On the evening of the 1st March, the Next Centiry Foundation hosted a working group to discuss the Kurdish issue in Iran and the Middle East. The head of the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), Mustafa Hijiri, was the guest speaker, and he raised his concerns about the corruption and illegitimacy of the Iranian regime. The following were his main points.
Firslty, he explained that the KDPI would not be taking part in today's Parliamentary election. He reasoned that, by doing so, they would be helping the regime keep up the pretense of legitimacy. Because the regime controls the candidates and the voting to the extent that their victory is guaranteed, if the opposition parties take part, their participation will be held up by the Iranian government as proof that they won a fair competitive election and are thus legitimate. Therefore, the KDPI feel that abstaining will have more of an effect than participating.
Secondly, Mr Hijiri contended that Middle Eastern stability was incompatible with the existence of the current regime, that now is the time for regime change. The main reason for this lies in Iran's progression towards nuclear capability. It is generally agreed that Iran will soon be numbered amongst those with nuclear weapons, so the international community must try and deal with the regime now while they still have a chance. The years of diplomacy, negotiations and sanctions have not worked - a different, more interferist approach is required. This sense of pressing urgency is combined with Mr Hijiri's observation that the Iranian people are now ready to stand against the regime. For years. the Iranian authorities have mounted major propaganda campaigns to convince the people of the need of nuclear weapons to protect against Iran's enemies, specifically Israel and the West. however, according to Mr Hijiri, people are beginning to understand that these authorities only want to protect themselves and their own power. Specifically, the poverty that has wracked Iran has served to make people realise that a regime that lets this happen while they role in wealth does not care about its people. Thus, the trust that the Iranian populace has for the authorities is on the wane as they realise that it is not the West that is treating them badly, but their own government.
In conclusion, Mr Hijiri called for Western intervention in cooperation with the Iranian population who also feel the need for regime change.
Mr Hijiri's comments were met with serious questions from the audience. One attendee pointed out that the West was not intervening in Syria where atrocities on a massive scale were occuring. Why would they intervene in Iran, where though we would all disagree with their mode of governance, the people are not being shelled daily? Mr Hijiri suggested that Iran was more strategically important to the West, and the prevention of Iran's nuclear arsenal combined with the support of the Iranian people would be enough of a motivator. However, just a brief look at the recent history of the West (specifically the US and the UK) in the region shows that they do not have a good reputation when it comes to intervention into the region. They are probably unwilling to do so again. Lastly, the current deadlock in the UN Supreme Council is likely to continue, further tying the hands of the West.
Hoewever, many would agree with Mr Hijiri's analysis that the West's strategic interests in preventing Iran gaining nuclear capabilities means that the situation is far different to that of Syria, and could therefore result in a far different reaction to the West. One poignant lesson from recent history is that, when it comes to serious security and strategic interests, some are willing to act without the blessing of the UN.
Firslty, he explained that the KDPI would not be taking part in today's Parliamentary election. He reasoned that, by doing so, they would be helping the regime keep up the pretense of legitimacy. Because the regime controls the candidates and the voting to the extent that their victory is guaranteed, if the opposition parties take part, their participation will be held up by the Iranian government as proof that they won a fair competitive election and are thus legitimate. Therefore, the KDPI feel that abstaining will have more of an effect than participating.
Secondly, Mr Hijiri contended that Middle Eastern stability was incompatible with the existence of the current regime, that now is the time for regime change. The main reason for this lies in Iran's progression towards nuclear capability. It is generally agreed that Iran will soon be numbered amongst those with nuclear weapons, so the international community must try and deal with the regime now while they still have a chance. The years of diplomacy, negotiations and sanctions have not worked - a different, more interferist approach is required. This sense of pressing urgency is combined with Mr Hijiri's observation that the Iranian people are now ready to stand against the regime. For years. the Iranian authorities have mounted major propaganda campaigns to convince the people of the need of nuclear weapons to protect against Iran's enemies, specifically Israel and the West. however, according to Mr Hijiri, people are beginning to understand that these authorities only want to protect themselves and their own power. Specifically, the poverty that has wracked Iran has served to make people realise that a regime that lets this happen while they role in wealth does not care about its people. Thus, the trust that the Iranian populace has for the authorities is on the wane as they realise that it is not the West that is treating them badly, but their own government.
In conclusion, Mr Hijiri called for Western intervention in cooperation with the Iranian population who also feel the need for regime change.
Mr Hijiri's comments were met with serious questions from the audience. One attendee pointed out that the West was not intervening in Syria where atrocities on a massive scale were occuring. Why would they intervene in Iran, where though we would all disagree with their mode of governance, the people are not being shelled daily? Mr Hijiri suggested that Iran was more strategically important to the West, and the prevention of Iran's nuclear arsenal combined with the support of the Iranian people would be enough of a motivator. However, just a brief look at the recent history of the West (specifically the US and the UK) in the region shows that they do not have a good reputation when it comes to intervention into the region. They are probably unwilling to do so again. Lastly, the current deadlock in the UN Supreme Council is likely to continue, further tying the hands of the West.
Hoewever, many would agree with Mr Hijiri's analysis that the West's strategic interests in preventing Iran gaining nuclear capabilities means that the situation is far different to that of Syria, and could therefore result in a far different reaction to the West. One poignant lesson from recent history is that, when it comes to serious security and strategic interests, some are willing to act without the blessing of the UN.
1 comment:
Great!
Post a Comment