Since 9/11, 2001, the Bush
administration has had the objective of spreading democracy and liberty to the
Middle East. However, after the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein and his
murderous regime, the Middle East has witnessed a series of events which have
undermined the initial optimism in bringing about democratic governments in the
region.
The situation in post-Saddam Iraq is one
such important factor that has undermined the project of spreading democracy in
the region. Iran’s nuclear project and the international crisis that it has
generated is another important factor in that regard. The enduring and deepening
crisis between the Palestinians and the Israelis and the destructive role of the
terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon, constitute still another set of factors
which have created obstacles to the realization of a radical change in the
Middle East.
However, the most important obstacle to
democratizing and liberalizing the Middle East – with or without the support of
the United States – is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
For more than 27 years, Iran has been
engaged in a regional and global effort to create a terrorist network as a vital
element in its strategy to spread Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Iran’s
atomic program is yet another instrument at its disposal to try to achieve
regional hegemony in order to counter the global spread of democracy and
liberalism after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
The difficulties that the U.S. has
encountered in Iraq have had two consequences. On the one hand, Iran has been
strengthened by the problems in Iraq – problems that are very much the creation
of Iran itself – and, on the other hand, there seems to be no support to bring
about regime change in Iran. This lack of support is evident both in the U.S.
itself as well as with the international community.
The important question now is how the
rouge regime of Iran should be handled.
As the experience in Iraq shows, regime
change in Iran through military intervention is not the optimal solution.
Instead, there should be a long-term strategy to democratize Iran by supporting
democratic and secular forces in the country.
It is unfortunate that the potential of
the Iranian opposition to bring about regime change has not been given serious
consideration. By giving the Iranian opposition the task of changing the regime
in Iran, the U.S. will be relieved of the burden. Furthermore, hardly anyone
would question the legitimacy of that political strategy.
A vital – if not the crucial – element
in the design of such a strategy should be the potential of the ethnic and
national diversity in Iran to democratize the country. In other words, support
for this diversity should constitute one of the central pillars of a long-term
strategy to reconstitute the Iranian state along democratic and federal lines.
Iran is a multinational country composed
of Kurds, Arabs, Balouchs, Persians, Azeris, and Turkmen. To bring about regime
change in Iran would have extremely positive consequences not only for the
inhabitants of the country, but also for the rest of the region.
Leaders of different organizations
representing the nations and ethnic groups of Iran gathered in a summit in
London on February 2005 to form a democratic and progressive opposition, named
‘The Congress of Iranian Nationalities for a Federal Iran’, to bring about
regime change, and to turn Iran into a secular, democratic and federal state.
The summit set the following principles as the basis for future activities and
cooperation:
