Ledeen' debate with 'Geneive Abdo' @@
Arash
July 17, 2003
Q&A: Debate: U.S. Policy Toward Iran
From the Council on Foreign Relations (www.cfr.org), July 17, 2003
In the wake of the recent pro-democracy demonstrations in Tehran, what
should U.S. Iran policy be? Geneive Abdo, a fellow at the New America
Foundation and co-author of "Answering Only to God: Faith and Freedom in
Twenty-First-Century Iran," debates Michael Ledeen, resident scholar at the
American Enterprise Institute and author of "The War Against the Terror
Masters."
Michael Ledeen: http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.35,filter./scholar.asp
American policy toward Iran should be the same as our policy toward any
tyranny whose people are fighting for their freedom: support the freedom
fighters. I would advocate that policy even if Iran were not (as it is) the
keystone of the international terror network with which we are at war, even
if Iran were not (as it is) hell-bent on acquiring an atomic bomb, and even
if Iran were not (as it is) doing everything in its power to kill Americans
in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to drive us out of the Middle East and
spread its own hateful version of Islamic rule throughout the region.
Since Iran is all those things, American policy is a no-brainer. Our
interests, our traditions, and our best instincts all cry out for support
for democratic revolution.
Iran is much like the Soviet Union in its last days. The once-inspirational
ideology has burnt out, the country has been wrecked, and the leaders are
objects of derision. Like "glasnost" and "perestroika," Iran's "reform" has
failed to fulfill the popular demand for freedom now. Our winning policy
then--open political support for freedom, demands for the release of
political prisoners, relentless broadcasting of the truth, modest support to
improve the ability of the democracy forces to organize and communicate with
one another--should be the model.
Geneive Abdo: ab...@newamerica.net
http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=Bio&contactID=530
http://www.paulagordon.com/shows/abdo
As the Bush administration continues to try to formulate an effective policy
toward Iran, it is more important now than ever to correct many false
assumptions circulating among policymakers and pundits and develop a clear
understanding of the political dynamic underway in Iran.
First of all, the "democratic movement," which still consists primarily of
students and dissidents -- not mainstream society -- does not seek to create
a Western-style democracy that would have no role for clerics in politics.
Rather, this movement is fighting for a pluralistic political system, which
would include free elections, a free press, a legitimate judicial system,
and more social freedom.
Many modernist clerics, who are part of this movement along with the
students, are fighting against the absolutist interpretation of Islam that
is now advanced by the hard-line clerics running the state.
However, these modernist clerics and students believe that any new system
should take into account the important role Islam continues to play in
Iranian culture and society. They are not trying to dismantle Islamic
ideology.
In practical terms, the new reformers (as opposed to the old reformers
centered around President Mohammad Khatami) oppose the concept of supreme
clerical rule, as it is defined by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
They believe that this type of absolutist interpretation of religion, which
is used to justify political repression, is incompatible with the kind of
democratic rule they hope to establish. Of course, reform is impossible if
Ayatollah Khamenei, or any supreme leader, has veto power over all functions
of the state, as is the case today. However, the new reformers believe that
clerics should be allowed to run for election and could play an advisory
role in a reformed state.
The Bush administration's policy toward Iran is perceived by Iranians and
Muslims across the Islamic world as being anti-clerical and anti-Islamic.
This perception is actually counterproductive to U.S. policy, which aims to
encourage democratic reform in Iran and to fight "terrorism" around the
world. Rather than threaten Iran and condemn its Islamic system, the United
States should begin official dialogue with the Islamic Republic.
The first issue on the agenda should be Iran's nuclear program. All factions
within the Iranian state believe the Islamic Republic has every right to
develop a nuclear program, and they often note that Israel and Pakistan, two
U.S. allies, have nuclear capability far more advanced than Iran's.
Through an official U.S.-Iran dialogue, Iran might agree to open its nuclear
facilities to routine International Atomic Energy Agency inspections if the
United States offered incentives in return, such as the release of Iranian
assets frozen since the 1979 revolution and an end to trade sanctions. Such
diplomacy would be far more effective to achieving U.S. policy aims, not
only in Iran, but throughout the Islamic world.
