Article
by Afshar Tiles
recent debate between Michael Rubin [1] and the United States-Iran, as Jalal Arani [2] and Dr. Ali Safavi [3], Clara and Lopez [4] IPC, describing how significant is the enigma of the Mujahideen Titles such as Iran Iran and the U.S. really need to get home at the base.
I agree with Clare Lopez is caciannya Rubin missed the mark against the MEK on Iran at some point. Rubin angry tone and its claim to moral high ground, accusing his critics as “honest” unfortunately did not help promote a constructive debate. Readers can assess their own best. And they do not stick to the conclusion on Ervand Abrahamian Abrahamian Mujahedin of Iran history tells the story of the Mujahideen advocacy of democracy in Iran, given the evidence of intimidation tactic scholars, is one of many early stage of post-revolutionary Iran to be taken seriously. But cutting and conclusions about the character and nature of the Mujahideen when they changed from a mass political movement to force the opposition in exile, calls for a critical review and approval unprecedented, especially since the initial observations Abrahamian rejected the conclusion the final chapter of the MEC. On the one hand, the MEK “has gone into the world to himself,” as means Abrahamian, but in the middle of the debate on policy towards Iran, 17 years after the newspaper was published Abrahamian.
Establishment of the Mujahideen in 1960 was a failure of political reform in response to Mehdi Bazargan “Freedom Movement” and “National Front”, and removal of all activity Shah peaceful politics. The Mujahedin precocious and dedicated young Muslims trying to end the despotism of the Shah of Iran and the creation of a free and democratic society in Brazil. It is natural that the U.S. supported the Shah, the Mujahideen would oppose U.S. intervention in Iranian politics as well as all other Iranian opposition valid. Discourse on the MEK or the views of other political groups in Iran over U.S. policy in Iran at the moment should be in the context of the dominant intellectual influence of age and a natural antipathy to the perceived U.S. support for the Shah. As Dr. Safavi said in response to Rubin, the Bush administration presented a critical review [5] of foreign policy positions that the U.S. support of undemocratic leaders in the Middle East can achieve stability. This position is a loss of credibility and instability. The correct policy should be to support democracy as it remains today. The U.S. opposition to support the Shah Mujahedin did not like Lopez rightly pointed out “because of any hostility to the American people or the ideological hostility to the concept of secular democracy,” but a natural reaction to U.S. support of dictatorships and corrupt Shah. Indeed, as cunning as the Ayatollah Khomeini, he was anti-American sentiment in leveraging the community that the Iranian regime to consolidate and promote the democratic opposition, including the mujahideen, marking the edge of the officials “U.S. imperialism”. Unfortunately, it was very useful in this regard, the Tudeh Communist Party.
Mujahideen leader, Massoud Rajavi, imprisoned by the Shah in 1971 until January 1979, has a strong and early opposition to the ideology of Khomeini and Islamic fundamentalism run into conflict with religious domination structures post-revolutionary power, with an emphasis on democratic participation, please. While most left-wing parties supported the alliance with Khomeini directed “liberal” Mujahideen defense of democratic rights to participate in the political process and said the threat of Islamic fundamentalists led by Khomeini regressive democracy is inevitable to support the state religion. And while supporters of the Soviet Union as the Tudeh Party supported Khomeini and cooperate in the repression of democratic forces, [6] with the Mujahideen entered the first attack on a group or political power is an attack on all that is harmful to democracy . [7]
Mujahideen group that are well organized, highly skilled and dedicated activists that Iran was alone in the front line of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, at least 27 years – long before the West finally realized the threat. They were warned, and urged vigilance against the “Islamic Fundamentalism: The New Global Threat” [8] for years, only to be dismissed by skeptics and Orientalist intellectuals in Europe and the United States, [9] as being very interested drum in a negative image of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or because “a horse race.” They are trying to educate the Western public cynicism about the ability of Islamists to cause great pain and suffering in the social fabric of modern society, tearing it apart and gave the seizure of the crisis can only benefit. However, many in the West in the past, look for a sense of confusion and disbelief at how each man can be so cruel and destroy the Mujahideen group claims the Iranian authorities that be. Now, more than four years after September 11 and other atrocities in Bali, Pakistan, Madrid, London, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he began to sink in that we are really facing a global conflict between ideology, it is inhuman sadist, but is actually devoted to hatred and extremism, which has been called of God and Islam, on the one hand, and the modern world with confidence in a variety of colors and ideas, but without a strong defense to finish the game enemy.
Position Mujahideen fast unconditional support from the beginning, but the U.S. is still far from understanding the current situation and its credibility is severely damaged by the previous support of the Shah to be able to understand the threat
Exchange This highlights the problem of MEK has been much neglected in the debate over Iranian politics. What should be a principled position of opposition to U.S. policy toward Iran now?
Questions that have been in the last 27 years of rest where the U.S. policy toward the Iranian regime. Iran’s policy has changed from paralysis, the Iran-Contra, the prison, dialogue, mutual interests and cooperation of the perceived problems targeted, and finally realized the loss of strategic focus and a clear defect in politics U. S. Administration allowing Iran simply drift with the hope that the problem of Iran was ruled by Islamic fundamentalists both will be lost or changed to a more benign.
