Response to UCLA student query: what's going on with Iran?
March 10, 2004

The following query is from AC, an undergrad at UCLA. Included in the response is a brief history of the conflict between Iran’s ruling theocrats and the contumacious student-activists. It is impossible to talk about Iran without mentioning their recent IAEA shenanigans, so attached is an editorial by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and John Kyl (R-AZ) in today's Washington Times. It has a good background on the diplomatic tussle over their nuclear program, which they’ve been lying about for decades, only now admitting their weapons plans.

The Council on Foreign Relations has an informative precis on Iran.

Joey:

I read that conservatives have taken parliamentary control in Iran (stop me if any of this is incorrect). I was wondering if there was actually a great disparity – an ostensible difference between the core values – between the "Islamic Revolution" and "Islamic extremism"? Because it seems that many view this implementation of Islamic values in Iran as political impediment to democracy in the Middle East (or I guess at least Iran).

AC

AC:

For quite some time now there has been a simmering conflict between the hardliner religious conservatives who rule Iran, and the reformers, who are nominally Western-oriented. Last month, the hardliners announced they were banning hundreds of reformers from the February 20th parliamentary elections. In response, the reformers announced they were altogether boycotting the farce. The hardliners feigned retreat, but in the end, on election day, 2,500 pro-reform candidates were barred from participation. It was a major victory for the hardliners and authoritarianism. Incidentally, a few people died in election-related violence.

Since the mid-1990s, hundreds of thousands of Iranian students have been taking to the streets calling for reform, and occasionally, an end to the regime. The regime, unappreciative, typically sends out thugs to beat the students and arrest the organizers. The students are also increasingly disillusioned with reformist politicians who are supposed to be challenging the hardliners, but are seen as being softish or extemporizing. The regime’s coercive rule has gotten harsher in recent years: since April 2000, they have shut down 70 newspapers and regularly jail and intimidate political opponents. A furor arose in July when a female Canadian journalist – arrested while taking pictures of arrested students – was beaten so badly while in custody she is now permanently brain-dead.

The Islamic Revolution occurred in 1979 – led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini – in which men of faith took power. This event is sometimes identified as the launch point of modern Islamic fundamentalism. In the least, it marks the first time they fundamentalists seized control of a functioning state; Sudan and Afghanistan would come later. The revolutionaries immediately set about implementing strictly interpreted Islamic law – establishing a modern-day theocracy, that is – and of course, jailing and executing opponents in standard autocratic fashion. Today, Iran has a parliament, but the mullahs – from the Arabic word for men steeped in religion law – possess a juridical omnicompetence embodied in the Guardian Council. A way to look at it is to imagine Congress passing laws, all of which are subject to scrutiny by a group of a dozen or so Christian fundamentalists with absolute veto power, and who have their own special praetorian guard.

The idea behind the Iranian revolution is the idea behind modern-day Islamic fundamentalism: Islamic societies have fallen behind the West because they have forsaken Qu’ranic faithfulness in favor of Western ideas and products, thus plunging entire societies into decadence, corruption and weakness. By establishing a state based on God’s law, a true and pure society will emerge, from which will emanate virtuous strength and divine approval.

However, as with all ideologically charged revolutions, the myths motivated them and the reality let them down. After it became clear that the promised utopia would not come to pass, the incendiary fervor wore off. Iran was once one of the richest countries in the region, but since 1979, these mullahs have by most standards run Iran into the ground. The economy is a mixture of inefficient central planning and government ownership of natural resources – read: oil and gas – the profits from which keep the regime afloat while working against diversification, a clear problem for oil-endowed economies everywhere. And the fact of the matter is that men who have spent their lives studying scripture don't make for the best economists.

Political and economic failure by the mullahs has created problems that will be difficult to deal with. Forty percent of Iranians live below the poverty line and 20 percent or more are unemployed; given that the median age of the 70 million Iranians is 20, this is an dangerous mixture. Besides being progressively pauperized with little prospect for improvement, Iranian youth don't seem to like living in a society where you get flogged for drinking alcohol, where you can't hold your girlfriend's hand in public, or where you are constantly monitored by thuggish morality police. All of this suggests that the hardliner theocrats and students will clash again, and soon. A recent poll done by the moderates revealed that 91% of Iranians were opposed to the regime, and nearly 45% welcomed U.S. hostility towards it. In fact, Ayatollah Khomeini’s grandson has denounced the Islamic Republic as a “greater and more ruthless dictatorship” than the Shah’s, and has called for the 82nd Airborne to parachute into Tehran. Above is a picture of anti-regime protesters in Los Angeles.

The rock-ribbed Iranian leaders have also pursued a radical anti-Western foreign policy, beginning with their November 1979 seizure of the US embassy, in which they held Americans hostage for 444 days. They have repeatedly called for Israel's violent destruction, and sometimes talk rather genocidally of Israel’s disintegration in a hailstorm of nuclear fire, a threat that Israel takes seriously, for four reasons:

1) Iran is a dictatorial regime, meaning its small coterie of leaders face minimal restraint on the part of the public or from other elites who would otherwise check dangerous or unwise action. The U.S., Israel, Russia, Britain, France, Pakistan, India and China have had nukes for a while, and everyone trusts that they won't do anything irrational or dangerous with them (North Korea, however, is a problem). Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack on Israel in October 1973 fully aware that Israel possessed nukes -- but accurately calculated that Israel wouldn't use them.

2) Iran is unstable, edging ever nearer to a revolutionary situation, which means that two parties claim sovereignty over the same territory. In times of upheaval, it’s best not to have nukes floating around for the victorious party to claim. This problem is downright horrifying with Pakistan.

