Home > Uncategorized > US Needs to Negotiate with People of Iran, not with Its Illegitimate Regime

US Needs to Negotiate with People of Iran, not with Its Illegitimate Regime

September 3, 2015 Leave a comment Go to comments

President Obama has consistently asserted that the only alternative to the Iran nuclear agreement would be war. The b0afc08838c91428bac8ffa5f4b27665problem is that Mr. Obama has never envisioned trying any other option to tackle the Iran dilemma to see if it works or not. He has never been curious to know how the majority of Iranian people think about a regime, which against their will, has been ruling their country for more than three and half decades.  Instead he suffices to the lies of the Iranian regime’s lobbies that are available at his disposal in Washington to convince himself that appeasement policy with mullahs is the only way to resolve the Iran dilemma. During his term of presidency, the voice of Iranian civic movements inside and outside Iran has never gained his attention and political patronage. Since the beginning of negotiation in 2009 with the theocratic regime in Iran, Obama has never borne in mind providing moral boost to the democracy-promoting political forces of Iran. Neither has he shown political support for the tens and hundreds of protests of the Iranian people around the world.

During the national uprising of the Iranian people in 2009, in which the liberalist Neda Agha-Soltan was shot dead, Obama was busy writing secret appeasing letters to the criminal leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), who has stifled the spreading national discontent in the country for decades, a corrupt usurper that if stays in Iran, with the financial relief the deal has provided him, will be able to continue committing crimes against humanity inside and outside the nation’s border. Obama’s administration has on numerous occasions assured the mullahs’ regime that US will not pursue regime change in Iran. The theocratic regime sees that its survival is not, threatened no matter what it does. It sees, as does everyone else, that transgressions are, in fact, rewarded. These unnecessary and unjustified remarks, while have given a new life to the regime’s despotic rulers, have sucked the positive energy out of the Iranian dissidents.

The Iranian people ever since the 2009 uprising, and the Arab nations after the Arab Spring for that matter, have insightfully realized the painful truth that the US and its western allies not only have underestimated the ongoing violation of human rights in authoritarian governments but de facto have found them behind the tyrant regimes that cracks down their protests. The bitter tragedy is that the free world claim they are the supporter of democracy and human rights while subsequently they not only cave in to the repressive regime’s nuclear threat but they take such a rogue state under their merciful wings, which astoundingly portrays the artificiality of human spirit’s nobility. Above all, such negotiation of P5+1 with a rogue state as IRI, which uses blackmail and defiance of the international law, has helped this terrorist regime to find legitimacy in the global arena while forcing P5+1 to make tough compromise decisions with its shortcomings and inadequacies, a harmful lesson up for grabs for the rest of the rowdy states in the world.

Iran Deal Will Trigger War

Obama’s logic that “alternative to Iran deal is war” is misleading and faulty. Since the declaration of the Islamic regime in Iran in 1979, the government of Iran has been labeled by members of the international community of funding, providing lethal support, training, and giving sanctuary to terrorists. The US State Department describes Iran as an active state sponsor of terrorism. On the other hand, the IRI government has exclusively adopted Sharia as its foundation for political institution and laws that formulates its domestic policies as well as foreign policies, by which the regime has utterly been compelled to reject and undermine the general applicability of the international law and not to comply by it. In short, the regime’s infrastructure consists of hybrid mixture of terrorism and theocracy that make the explosive ingredients for such government to pursue its irrational behavior against the existing global norms and standards of civilization as the world has witnessed since it came to power three and half decades ago.

The fanatic regime however has currently been using taqiyya (Shiite doctrine of deceit) and disguised itself behind its smiling moderate mask long enough to hopefully be able to collect tens of billions of dollars from financial relief as part of the terms of the nuclear agreement, after which the turning point for the regime, and the world for that matter, will start. It would be the time for the regime to resume its expansionist regional project, inspired by the Iranian constitution’s preamble stating Iran must spread its Islamic revolution, which has been left idle for some time due to its catastrophic economy circumstances. The IRI constitution de facto proclaims the ideological mission of Jihad; any deal that ignores the purpose of the regime’s bellicosity will not only be unsuccessful but will endanger the regional and global security. This means the Middle East will witness the spread of even further chaos and hostilities throughout the whole region given that it would provoke other regional actors such as Saudi Arabia and Israel to enter the fray. There is also the danger that the regime would violate the terms of the agreement and undertake illicit work, which would make the case for US to intervene militarily. In either scenario, contrary to Obama’s misleading rhetorical claim that “alternative to Iran deal would be war”, it is the Iran nuclear deal that provides the potential to ignite the WAR in the region. In short, negotiation with theocratic terrorists doesn’t prevent war it just delays it, which is why the protocol clearly emphasizes “you don’t negotiate with terrorists.”

