Calls for Foreign Military Intervention

During the last two months, even though talks over Iran’s nuclear program between representatives of P5+1 countries and Iran have resumed, three prominent Iranian dissidents were invited by two European governments to separately meet the foreign ministers of the a European government and the leader of the opposition. The subject of discussion between them was to learn what the three would do if the West launched a military attack on the Islamic republic. All three replied that they were against a military attack on Iran and said that if that were to happen, they would return to their country to join the people of Iran in determining their fate

The next question the Europeans asked was what percent of Iran’s urban population were in favor of such an attack that could result in the fall of the Islamic republic. Based on reports, all three, with some minor differences, said that most of Iran’s urban population was against such an event and that their opposition was serious.

Apparently the responses by the Iranians at both sessions surprised the hosts who then asked how come such an opposition did not come about in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. According to what the European representatives said, the exiled opposition from the three countries had welcomed US, European and NATO intervention to cooperate with them and in practice did exactly that and used the opportunity to liberate their countries. So why were Iranian opposition groups not willing to make such an investment, they asked, adding whether it was because they believed that the operations would not succeed therefore imposing severe costs on them.

History of Anti-Foreigners

As to why form a political, historic or social perspective are Iranians different from their neighbors is a subject on which much has been discussed and written. More recent events and experiences have also been added to those. Countries that in this decade succeeded to free themselves from their autocratic regimes appear to be different from Iran. People in countries that were ruled by Mola Omar, Saddam and Ghaddafi had no reservations about requesting foreign assistance and riding on foreign tanks to return to their homes. This way they succeeded in bringing about a major change in their country and generally liberate themselves from their autocratic, violent and oppressive regimes. But as it appears, even their successful liberation has not enticed Iranians to do the same.

Is this because of historic age and historic unity the cause of this difference? A country that claims to have had a sustaining civilization for some thousands of years is certainly different from those that were created in the twentieth century. The former has literature and history that perpetually disdains cooperating with foreigners, while the latter has no such issues. One cannot claim that literature and history play a small role in people’s lives.

Is this because of people’s historic movements and efforts to fight for freedom that brings about such a view? In other words, does a nation like Iran which 150 years ago successfully launched the first revolution in the Middle East to curtail the powers of its ruler, at a time when only half Europeans had democratic governments, behave in the same fashion as a people who experienced nothing but dictatorship from the day of their birth?

Through the last 150 years the Iranian people have launched, witnessed and recorded a constitutional revolution, the opposition movement during the minor dictatorship, democracy and chaos during Ahmad Shah’s rule, constructive dictatorship of Reza Shah, the freedoms following World War II, the movement to nationalize its oil, the modern dictatorship of Mohammad-Reza Shah, the revolution that brought about the Islamic republic, the reformist movement of 2^nd Khordad (launched in 1997), and finally the Green Movement to attain and institute free elections. Throughout this history, their goal and slogan has been opposition to autocracy and foreign intervention. This is different from countries whose creation was signed by a person whose son or grandson rules the territory today.

It is because of this history that even today the most powerful and common charge against dissident Iranians is an assertion, by those in power in Iran, that the dissenters are affiliated to foreigners. Similarly, the most potent weakness that the opposition raises against a regime or government is that the latter has made the country more dependent on foreigners in the course of its rule. When such claims and ascertains are made, the record of the claimant plays no role. How can the slogans of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who more than the clerics has for two decades been airing anti-foreign screams, has antagonized the world against himself through which he has bought himself support among the deprived people of the region, but has also destroyed domestic production and to continue to appear to be the leader in anti-Americanism has in practice turned Iran into a political colony of Russia and economically dependent on China, be taken seriously?

When the last Iranian monarch, who was an ally of the US and the West – something that is not hidden from anyone – was told that his cabinet minister of science had a US Green Card, ordered that he be dismissed from his post and disregarded explanations that professor Samii got his Green Card to avoid standing in long visa lines every time he wanted to return to his US university when he was a student. But Ahmadinejad, whom the deprived of the world view as a hero against the US and Israel, have two cabinet ministers and seven advisers who hold European and one American citizenships.  More recently, his choice for the president of Bank Melli has turned out to be a Canadian citizen.

When Nasser-al-Din Shah who ruled Iran for fifty years and made no claims to being a nationalist or anti-foreigner, was forced to accept at a young age Mirza Agha Khan Nouri as his Prime Minister, conditioned his appointment to that the premier tear up his British passport before the king issued his appointment decree.