Michael Ledeen:
Ms. Abdo lays out a clear policy agenda for the United States. It's called
appeasement. She wants to "begin official dialogue," through which we might
buy the Iranians' willingness to let their nuclear facilities be inspected.
She suggests we could make that attractive by offering to release their
frozen assets and end trade sanctions. She does not recommend any support of
any kind to the people fighting against tyranny in the streets of the
country.
Indeed, she doesn't think very much of the Iranian freedom fighters. Ms.
Abdo claims that the democratic movement is made up primarily of students
and dissidents, whom she dismisses by proclaiming them outside "mainstream
society." But Iran's prosecutor-general recently said that, in the last
three weeks, some 4,000 demonstrators had been arrested, of whom about 800
were students. If that's at all representative of the movement, only 20
percent are students, and many well-informed people think the 4,000 number
is way too low, which would lower the "student" percentage even further.
She says the democracy movement doesn't want to exclude clerics from
politics. That may or not be true--my guess is that it would be very
difficult for anyone with a turban to win a free and fair election in most
parts of Iran--but that is not the policy issue. The Iranian people are
demanding the right to make this decision themselves, and I want my
government to support them. If the Iranian people decide they want a
Khomeini-ist dictatorship again, so be it; ditto if they want a secular
republic, or a constitutional monarchy, or a cantonal system. Whatever. Let
them choose.
Ms. Abdo transforms the democrats into "new reformers," cobbling "new" onto
the failed movement now decried in the streets of the country. But they
don't believe reform can be achieved; they want freedom. Now. In a singular
expression of outrage and courage, 45 percent of those polled--by the
dreaded Expediency Council [a powerful government body that advises the
supreme leader and is authorized to settle legislative deadlocks] no
less--said they wanted a fundamental transformation of the political system,
even if it required a foreign invasion.
Ms. Abdo tells us that the Iranian democrats don't want a Western-style
democracy, and then lists their desires: a pluralistic polity, free
elections, a free press, a "legitimate judicial system," and more social
freedom, which seem to me a pretty good description of Western-style
democracy.
She adds, quite rightly, that many clerics support this program, as well
they might: They are afraid that Islam itself may be profoundly weakened in
the wake of the impending revolution. Ms. Abdo knows well, for she has
written elegantly and convincingly about it, that Shiite tradition was
violently distorted by the Khomeini Revolution of 1979, thereby giving
legitimacy to a clerical tyranny. It may well be that, once the tyrants are
removed, Iranian Shiites will support the more time-honored tradition of
greater separation of mosque and state. Let's hope so.
Finally, we should not waste time fretting over attacks claiming that the
United States is "anti-clerical and anti-Islamic." If anything, this
administration has bent too far backwards to be tender and loving to Islam,
even when it is invoked to justify killing us. Indeed, our determination to
avoid offense has led to such follies as permitting the creation of an
"Islamic Republic" in Afghanistan, which will make the lives of Afghan women
more unpleasant than necessary. I don't think the Iranian women will go for
that one.
Geneive Abdo:
The reasons U.S. policies toward Iran and other countries in the region are
doomed to fail include the following: Iranians, just like Iraqis, Syrians,
and people across the region, want to reform their political systems without
U.S. interference.
The poll Dr. Ledeen noted, in which he claims that 45 percent of Iranians
want to change the political system, even if it means a U.S. invasion, is a
fabrication.
Calls from the U.S. government, encouraging student demonstrators and the
Iranian people to revolt against their government, are counterproductive.
Such encouragement forces students and dissidents to appear anti-American in
order to escape accusations that they are U.S. stooges.
Let us not forget that Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi's close association with
the United States was an important factor in his downfall and the rise of
Ayatollah Khomeini to power in 1979. In addition, hints that the United
States might attempt regime change in Iran, either directly or indirectly,
give enormous credibility to the hardliners running the state who have
argued for 24 years that Iran must remain united to avoid a U.S. invasion.
The second fundamental flaw of Bush administration policy in Iran, Iraq, and
across the Arab world is an assumption that free elections will bring
secularist leaders to power. The recent elections in Kuwait, in which
Islamists swept to victory, provide more evidence that an Islamic identity
is becoming more and more dominant in the region. If free elections were
held in Egypt, a country where I worked and lived for five years, moderate
Islamists or "Islamic democrats" would triumph over the state's National
Democratic Party or other secularist-oriented parties.
