Freedom fighters vs. dissidents in Iran
Column by Shahram Ahmadi Nasab Emran
Understanding contemporary Iran and
crafting a successful Iran policy require making a key
distinction between organized freedom fighters devoted to the cause of bringing
about change in Iran, and various groups and individuals who
dislike the ruling regime. If we
equate all dissidents under the umbrella term “Iranian
opposition,” we only complicate our ability to recognize and work
with viable pro-change forces.
The terminology can be misleading. A
key distinction needs to be made between freedom fighters and dissidents.
Dissidents are those groups and individuals who are not happy with the
current state of affairs. There is no question that the majority
of Iranians and almost all Iranian groups in the diaspora
fit in the category of dissidents. Dissatisfaction with the status
quo and the ruling elites is both pervasive and unhelpful
in distinguishing among the different players.
The term freedom fighters, in contrast, is very
specific. It applies only to those who have stood up against the tyranny
and actively pursued regime change. The National Council of
Resistance of Iran (NCRI)–a coalition of
pro-democracy groups and individuals, was founded in 1981. NCRI has a
prominent presence in international political circles, and has been behind
numerous revelations about Iran’s secret nuclear program, including the 2002
breakthrough disclosure of the nuclear sites in Natanz and Arak, which
triggered the inspections of Iranian nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA).
NCRI’s pivotal member, the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), has been at the forefront of
the pro-democracy movement in Iran for over 50 years. MEK and their allied
forces have paid the highest price for their resistance; as many as 120,000 MEK
activists and supporters have been executed. Their courage and sacrifice for
the cause of freedom has been a source of inspiration for the young activists
inside Iran, who today depend on the MEK’s organizational capabilities to turn
current nationwide protests into an existential threat for the regime.
There are fundamental differences between the
MEK’s, NCRI’s, and other Iranian groups’ goals, organizational capacities, and
the role they can play in the process of democratic change in
Iran. The freedom fighters (MEK and their allies) launched their
campaign for regime change four decades ago. In contrast, most
of the Iranian dissidents, which include many groups with
various political ideologies, were until recently hoping for and supported
reform from within the regime. When Mohammad Khatami, the
“reformist,” became president in 1997, many of these
same dissident groups and individuals, including the former crown prince
Reza Pahlavi, supported him and his “moderate” allies.
These are crucial distinctions,which identify the true
players in Iran and in the Iranian diaspora.
After decades of desperate hope for the mythical
moderate mullah, most dissident groups and individuals, including the son of
the deposed dictator, have realized that regime change is the only pathway to
democracy in Iran. That is a move in the right direction, which should lead
them to support the existing coalition of Iranian freedom fighters, i.e. the
MEK and NCRI.
Instead,Reza Pahlavi is promoting an alternative
path for a “peaceful transition to democracy” in Iran. In recent remarks at the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy, he suggested that the
people of Iran need to get in touch with the repressive forces, such
as Bassij and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC),
because, he says,most of the rank-and-file of these forces and many
“highly-situated” members oppose the ruling regime and “want to be part of the
solution.”
Pahlavi is promoting a fantasy based
on wishful thinking and questionable “contacts” with even
more questionable IRGC“dissidents.”The IRGC has been and
remains the regime’s main means
of repressing the Iranian
people and slaughtering Syrians while propping up Assad. IRGC
funds, finances and supports Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, Houthi
rebels in Yemen, and Taliban extremists in Afghanistan. To think
that the IRGC might be a part of a solution
is beyond naivete.
Simple question: If certain IRGC members do
oppose the regime, why are they still serving it? If
they know what they are doing is wrong, horribly wrong, why continue?
The world community long ago rejected the “just carrying out orders” excuse.
Other distinctions are also critical.While Iranian dissident
groups are diverse, disparate and discordant, the MEK freedom
fighters are unified and organized, making themthe only effective force to
confront the regime. The NCRI is the longest-standing
political coalition in Iranian history, has declared a Plan for Future Iran,
and presents a substantive, viable alternative to the
ruling regime.
That’s a workable option we can all get behind.
Comments
Post a Comment