The American president John F. Kennedy compared the omnipresent threat of nuclear annihilation to a Sword of Damocles hanging over the people of the world. Damocles was an obsequious courtier in the court of Dionysius II of Syracuse, a fourth century BC tyrant of Syracuse. Damocles exclaimed that, as a great man of power and authority, Dionysius was truly fortunate. Dionysius offered to switch places with him for a day, so he could taste first hand that fortune. In the evening a banquet was held where Damocles very much enjoyed being waited upon like a king. Only at the end of the meal did he look up and notice a sharpened sword hanging directly above his head by a single horse-hair. Immediately, he lost all taste for the amenities and asked leave of the tyrant, saying he no longer wanted to be so fortunate. Dionysius had successfully conveyed a sense of the constant fear in which the great man lives. The history repeats itself, now it is the Iran nuclear deal, which acts as a Sword of Damocles that causes a prolonged state of impending doom and misfortune.

The Shortcomings of the Iran Nuclear Deal

The agreement permits the regime to keep far more nuclear-related capacity than it would need if it were interested only in peaceful civil application of the nuclear program. Also the entire exercise of negotiating with Iranian government is flawed given that it relies too much on trust of the regime. Under the terms of the Iran nuclear agreement, referred to Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the regime will be able to: keep almost all of its nuclear infrastructure intact; continue to conduct R&D on advanced centrifuges and after 8 years to industrialize them; have enough time (i.e., 24 day advance notice) to conceal the evidence on any undeclared non-enriching nuclear activities, which means the deal does not allow surprise anytime, anywhere inspection; to work and build ballistic missiles; position itself to break out of nuclear constraints when the agreement’s provisions expire and as a result the deal will fuel a dangerous nuclear arms race in the Middle East; do the inspection on its own of the site Parchin for any suspicious nuclear activity, albeit IAEA agency has issued the text of the confidential agreement, separate from JCPOA between UN’s IAEA and the Iranian regime with regard to the Parchin issue. Nevertheless it is imperative to understand while it is customary for IAEA UN nuclear watchdog to hold confidential agreements with normal democratic countries, given that Iranian regime is considered as a theocratic-terrorist state that does not comply with universal norms and standards concluding such agreements cannot be justified.

Additionally, in case the regime fails to comply with the terms of the accord, reinstatement of the lifted international sanctions by UN Security Council will be problematic. Moreover previously in the Old Security Council Resolution 1929 (page 5, item 9), the Council used mandatory language “shall not” where it said, “It decides that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons”. The new Security Council Resolution 2231 (page 99, item 3) however changes the mandatory “shall” to an inferior language “call upon not to”, where it says “Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles.” The question is why the inferior language should be accepted that changes the mandatory shall to a permissive call upon? Not to mention that going to UN Security Council before getting the congress’s input on the accord is just another step to undercut the US assembly. As part of another surprise of this pact, according to this nuclear agreement (language is included on page 142), US is going to help Iran protect their nuclear sites and systems from an outsider threat, i.e., Israeli attack. The agreement also provides Iranian regime with extensive relief from economic sanctions, which will fuel the regime’s ability to support dangerous proxies throughout the Middle East, which means the deal will make the world much less safe.

Finally it is imperative to mention the egregious human rights record in Iran has been overlooked for nuclear negotiation. The agreement fails to hold the regime accountable for its war against its own people, the P5+1 has literally turned blind eye to the regime’s horrors faced by the people of Iran. The regime has sought to cast an image of “moderation” after Hassan Rouhani was selected as President. In point of fact, Iran’s human rights situation has only gotten worse, Amnesty International reports indicates that the Iranian government has had the highest rate of execution over the last couple of years, since its establishment in 1979. US Policy makers should not forget that the Iranian people, who are the main target of the regime’s human rights abuses, should be considered stakeholders in these nuclear talks.

Alternative to Iran Nuclear Deal

In his speech “World Must Move in a New Direction” addressed to world leaders at UN Assembly’s 64th session in September 2009, Obama said “Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside.” By adopting the Iran deal and opening dialogue with theocratic Mullahs, the representatives of the stone-age wisdom, Obama has literally beaten around the bush. For many decades Iran was moderately considered among the secular pro-western states with fair economic growth in the region before the establishment of the anti-Western authoritarian theocratic regime of IRI in 1979 that has brought the people of the country and of the region and the world for that matter, nothing but fear and terror. In 1960s a series of social reforms in Iran was carried out, among which were women’s right to vote; formation of the literacy corps; formation of health corps; free and compulsory education; family protection act, which granted women more rights in the family; profit sharing for industrial workers; and urban and rural modernization to mention a few.

