In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, President Bush declared: "In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror . . . Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny — and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom." Unfortunately, many Bush-administration political appointees seem to care little for their commander in chief's policies. Richard Haass, director of policy planning at the State Department, has told his staff that he seeks to engage Iran one more time before he leaves his position in June. Zalmay Khalilzad, the National Security Council official in charge of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, also advocates engaging the Islamic Republic. While Bush recognizes that freedom and liberty require full regime change so that a secular republic can emerge, many in his administration cling to the notion that Iran can be reformed.
The vast majority of the Iranian people side with President Bush. And this isn't merely the judgment of a longtime exile. I helped lead student demonstrations for freedom of the press in 1999. When Ayatollah Khomeini ordered his "brown shirts" to crack down on the protesters, I went into hiding. The following year, I escaped and came to the United States. Every day, I speak to my Iranian colleagues and freedom seekers back home, who continue to hope that they might someday enjoy the freedoms we have here. While my friends and peers were overjoyed with the president's recognition that Iranians are "risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy," the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency continue to second guess and undermine Bush's policy and Iran's drive for freedom.
State is charged with executing America's foreign policy. Unfortunately, America's diplomats have developed an acute allergy to democracy in the Middle East. Their governing principle goes like this: 1) The leaders of Middle Eastern countries are our friends; 2) We don't want to do anything to undermine them; 3) Thus, the U.S. should stick with the status quo, no matter how corrupt and repressive are the regimes. QED. Little consideration is given to the oppressed people, who want only to live in peace and justice.
The CIA's history in Iran is much more tarnished than that of the State Department. It was the CIA that helped orchestrate the coup against Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh 50 years ago. The Iranian people have not forgotten who reinstalled the monarchy. It's a sad fact that the coup cost only $30,000 — one wonders whether it was worth it, when in 1979 America's embassy was overrun by fanatics? While the collective memory of many U.S. diplomats lasts no longer than their two-year rotations, the Iranian people remember with clarity the support the U.S. government threw to unpopular governments in 1953, 1979, and, yes, today.
Iranians recognize what many American policymakers do not. The same people who seized the U.S. embassy in 1979 — Abbas Abdi, Mousavi Khoeeniha, Masoumeh Ebtkar — are now the opportunistic and self-declared "reformists" whom the State Department embraces with open arms.
If anyone at State should understand that there is no reforming the Islamic Republic, it's Ryan Crocker. He served in Lebanon and lost a number of friends when an Iranian proxy group blew up the U.S. Marine barracks. And yet, Crocker (now deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs) runs off to Geneva to meet with officials of the Islamic Republic instead of just passing the messages to the Swiss, as was done in the past. How should imprisoned Iranian students react when their interrogators tell them, "See, even the Americans are against you"?
The State Department falls for token opposition members who maintain their links to the regime and take care not to push too hard. You can always tell who these quislings are, because of their immunity to retribution. For example, while newspapers were closed for publishing my organization's statement celebrating the demise of Saddam, the Islamic Republic hardly touched Iranian Democratic Front leader Heshatollah Tabarzadi, who never speaks too loudly or fights too hard to keep democrats and dissidents out of prison.
The Iranian people are more politically aware than they were in 1978, and they do not believe the U.S. would fall for such a sham. Instead, they assume the State Department is intent on repeating the mistakes of the European Union, which, after more than a decade of "critical dialogue," has nothing to show for it except a doubling of public executions in Iran and a trebling of contracts awarded to the family members of unelected and unpopular leaders.
It is strange that the State Department and CIA cling to the hope that theocracy will save the day in Iran, whereas practically every Iranian hopes for regime change. Not one American official has explained how reforms will lead to democracy in Iran, and for good reason: The Islamic theocracy can never morph into democracy. Deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage's insistence that "Iran is a democracy" would be laughable if so many political prisoners were not struggling for survival in Evin prison. It is not too late for State and the CIA to change their policies. They should support and not undermine President Bush's goals. Madeline Albright has apologized for past American errors. Better than an apology would be a pledge not to repeat the same mistakes.
— Roozbeh Farahanipour is executive director of the Marze Por Gohar party, representing Iranians who support a secular republic.