In the case of Iran, yes, the current Islamic system has proven to be a
failure. And there is no doubt that the concept of supreme clerical rule is
a major obstacle to political pluralism. But even if the post of supreme
leader were dismantled, Iranians are highly unlikely to create a
Western-style democracy. They would create a pluralistic political system
that takes Islamic values and traditions and laws into account.
Dr. Ledeen and like-minded neoconservatives assume that, because the current
Islamic government in Iran is dysfunctional, the only alternative is
secularism. This is also the assumption embraced by the Bush administration.
When the administration talks about democracy in Iraq and the broader Middle
East, they assume a secular outcome. But just as the elections in Kuwait and
the power of various Shiite factions in Iraq demonstrate, Islam will
continue to play a vital role in governments throughout the region.
The United States should resist its historical urge to determine the future
of Iran. Change is likely to come gradually, and the only way such reform
will stick is if the Iranian people chart their own course. The United
States should have learned its lesson from the 1953, CIA-backed coup in Iran
that deposed a legitimate Iranian government.
The backlash came nearly 30 years later with the Islamic revolution--an
event policymakers consider a significant diplomatic defeat. The sad fact is
that the United States takes no lessons from history. As Iraq crumbles and
anarchy erupts, Dr. Ledeen and his pals in the White House are plotting
their next disaster--Iran.
Michael Ledeen:
I do not believe, pace Ms. Abdo, in the inevitability that "free elections
will bring secularist leaders to power," nor that secularism is the only
alternative to the current Islamic regime in Iran. I have not taken a
position on this question, and I have insisted that the United States should
not take sides in the future nature or makeup of the Iranian government: We
should not endorse a candidate, or a party, or a specific kind of
constitution. Such matters are up to the Iranian people; I just want my
government to do whatever it reasonably can in order to ensure that the
Iranians will have a free choice.
I quite agree with Ms. Abdo that Islam is not going to disappear overnight
from Iranian culture and society. However, I do think that a free
Iran--whatever form of government is freely chosen--will reduce the role of
the clerics in government, stop its notorious support for terrorism, end the
murder and torture that now characterize the regime, provide for greater
freedom for individual citizens, for the press, and for the judiciary,
devote more energy and wealth to improving the lot of the Iranian people,
and draw closer to the West in general and to the United States in
particular. So why not support it?
Ms. Abdo accuses me of fabricating an Iranian poll. Judge for yourselves.
Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy wrote on
July 7: "On June 22, 2003, the Iranian newspaper Yas-e Now published a
remarkable poll that had originally appeared on the 'Feedback' web page of
the Expediency Discernment Council. Those polled were given the question,
'What are the actual demands of the Iranian people?' and a choice of four
answers. 45 percent chose 'change in the political system, even with foreign
intervention.' The fact that 45 percent of respondents endorsed foreign
intervention if necessary is all the more surprising considering two
factors: first, the continued imprisonment of pollsters, who last year found
that 75 percent of Iranians want open negotiations with the United States;
and second, the ominous rumors circulating in Iran that the United States is
considering an invasion--rumors with no basis in fact."
So those polled probably thought they were expressing an opinion about
American action to bring about change in the political system. I doubt that
American support for the Iranian democracy movement is counterproductive, as
I doubt that President Bush's cautious verbal support forces the opponents
of the regime to feign anti-Americanism. Shortly after the start of
Operation Iraqi Freedom, a Le Monde correspondent interviewed people on the
street in Tehran, asking what they thought about the presence of U.S. troops
across the border. Many replied, "Why don't they come here?"
As I said at the beginning, I believe that the United States should support
the Iranian democratic opposition. Above all, it is the right thing to do.
And it is also the strategically sound policy. We are fighting a war against
terrorism, and Iran is the keystone of the international terror network. I
don't think we can win that war so long as the mullahcracy reigns supreme in
Tehran.
Support for democratic revolution in Iran is an entirely appropriate
strategy. This is not an "historical urge to determine the future of Iran."
We did not create the democratic opposition. It's home-grown. Support for
them is morally and strategically sound, and we should do what we can to
help them win.