The
Iranians’ pro-Americanism worries Tehran
Afsané Bassir Pour
Translated by Douglas
French original: "Le pro-américanisme des Iraniens inquiète Téhéran"
(Le Monde, 2003/04/25)“Vox populi” calls for a regime change “with the marines’ help.”
Tehran, from our correspondent
Iranian leaders are worried: worried by the American presence at their gates, in the east and west; worried by the invasion of Iraq “with so little popular resistance;” worried by the speedy toppling of the Baghdad regime; worried by the marginalization of the UN; worried by the total disillusion of the Iranian people, which, since the start of the Iraqi crisis, has manifested itself in the fierce pro-Americanism of the population... but worried most of all by the vox populi, which is calling for “a regime change with the help of the American marines.” This demand is taken seriously enough in the political circles for the renewal of relations with the United States — a 25-year taboo — to be now the first order of business in Tehran. Relations broke off the day after the establishment of the Islamic Republic and the taking of 55 American diplomats as hostages in 1979.
It was Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, former Iranian president and central character in the regime, who broke this taboo. In a long interview with an Iranian daily published Saturday 12 April, Mr. Rafsanjani proposed a referendum on the subject of renewing relations with America. According the review Rahbor (Strategy), Mr. Rafsanjani feels that a solution to resolve the “crisis” between Iran and America lies in “holding a referendum to determine what Iranian society thinks — on condition,” he added, “that the Majlis (parliament) and the Supreme Guide consent, which is usually the case.”
"RED LINE"Reactions weren’t slow in coming. The following day, the conservative daily Keyhan accused the former president of having crossed “the red line.” A line that recently earned prison terms for the directors of a polling institute for having showed that Iranians massively favor reestablishing relations with the United States.
Rejecting the idea of a referendum on relations with America as “unrealistic,” reformers are proposing that the question be examined by the regime’s leaders “without losing another second.” For Behzad Nabavi, one of the reformers’ “credible voices,” relations with Washington have become “a matter of national security.” In a rare interview, Mr. Nabavi, a counselor close to president Khatami, told Le Monde that the American strategy “surely doesn’t stop at the gates of Baghdad.” In Washington, there is “an Iran project” which is in the process of execution and which “is not necessarily military.” In his office at the old marble palace in south Tehran which houses the Majlis, of which he is vice president, Mr. Nabavi tells of his anxiety opposite the Americans.
“Obviously, I’m afraid!” he shouts. “Who wouldn’t be afraid of an America armed to the teeth and which has shown in Iraq its total lack of respect for the sovereignty of nations? Yes, I am afraid. Apparently, the Americans can do anything; the UN and Western public opinion are of little importance. [...] The only argument for hostile action against a country that is now somewhat acceptable in the eyes of Western intellectuals,” Mr. Nabavi adds, “is the establishment of democracy.” It is for this reason, he says, “that Iran’s best defense against the Americans would be to strengthen its democracy to steal their arguments.”
Questioned about those voices calling for “American intervention,” Mr. Nabavi declared: “It is obvious that this is our fault. The fact that people prefer foreign invasion to life in the Islamic Republic is only the sign of our failure. We have not been able to realize the people’s democratic aspirations and it is normal that they should be disappointed.”
“If we accept,” he continues, “that the Iraqis are rejoicing at the end of Saddam Hussein, we must also think of the possibility that perhaps, here too, the Iranians would celebrate the end of the Islamic Republic.”
"WHY NOT US?"
While the reformers were very much weakened by the Bush administration’s decision to put Iran on the list of states in the “Axis of Evil,” many think that the “fear of America,” could be “a window of opportunity opposite the hard edge of the regime which prevents the democratic process.”
“The hardliners,” says a member of the reform camp, “are very afraid. They are ready to make some concessions; they know that we still have much more credibility than they do.”
But for an Iranian architect who immediately demanded anonymity, “there is now no longer any difference between the reformers and conservatives.” Exasperated by the “profound corruption” of the regime, he wants its end. “It’s simple,” he tells us. “We don’t want any more Islamic Republic. It has taken us 25 years to realize that the revolution came to nothing.” Like many, he wants “American help for a change of regime.” The idea meets with widespread approbation. “The Afghans and the Iraqis had their dictatorships taken away,” says a filmmaker. “So why not us?” If the man in the street talks about the arrival of Marines, intellectuals don’t imagine a military intervention but “rather a political intervention.”It’s the same unrest among the students. The student movement has withdrawn from reform organizations. Speaking anonymously, one of its members warned the Americans “not to shake hands with the regime.” They are only talking about renewing relations “because they are afraid of the Americans. Anti-Americanism,” adds the student, “is the stock in trade of the regime.”
Mohsen Miradamadi, the president of the foreign affairs commission in the Majlis, does not believe the American military threats. “A democratic process was started in Iran,” he says. “A process perhaps favored more by global opinion than by the Iranian public but one which will prevent any American military intervention in our country. It will be our best defense against America.” However, what bothers him is the Iranians’ “obvious disappointment” with the reformers. The rate of abstention in February’s legislative elections — only 12% of eligible voters in Tehran went to the polls — was seen by many in Tehran as “the end of the grace period for the reformers.”
Afsané Bassir Pour
[Posted 2003/04/29]
Copyright © Watch 2001-2006. Copyrights of quoted materials
belong to their respective owners.
"When
people accept futility and the absurd as normal, the culture is decadent.
The term is not a slur; it is a technical label."
Articles
of the week
"Losing the Enlightenment" (Victor Davis Hanson, OpinionJournal, 2006/11/29)
"Allah’s England?" (Daniel Johnson, Commentary. November 2006)
"'Sex in the Park': The latest doings of the Danish imams" (Henrik Bering, The Weekly Standard, 2006/11/18)
"Narcissism on Stilts" (Harold Evans, New York Sun, 2006/11/16)
"Terrorists are recruiting in our schools, says MI5 boss" (Philip Johnston, The Daily Telegraph, 2006/11/10)
›
AOTW Archive
From the archives
Oriana Fallaci, R.I.P.
"The Rage, the Pride and the Doubt" (Oriana Fallaci, The Wall Street Journal, 2003/03/13)
"How the West Was Won and How It Will Be Lost" (Oriana Fallaci, The American Enterprise, from the January/February 2003 issue)
"On Jew-hatred in Europe" (Oriana Fallaci, dennisprager.com, 2002/04/13)
"Anger and Pride" (Oriana Fallaci, dennisprager.com, 2001/12/19)
Weekly archive
2006/12/04
- 2006/12/10
2006/11/27 - 2006/12/03
2006/11/20 - 2006/11/26
2006/11/13
- 2006/11/19
2006/11/06
- 2006/11/12
2006/10/30
- 2006/11/05
›
From
2001/09/11 -
Monthly
index
December
2006
November
2006
October
2006
September
2006
August
2006
July
2006
›
From
September 2001 -
Author index
›
Ajami,
Fouad - Johnson, Paul
›
Kagan,
Robert - Ye'or, Bat
Support
Watch
Please
feel free to donate if you enjoy the daily content and links Watch provides:
Contact Watch
Email:
watch-at-windsofchange.net