The course of world politics at the time however, was set on pursuing policies that were needed to stop the expansion of communism, and also those strategies that greatly benefiting the oil suppliers. The Guadeloupe conference on Iran, attended by heads of four Western powers including US president Jimmy Carter, was held on the island of Guadeloupe in France in January 1979 and concluded that Shah could no more stay in power. The Islamic revolution and the IRI regime have been helped financially and strategically and were given the required potential to be imposed upon the people of Iran against their freewill. The concept behind the theocratic establishment in 1979, beside the greenbelt strategy, was to put an end to newly rising democratic movement in the country. Albeit the liberal sector of the Iranian populace, whose number have dramatically been increasing during the last three decades, have been in defiance of the theocracy establishment covertly and overtly from the get go that the Islamic regime came to power. The grassroots uprising in June of 2009 confirms that large numbers of Iranians despise the Mullahs’ theocratic rule. The fact of the matter is that Iranian population today bifurcates into two main stems, the minor sector that consists of the followers of the Islamic theology with its head in leadership of the regime and the other major sector, which is against the theocratic government and is seeking a secular democratic government based on the principles of human rights.

Today it has been the focus of much concern and criticism from the Iranian grassroots regarding the pact that Obama has made with the regime’s mullahs while ignoring the voice of the oppressed people of Iran on the agreement, which is an implication of his endorsement of the regime’s dreadful human rights record at home and its active sponsorship of terrorism beyond the border. Obama’s notion that Iranian regime is deterrableis misleading for two reasons: first, for the reason discussed earlier the Iranian mullahs’ behavior is not in compliance with the free world standards and global order; second, a criminal can be contained as long as you hold a gun to his head but you should know what happens if he gets away with it, and per Murphy’s law if something can go wrong it always goes wrong and he can find a way to get away with it. Obama says that there are no formula and no option to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon better than the diplomatic initiative, which we put forward.  He also claims that the alternative to this deal is war. Again these are all misperceptions that have roots in his flawed Middle East policy, of course there is a better option and surely the alternative to Iran deal is not war.

First, stop the deal and any engagement with the terrorist mullahs, second, intensify imposing smart political and economic sanctions that target and paralyze the nuts and bolts of the leadership structure of the regime and not the populace, and third start providing political patronage for the people of Iran, and support their struggle, logistically and strategically to get rid of this illegitimate regime.  The timing is ripe, Iran’s economy has been going to sink and the regime’s hold on power has increasingly becoming unstable. The regime has never been so vulnerable to falling apart by the Iranian dissidents; its leaders fear the alliance and consensus of the Iranian people more than any external threat.  However, the Iranian protesters need the support of the global communities, they don’t want to witness another 2009 experience, when the wrong policy of the free world led to forestallment of the alliance formation, and instead decided to back and side with the terrorist-theocratic regime in Iran.

The people of Iran with or without external support will eventually prevail in overturning the geopolitical equations surrounding the destiny of their country in their own favor; the authoritarian regime’s attempts in silencing the dissidents and restricting their freedom would ultimately fail. The power of inner freedom has given the dissidents the courage to cross the line from living in fear and reaching the point to question the enemy of their liberty. They have learned that a moment living with dignity worth more than a lifetime living under ignominy. For more than three decades the theocratic regime has created a wall of separation between the Iranian people and the international community. The Iranian people want to join the free world, but such epic cannot be embarked on within the framework of the theocratic regime, it won’t work, it would be like carrying water in a sieve, all the efforts will go down the drain, there is a vital need for a regime change, the free world must respond, the leaders of free world must listen more closely to Iran’s dissidents. They must not ignore the insights of the Iranian dissidents, which remind them that dictators in particular of theocratic ones are not their strategic allies and are certainly not guarantors of long-term stability, it is the peaceful, secular, and democratic people of Iran that they need to rely on and truly align with in order to ensure the regional and global safety, security, and prosperity.

Mansur Rastani, PhD

Sept 02, 2015


The original article ” Alternative to Iran Nuclear Deal is the Iranian Dissidents” was posted in family security matters in Aug 31, 2015, the following link:



  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: