On Thursday (Oct. 25) the US slapped new sanctions on the Iranian regime’s elite military force, referred to as the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). They are said to be the harshest against the country in the past 30 years, and it is the first time the US has imposed sanctions on a military unit of another state. Aside from the historical and legal significance of the move, 3 full days have gone by in Iran, and the Iranian regime has been so psychologically astounded that it has banned public comments on the sanctions until further notice.
Here at home, two types of reactions have resulted from the sanctions. One argues that the sanctions are a prelude to military conflict. But, this is a hasty conclusion and it mostly takes historical parallels as its evidence. But, even if the American administration wanted to attack Iran, in the medium-to-long-term it simply cannot wage another full-scale attack. And, there is a lot of debate still raging in Washington regarding the effectiveness of small-scale strikes on the Iranian regime’s nuclear facilities.
The other type of reaction is more sophisticated. It says that although it’s late, it’s nonetheless necessary, but not at all sufficient.
It’s late because for the past two-and-a-half decades, the IRGC has been known to carry out terrorist activities all over the world, from Argentina to the Balkans, and from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia and the Horn of Africa.
The move is necessary because the IRGC is a significant actor (economically, politically, socially) in Iran. And, this stems from its role within the state. Its mandate is to safeguard the rule of the mullahs, by suppressing opposition at home and exporting their fundamentalist ideology abroad. In the economic sphere, the IRGC is reported to control more than half of the country’s exports and imports, netting multi-billion dollar profits each year, in order to fund the nuclear weapons program and the regime’s nefarious activities especially in Iraq and Palestine.
Moreover, the IRGC has been taking an increasingly dominant political role. The regime’s madcap president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a former member of the IRGC, and so were/are the nuclear negotiators, Ali Larijani (who was recently fired – not resigned) and Saeed Jalili (the current negotiator).
But, although the recent designations and sanctions are necessary in order to hamper Iranian efforts to export and consolidate Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Mideast, they are scantly sufficient. The US should convince its allies, especially, the EU to follow suit. The Americans should also designate the entire IRGC as a terrorist organization. Such policies strengthen diplomacy, and must therefore be broadened to include tougher sanctions at the UNSC.
But, far more importantly, married to such firm policies, the Americans should support the Iranian people’s aspirations for a free and democratic Iran. Let’s not forget that the Iranian people have been waging a steadfast fight to bring down the mullahs, sacrificing 120,000 of their sons and daughters to this end. It's time to have a dialogue with the Iranian people, not with those who murder them.
8 comments:
Thanks for posting this. The last paragraph was the most pertinent! By the way, don't know if you've heard about it or not, but I sincerely apologize for Ann Coulter's remarks. She's obviously either lost her mind or just doesn't know the meaning behind what comes out of her mouth. For the sake of all Iranians, I pray Iran will become free!
Here are a few paragraphs from the Natl Geographic article titled: Can Islam and Democracy Coexist?
Some of the people who say that democracy has no place in Islam, what they really express is a sense that the word 'democracy' as presented in international discourse appears to be wholly owned by the West," he said. "The word itself has, for some, a connotation of cultural imperialism. If you talk about representative government without the baggage of these institutions in the U.S., but on more idealistic grounds, then it makes perfectly good sense to a lot of Muslims. The idea of citizenry participating in government is, particularly within Sunni Islam, sort of a bedrock theory."
Bulliet adds, however, there is a minority that simply doesn't agree that democracy is right for Islam. "There are people who support the idea that Islam should be an emirate, that there should always be a ruler—the Taliban for example," he said. "You do have people who feel that autocracy is intrinsic to the Muslim system, and some of those people are on the violent side but some of them are not."
...
"Ultimately democracy could evolve a bit differently in different cultures," Safi explained. "It doesn't have to be a replica of the democracy we have in the U.S. You can't compare what we've achieved here as a society over two centuries with an emerging democracy, where people are just trying to test the boundaries and find out what democracy means."
Interesting post. I agree with Sarah, I was taken by your last paragraph and think that it ties in well with what Kansas Bob said at the end of his comment. How do you see Iran, democracy and Islam. Is there a current model in any diaspora Iranian population that have political alternatives?
Kansas Bob, that is a very interesting article. Do you think that the same question was asked about democracy and Catholicism in pre-modern Europe? This might provide clues as to how democratic movements may evolve (just a thought).
I think that the exodus of pilgrims, puritans and others from the church of England speaks to some desire that many have to be free of religious tyranny. I am not sure that there can really be democracy without the freedom of religion.. but that is from a very western weterner.
Reilly, you posed a very interesting question. I'll be sure to post something about Islam, Iran, democracy later. The quick answer to your question is yes, the largest Iranian opposition group is primarily Islamic, is 44-years old, and has deeply entrenched democratic ideals and values. Its leader is a woman, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi. The Iranian regime has unleashed a venemous propaganda campaign against this group in order to discredit it. If you search it in google, you'd find hundreds of websites bashing the National Council of Resistance of Iran, as a "cult," "a dictatorship," "terrorists," etc.
Thank you for your informative overview.
I had originally read that the entire IRGC was to be a "specially designated global terrorist", so your call for the Americans to "also designate the entire IRGC as a terrorist organization" confused me.
But apparently, only the IRGC's Qods Force was designated as terrorists under EO 13224, though the entire IRGC was also designated a proliferator under EO 13382. Both of these EOs apparently prohibit American transactions and provides the authority to freeze their assets, so I'm left curious what specifically the "terrorist" designation adds. Any idea?
Kevin, my most important desire is for the US and the world to recognize the Iranian people's inalienable right to oppose the religious dictatorship ruling Iran.
That being said, the IRGC has not been listed as a FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization). Do you know who is on the terror list instead? The people who are resisting this regime. They're on the terror list because the Clinton administration wanted to cozy up with Khatami in 1997.
For the past two decades the West has been pursuing such an appeasement policy towards the Iranian regime in the hopes that the regime will eventually change its way. But, not only did this not happen, the regime also showed its true face with Ahmadinejad.
Appeasement doesn't work and the West should move away from it while it still has time.
To answer your question, if I understood it correctly, the Iranian regime is standing up on its feet largely because of the IRGC. Designating the entire IRGC as a terrorist organization (which is reportedly what the administration was willing to do initially) would convey a strong message to the world that as far as America is concerned, the policy of appeasement is finished. So, that is why it is politically significant. The EU and even the UN should be pushed to follow next.
I think any moves to isolate the Iranian regime and weaken it would be prudent at this time. Moving away from the policy of appeasement and pressuring the Iranian regime through whatever leverages we have, short of military conflict, always strengthens our diplomacy with regards to dictators. Designating the IRGC is an important step in this direction because of its political and strategic overtones, not necessarily because of asset freezes, etc. Hope I've answered your interesting question.
Free Iran,
Thanks for your excellent response. You did answer my question by noting that the practical difference between "proliferators" versus "terrorists" may be rhetorical but it has political and strategic overtones.
It seems strange to me that the US would keep the Iranian resistance on the list of terrorists. Have they attacked or threatened to attack the US or its allies? Or have they targeted arbitrary civilians? To some extent, I would even expect the US to aid certain resistance.
Moving away from the policy of appeasement and pressuring the regime makes sense to me.
Kevin
Post a Comment