Authorities in Tehran have been running
brutal theocracy that is in open conflict with the democratic regime. Iranian regime is today the basic human rights violators from the citizens themselves, and continuously and vigorously pressed serious opposition to the totalitarian government with some of the people of Iran themselves. Added to the sponsorship of terrorism in these areas, Her dark pursuit of nuclear weapons technology and is recognized for the purpose of spreading Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Muslim world and destroy all the nations of the earth, the regime is a serious threat to peace and security world. geopolitical position of Iran, a major oil and gas reserves, young, educated and highly volatile political and resistance movement and people’s active U.S. policy requires serious and urgent need to support democratic change. Fundamentalist Islamic regime has caused much pain and suffering on the people themselves, leading to a diaspora of over 3 million Iranians in the world.
U.S. policy toward Iran was the role of opposition to U.S. policy in the general scheme, a change of ambivalence, after the fall of the Shah, the hope that one element of the monarchy and Finally, the exclusion of opposition groups, hoping to establish a relationship with the President considered “reformers” and the appointment of MEK as a terrorist in the middle of the opening of the Clinton administration to Iran, [10] and eventually offer support today, at least in words, for the Iranian opposition, however, the opposition faceless and nameless
.
dilemma for the U.S. is that all legitimate Iranian opposition forces have their roots in the revolution against the government in 1979. The only group that supports U.S. policy in Iran when the Shah was part of the government. U.S. must boldly acknowledge that past involvement with the Shah were the remains of the same policies that the Minister of Foreign Language Rice criticized [11] recently. It must then schedule with the aspirations of the Iranian people for democratic change in Iran and recognize the MEK as a legitimate resistance movementIn the absence of independent politicians, unions, or. opinion polls in Iran, the Iranian exile community representative, perhaps, a microcosm of the Iranian people. And if the number of participants in demonstrations and meetings with the popularity of the Iranian opposition group is any indication, has shown that MEK is the largest and most popular, and so far the most effective force of opposition to the mullahs. Add to that the revelation of the trade regime to gain nuclear weapons will not be possible without the support of a significant network in Brazil.
Rubin costs that the MEC has the support of Iran, and frankly, unfounded claim to speak for the people of Iran, Rubin again missed the target. Rubin said little to Iran that Iran has. U.S. decision not to decide the competition policy in Brazil. Rather, the United States should support the isolation and legitimacy of the regime of Iran dishonest, and supports the establishment of democracy through elections to be free, fair and transparent manner under international auspices in Brazil.
group that includes Brazil, National Council of Resistance of Iran, where MEK is a member, openly and consistently affirm the principles of representative government, equal opportunities, gender equality, the separation between religion and state, free market economy and a commitment to peace and tranquility in the region and worldwide. The NCRI try to form a transitional government to prepare for elections within six months of death of the current regime so that the Iranian people can choose their own constituent assembly to create a constitution for a free Iran, followed by democratic elections.
giants change Iran’s political spectrum has changed in the last three decades. In each formulation of new policy toward Iran, the U.S. does not have to rely on the legacy that has haunted the approach to Iran for three decades. It’s time for a new approach that is consistent with the current political situation and the recognition of all opposition groups are fighting for a legitimate democracy in Brazil.
Therefore, the U.S. must adopt a bold policy on Iran and the Iranian opposition. The policy should contain the following elements:Recognizing the right of the Iranian people who oppose the power of tyranny in Iran, and support the implementation of an internationally-supervised referendum on regime change in Iran so that citizens will the opportunity to express themselves freely. If not, the people of Iran have the right to reject the formal support of the scheme to achieve their rights to freedom and democracy. Provide support to the opposition which wants Iran to the principles of a secular republic, no. The first step should be removed from the MEK terrorist designation.
——————————————- p> – ————————————[2]. Jalal Arani, “Are Mujahideen” monsters “of Iran?” FrontPage Magazine, January 25, 2005 [3] Ali Safavi. Lost Mark on Iran, “FrontPage Magazine, January 27, 2005.
[4] M. Clare Lopez, “Iran real monster: theocrats terrorist organizations, not-Mujahideen Khalq and” Global Politician, January 31, 2006[5], President George W. Bush, “President’s Message on the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy,” the White House, November 6, 2005: “Sixty years of Western nations to forgive and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe – because in the long run, stability can not be purchased at the expense of freedom for the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not grow, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export ” ..
[6] Noureddin Kianouri, Mardom, 1981 comments. Tudeh Party Secretary-General wrote in a reference to Massoud Rajavi:[7] Ervand Abrahamian, Radical Islam “What have you done to introduce women to the city center, the liberal bourgeoisie and clapping” The Mujahedin Iran, (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1989), p. 215
[8] Mohammad Mohaddessin, Islamic Fundamentalism: The New Global Threat, (Washington, DC, The Seven Keys Press, May 1993) <
William [9] B. Quandt, “Review of Islamic fundamentalism: the new global threat,” Foreign Affairs, November / December 1993
[10] Michael Isikoff, “Ashcroft Connection Baghdad,” Newsweek, September 26, 2002. When asked about the appointment of the MEC, is what the Clinton Administration Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk told Newsweek on the date of September 26, 2002. “… [It] is a White House interest in opening a dialogue with the Iranian government at the time, newly elected President Khatami and is regarded as a Top moderate. Administration officials monitor to see the [WIPO] it became clear that they see Iran as a threat, as a way to do this “
[11] The Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,” Address of Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International thing, “U. S. Department of State, September 30, 2005:. “More than 60 years often think that we could achieve stability without liberty in the Middle East and in the end. Not now. We must recognize, as we do in all other areas of world, that liberty and democracy are the only real guarantee of stability and security “immortal
. p <>———————————————– – ——————————-
About the Author
Tiles Afshar, a political scientist, is the Project Director of the Middle East in the Near East Policy Research in Washington, DC