3) Iran's leaders are men of faith, which is problematic. Fundamentalist religion is inherently absolutist: if Iran’s leaders are convinced that God is on their side, it cannot be on Israel's side, and their enemy must be God’s enemy (perhaps explaining why they call Israel the "Little Satan"). If the mullahs in charge spend half their day praying, what if God whispers something in their ears about the need to destroy Israel or avenge Palestine? These leaders operate according to a different logic than other states.

4) Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Whereas most countries promote their interests through persuasion or hard bargaining using military aid or trade concessions, the Iranian theocrats dispatch terrorists as a means of statecraft. They cause damage to other countries (which they can plausibly deny). If you do what they want, they call off their attack-dog proxy warriors.

Anti-American and anti-Western extremism have done much to thwart Iranian efforts to integrate into the global economy. But the pressure on them to do so, if only to salvage the regime itself, is powerful. In other words, they must sacrifice the revolution for entering the modern community of nations. An example of such a thing came in 2002, when Iran’s leaders agreed to suspend the stoning of female adulteresses in exchange for closer economic relations with the EU.

Another such of pressure is the U.S., which has made it clear it will not tolerate terrorist-supporting regimes nor rogue proliferation. Iran, all of a sudden, decided to allow IAEA inspectors (led by Mohammed el-Baradei, left) in to examine their program. Iran has lied about the program and it purported uses for decades, claiming they want nuclear power for energy needs – this for a country with the world’s fifth-largest oil reserves and the largest natural gas reserves. Or was it that the mullahs were big environmentalists?

I wonder if the fact that currently flanking Iran are two countries under U.S. and NATO command that together put 150,000 U.S. troops on their border has anything to do with it. In the face of intense criticism about the regime’s legitimacy following February’s elections, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei proclaimed that the winner of the election was the Iranian nation, while “The loser of this election is the United States, Zionism and enemies of the Iranian nation.” Somehow, I doubt that.

Joey

Pressure points
By Dianne Feinstein and Jon Kyl
March 10, 2004

In the year since it acknowledged construction of two facilities that could be used to develop fissile material for a nuclear weapon, Iran has done little to comply with its obligations as a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

This is in marked contrast with Libya, which has chosen full disclosure and active cooperation. In December, the regime of Moammar Gadhafi admitted it had been seeking nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons for more than 20 years and agreed to let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors dismantle these programs. In addition, the Libyans have since provided the IAEA with information on the nuclear-arms black market and the activities of A. Q. Khan, the Pakistani scientist who reportedly supplied components and designs for nuclear weapons programs to Libya, North Korea and Iran.

This week, the IAEA Board of Governors is meeting to discuss the progress made by these two countries in coming clean about their nuclear-weapons programs. The discussion will serve as a case study of the difference between cooperation and obstruction.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has praised Libya for its "complete openness and transparency" and predicted that Libya could be declared free of all aspects of its nuclear weapons program by this June -- six months after its initial decision to come forward.

Following meetings with the foreign ministers of Germany, France and the United Kingdom -- and in the face of an IAEA deadline -- Iran said it would cooperate fully with IAEA inspectors, allow snap inspections of its nuclear facilities and suspend its uranium enrichment program.

In October, Iran provided the IAEA with what it described as "a complete and final" declaration about its past nuclear activities. It turns out to have be en a fraud. Since then, IAEA inspectors have uncovered designs and equipment that could produce enriched uranium in great quantities, traces of highly enriched uranium at two facilities and traces of polonium, a chemical used to start chain reactions in nuclear explosions.

Further, Iran asserts that its decision to suspend uranium enrichment is only temporary. It continues to buy components, assemble centrifuges and test equipment for uranium enrichment. And it intends to sell nuclear fuel internationally.

Leaders in Tehran hide these efforts behind the claim that its nuclear program exists solely for energy development, but such an assertion is ludicrous given its plentiful oil and gas reserves.

While it continues its nuclear weapons development, Iran directly supports terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, and calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. According to the State Department's most recent report on international terrorism, Iran remained "the most active state sponsor of terrorism."

Last June, Iran also made some advances in its development of conventional weapons, conducting a successful test of the 800-mile range Shahab-3 missile. If operational, this weapon could alter the strategic balance in the Middle East, placing Israel and U.S. bases in Turkey within Iran's reach. Iran is also seeking to produce a 1,200- mile Shahab-4 missile.

Such behavior is very troubling. Coupled with its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, it constitutes a serious threat to peace and security. And make no mistake -- how we handle this situation will be closely watched by other rogue states.

It is past time for the IAEA to declare Iran in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council for further action. Failure to do so would undermine the credibility of the IAEA, discourage other states from cooperating with the international community and allow the continued spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons technology. In addition, any delay will only give Iran more time to work on its clandestine nuclear weapons program.

To prod our leaders to act on this issue, we have introduced a Senate resolution calling on President Bush and the U.N. Security Council to increase pressure on Iran. The resolution urges the president to work with our allies in requiring Iran to disclose its nuclear weapons program, calls on the Security Council to consider enacting diplomatic and economic sanctions against Iran, and insists that Iran cease all efforts to acquire nuclear fuel cycle capabilities.

Only a few years ago, Iran seemed headed on a new path of moderation and engagement with the outside world. The election of reform candidate Mohammad Khatami to the presidency in May 1997 signaled the potential for a dramatic change from the repressive rule of Iranian clerics. Yet, the clerics have barely loosened their grip on Iranian society, as demonstrated by last month's sham elections, which excluded thousands of reform candidates.

When you consider the laundry list of other recent Iranian actions -- support for terror, human rights abuses against religious minorities, suppression of the student-led pro-democracy movement and the continued influence of unelected hardliners and the military in the nation's affairs -- it's clear that we cannot allow Iran to become an even greater threat.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is a Democrat from California. Sen. Jon Kyl is a Republican from Arizona.