Lion's Den: A call for American boldness in Iran

A good first step would be to end an Iranian opposition group's preposterous listing as a terrorist organization.

June 23, 2009 20:12
3 minute read.
daniel pipes 88

daniel pipes 88. (photo credit: )


Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analyses from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.

As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.

For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:

  • A user experience almost completely free of ads
  • Access to our Premium Section
  • Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Report and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew - Ivrit
  • A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel

Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.

Thank you,

Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief


In a striking coincidence, two very different expressions of Iranian dissent took place simultaneously on two continents on Saturday, June 20. Between them, the Islamic Republic of Iran faces an unprecedented challenge. One protest took place on the streets of Iran, where thousands of Iranians, fed up with living under a religious tyranny, defied Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's diktat that they accept the results of the June 12 presidential election, whereby President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supposedly defeated his main challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi by a lopsided margin. The protesters and Mousavi have both shown bravery, but the former seem more radical than the latter. Mousavi's Web site announces that he does not seek confrontation with the "brothers" in Iran's security forces, nor does he wish to challenge the "sacred system" instituted by Ayatollah Khomeini. Rather, it declares, "We are confronting deviations and lies. We seek to bring reform that returns us to the pure principals of the Islamic Republic." This timidity stands in contrast to the bold stance of the street protesters who shout "Death to the dictator" and even "Death to Khamenei" - an echo of the regime's perpetual slogans "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," implying a wish not just to correct Khomeini's "sacred system" but an aspiration to terminate the regime dominated by mullahs. THE OTHER protest took place in a vast exhibition hall just north of Paris, where the largest and best organized Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, or the People's Mujahedeen of Iran, joined with smaller groups to hold their annual meeting. About 20,000 people attended it, including me. The assembly's most emotional moment came when the anxious crowd learned that their peaceful counterparts marching in Iran had been killed or wounded. At that moment, freedom of assembly in France contrasted most starkly with its denial in Iran. Later that day came confirmation of the regime's obsessive fears of the MeK, when deputy police chief, Ahmad Reza Radan, blamed MeK "thugs" for his own government's violence against the peaceful demonstrators. The MeK mounted an impressive display in France, as it did at the last meeting I attended, in 2007, with dignitaries, made-for-television pageantry and a powerful speech by its leader, Maryam Rajavi. Like the street protesters, she also called for the demise of the Khomeinist regime. In a 4,000-word speech, she steered blessedly clear of attacks on the US or Israel and excluded the conspiracy-theory mongering so common to Iranian political life. Instead, she: • Ridiculed the regime for portraying the demonstrators as Western agents. • Bitterly complained that corpses of demonstrators were "wrapped in American flags" and then trampled upon. • Condemned the regime's "crimes" in Iraq and its "export of terrorism" to Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and Afghanistan. • Predicted that "the beginning of the end" of the Islamic Republic of Iran is under way. • Critiqued the Obama administration for giving yet another chance to the regime, noting that the Bush administration had met its representatives 28 times to no avail. RAJAVI HAS RIGHTLY called for a stronger US policy toward Teheran, explaining in a recent interview that "the West can stop the nuclear program if it stands up to the mullahs." Sadly, standing up to the mullahs has never been American policy. Jimmy Carter meekly accepted their rule. Ronald Reagan sent them arms. To win their favor, Bill Clinton put the MeK on the terrorism list. George W. Bush did not foil their nuclear weapons project. And Barack Obama hopes to gain concessions from Teheran on the nuclear weapons issue by distancing himself from the dissidents. Instead, flux in Iran should invite boldness and innovation. It is time, finally, for a robust US policy that encourages those yelling "Death to Khamenei" and that takes advantage of the hyperbolic fear the MeK arouses in Iran's ruling circles (first step: end the MeK's preposterous listing as a terrorist organization). As US Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R., Michigan) notes, regime change in Iran becomes the more urgent if the mullahs will soon deploy nuclear weapons. The vital and potentially victorious movement building both on the streets of Iran and in the halls of Europe better represents not only Western values but also Western interests. The writer is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>

Related Content

Democratic U.S. congressional candidate Rashida Tlaib reacts after appearing after midterm elections
November 17, 2018
Reform Judaism can have Zionism or fringe Leftism, not both