Similarly, if we look at the World War II record of the two Pahlavi kings who rightly or wrongly have been accused of being brought to power with foreign assistance – specifically that of Britain – and point to the two coups of 3 Esfand (February 21, 1921 which brought Reza Shah to power) and 28 Mordad (August 19, 1953 when the Mohammad Reza Shah was reinstated as king) that resulted in Reza Shah son’s accent to the throne as their proof – and even the events of 20 Shahrivar (September 11, 2009 when the Islamic republic violently suppressed the popular demonstrations and protests held against the rigged elections) - it becomes evident that when the conditions were right to challenge foreign powers, these rulers did not do any less than those who flouted claims of being non-aligned [or independently national]  and according to one historic theory Reza Shah and his son brought about their downfall because they strived to clear their name from that shame by engaging in extreme anti foreign actions.

Kings who were accused of being dependant on the West behaved in this manner so how can one expect political activists who long for freedom and liberty for their country and who want to get the votes of the same people with such traits and characteristics, to give up their dreams and idealism for a handful of grain and add more sins to the existing unjustified sins?

Historic Examples

If we accept that despotism and imperialism are the two driving forces that make freedom-loving people rise and act, then it should be noted that prominent Iranian heroes such as Dr Mossadegh gained their reputation as challengers of foreign powers. Amir-Kabir, the 19^th century prime minister accepted death rather than take refuge in a foreign embassy and as history attests said, “I want the flags of seven foreign countries under the Iranian flag, how could I myself then put the flag of a foreign country on my rooftop?” I have heard Dr Shariati say that the Pahlavi kings will have a different fate than other kings because the other kings came to power by fighting foreign enemies and in their defense of the motherland while Reza Shah not only did not fight a war with foreigners but is known to have ascended the throne because of the wishes of the British.

In history, the most shameful act is described as the moment when Mohammad-Ali Shah took refuge in the Russian embassy out of fear of revolutionaries.

Reza Shah developed thousands of areas while Ahmad Shah left none behind, but when the allies took him as a prisoner, people distributed free sweets and pastry in the streets. But just 16 years earlier, the very same people chanted songs in favor of Ahmad Shah and his absence. The first king is rightly or wrongly accused of having come to power on recommendations of General Ironside while the latter is rightly or wrongly known to have stood up against the transgressions of the British government and did not sign the 1919 agreement that divided Iran. My teacher Sheikh-ol-Islam used to say that this is not how things happened, but what can I do because this is what people have come to believe.

Tens of other similar examples can be cited. I suspect that the argument that times have changed and that the traditional type of independence-seeking and foreign-fighting is no longer common - as one of my respected political teachers has written - cannot reject all the other evidence to the contrary and cannot move this tradition-stricken society.

It is because of this that I think those who are writing about inviting Americans to intervene militarily in Iran – articles written in any form or label – represent a futile effort. Perhaps it is possible to say the same about those who write the opposite. I mean those who write fiery articles against US military intervention are also wasting their time.

When international conditions are as threatening today and the media is so full of conjectures, political groups and parties are expected to present their policies in an open fashion. Nobody expects those writers whose views are not pursued or cared in Iran and whose rulings do not ignite anyone to war or peace, to air more views. I think these heroic writings have no impact except to present the patriotism of the writer in a fantasy court.

Absence of the Person

Those who oppose military action in Iran need to be reminded that no Iranian political group till today has supported a foreign military strike against Iran, not even the only armed anti-Islamic republic group that at one time had a military base in Iraq and whose representatives today are roaming government palaces and parliaments around the world to find friends. Supporters of the monarchy have rejected such a policy and the remarks that claim too lack such a message. Those in support of the republic too have expressly condemned all forms of foreign attack.

So what is left are a few pained and exiled writers who use the freedoms afforded to them in their host countries and write their opinions. They appear to be taking cue from the examples of World War II (Japan and Germany) when the military attack of allies eventually brought about a change in the lives of people in those countries. They argue that Iranians should not be comparing themselves with Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya but with Germany and Japan.

It appears that the debate over the benefits or harm of a military attack should be set aside and instead we should watch to see if any prominent politician has informed Americans or Europeans that he is willing to play the role of Hamid Karzai in Iran. I do not think anybody has done this till now. Instead, in meetings between Iranians and foreign government and parliamentary authorities it appears that some individuals have announced their readiness to play the role of ayatollah Khomeini 1979, Jalal Talebani in Iraq, Mersi or Ahmad Shafiq in today’s Egypt.

Foreign negotiating parties know very well that the prerequisite for playing such a role is having supporter who will first need to fill the streets, something that has not been seen in recent years. When something like that did take place in 2009 when protestors and demonstrators took to the streets to protest against the officially announced results of the last presidential elections in Iran, nobody was willing to assume a role higher than the president of the Islamic republic.