Finding a nuclear deal with Iran doesn’t mean marginalizing human rights. Indeed, reducing fear of aggression will allow more space for debate on domestic political change.
No diplomatic deal to solve the Iranian nuclear standoff will be possible if it doesn’t allow Tehran’s leadership to proclaim some measure of victory – most probably a recognition of Iran’s right to enrich uranium for civilian reactors. This creates a profound dilemma for the United States and other Western powers who deplore the Iranian regime’s repression of democracy and human rights.
Anything that benefits the Iranian regime must be bad, right? Wrong. A nuclear deal that averts war (which would cause even greater human suffering in Iran) need not betray Iranian democrats nor preclude U.S. advocacy of their cause.
Ronald Reagan and other U.S. presidents made arms control deals with the Soviet Union while still seeking an end to its totalitarian empire. So, too, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney could negotiate verifiable measures to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons without undermining Iranian human rights and democracy advocates.
The objective of negotiations is – as it was with the Soviets – to eliminate risks of nuclear proliferation and war in the wider Middle East. The United States and Iran can continue to denounce each other’s political systems, counter each other’s power projection in the region, and seek history’s vindication of the relative merits of each other’s cause, but within a framework that precludes terrorism and hot war.
Iranian democrats and human rights activists are long-suffering. After the United States and the United Kingdom overthrew nationalist Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, Iranians experienced three decades of repressive rule under the U.S.-backed Shah. The 1979 revolution brought early hope, but the forces of democracy and modernity were soon crushed by acolytes of the Ayatollah Khomeini.
The presidential election of Mohammed Khatami in 1997 initially offered prospects of political reform and a reinvigoration of civil society, but again the reactionary theocrats and their praetorian Revolutionary Guard leaders reasserted themselves. The Green Movement that emerged after the rigged elections of 2009 inspired a new generation of Iranian liberals, but was unable to withstand the violent countermoves of the state.
Key leaders of the Iranian opposition are painfully wary of revolutionary discourse and violence. They know that democracy can’t be won by the point of a gun, whether their own or that of the United States.
In a 2011 report based on interviews with 35 leading Iranian human rights and democracy activists, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran concluded: “civil society leaders overwhelmingly reflect the opinion that an attack on Iran, no matter how limited in scope, would have ruinous consequences for Iranian society by entrenching the authoritarian regime, intensifying human rights abuses and likely thwarting the democratic aspirations of a large portion of the populace.”
Photo Credit: Wikicommons / Hamed Saber
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Matt
I don't know about that but what I do know it was a mistake to exclude Iran from the Syrian talks, because if Syria becomes a hot war regional and not domestic the Iranians will be at the table in the end game. The enemy gets a vote. The same really goes from the Saudi's being excluded. If Syria is attacked Iran will do the same they did in Iraq and send thousands and thousands of al-Quds into the insurgency. They have not done that yet, albeit they are helping Assad. So be it now or at the end game Iran is going to be there like it or not as distasteful as it is, the enemy gets a vote. That is the reality. I remember the trouble that caused us in Iraq. I am not pro Iran it is just the facts. The conventional battle as with Iraq is only the first phase, the second phase insurgency. It is easy to get into a war, not so easy to get out and the enemy has a vote in relation to that. The IRGC are not just going to let you take Syria as a prize without a fight, it is foolish to think that they will. Like with Iraq the cost is way less for them then it was for us in regards to operations, as they sit in their safe haven which is Iran and Iraq. Look at the casualties they can sustain via the Iran/Iraq war as an example. They kept us in Iraq for 9 years and that is us, you are not use so they keep that cooking in Syria for a long time. Anyway whatever.
Amir
Analysis like this shows how so called "experts" are in day dreaming and self deceiving state. "to promote democracy…not recognition of Iran’s right to enrich uranium for civilian reactors.." Really? having that right is the major thing that every one are agree in iran. This standoff help regime more than you think. they donot have to responed to many mis-management because nation is under threat by "enemies". Iran will continure the path in nuclear technology and I wish west was smarter than this. Extreme biases will not change this process.
Toney
U.S. talk on democracy for Iran is a JOKE for human kind. No matter what Iran has tried to negotiate or to do, the United States only wants one ultimate thing: regime change in Iran to ensure complete control of Middle East oil supply and maintain petrodollar system.
As it has been doing for decades, the U.S. wil find thousands of excuses and pretexts to topple the current Iran regime. So don't hide this goal anymore for the sake of human civilization because few people in the world are fooled by the western propoganda.
Iran authorities now face two choices: 1) Confront the West for its independence and dignity and prepare the sacrifice of hundred thousands or even millions of lives in the war against the U.S./Nato forces. 2) Appease the West and cease to be an independent nation like the Arab league countries. Your choice, Iranian people.
hass
First, the elections were not rigged — no evidenec of rigging has ever turned up, there was no reason to rig the elections as the losing candidate was himself a regime-insider and not a dissident, and finally multiple polls have shown that the people did in fact vote for Ahmadinjead.
Second, Iran has repeatedly and consistently offered many compromises on its nuclear program. As long as the US is using the nuclear issue as a pretext for regime change to suit Israel, and as long as the US is insistent on ignoring Iran's rights which are recognized by the NPT, then Iran isn't the problem here.
hass
First, the elections as the losing candidate was himself a regime-insider and not a dissident, and finally multiple polls have shown that the people did in fact vote for Ahmadinjead.
Second, Iran has repeatedly and consistently offered many compromises on its nuclear program. As long as the US is using the nuclear issue as a pretext for regime change to suit Israel, and as long as the US is insistent on ignoring Iran's rights which are recognized by the NPT, then Iran isn't the problem here.