What Does the Green Movement Want from the United States?

 by Shayan Ghajar
www.insideiran.org

original article

The aftermath of the disputed June 2009 presidential election in Iran has left international policymakers in a quandary over how to approach diplomatic relations with Iran. The question currently facing the Obama administration is whether engaging Iran diplomatically regarding its nuclear program is possible while supporting Iran’s Green Movement and taking a stand against the repression and human rights abuses committed by the state.

Now that the Ashura protests of December 27, 2009, showed that the Green Movement has not lost momentum in the long months since the June elections, policymakers are asking, What does the Green Movement want from Western nations, especially the United States?

This question has no single answer, due to the opposition movement’s ideological diversity and grassroots nature. However, a survey of the statements of the Green Movement’s prominent figures, as well as editorials and essays from Iranians at home and abroad, show some general agreement on certain points.

Prominent Green Movement politicians and intellectuals have emphasized that the sovereignty and independence of both the Green Movement and Iran is an absolute priority. One prominent politician with ties to both Mir Hossein Moussavi and former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, namely Ataollah Mohajerani, has stated in an interview (Farsi language) with newspaper RaheSabz that, if pressured or attacked, the nation would temporarily set aside the domestic crisis to fight against any invaders. Moussavi has taken pains to distance himself from Western governments or ideals as well, saying in his latest address: “We are neither affiliated with Americans nor British. We have neither sent greeting cards for the leaders of any powerful countries nor are hoping for their assistance.”

The foremost concern of many Iranians in the opposition is the West’s diplomatic dialogue with the Iranian government over the nuclear issue. A number of prominent opposition figures feel that engaging with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gives his government legitimacy that it does not deserve. Foremost among them is Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, who once supported unconditional talks between the United States and Iran. Now, Ebadi says in an interview with Foreign Policy, “You cannot do business with the regime.” Only a government that supports human rights and is legitimately elected by the people, she asserts, can present a stable and constructive basis for dialogue.
Abbas Milani, Director of Iranian Studies at Stanford, describes the “business as usual” discussions with Iran regarding the nuclear program as no less morally offensive and inadvisable than “overlooking the infamy of apartheid and continuing to do business with the South African regime.” Continuing to remain silent about the Iranian government’s human rights abuses will alienate the Iranian populace and marginalize American influence in a future Iran, Milani asserts. His editorial may be found here.

Ali Ansari, Director of Iranian Studies at the University of St. Andrews, does not necessarily advise a complete severing of diplomatic ties with Iran, but argues in an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations that President Obama must speak out on the Iranian government’s human rights abuses. To remain silent, he argues, would alienate common Iranians by sending the message that the West cares only about security from the Iranian nuclear program instead of basic human rights. Criticism, Ansari asserts, doesn’t preclude engagement, nor does engagement preclude criticism. Thus, he supports a dual approach of diplomatic negotiations over the nuclear issue, and a strong moral stance on issues such as the arrest, torture, and rape of political prisoners.

Ansari raises another important point for Western policymakers in his interview: the diversity of the Green Movement and its lack of a definitive hierarchy of leadership is by no means a sign of weakness. Rather, the decentralized nature of the movement parallels previous attempts at reform in Iranian history, such as the Constitutional Revolution of 1906. The Constitutional Revolution, he points out, was a populist movement spearheaded by prominent intellectuals and religious leaders in Iran, much like the Green Movement, and took over a year to accomplish a variety of sweeping reforms that limited the absolute power of the government.

Regarding the term “revolution,” Ansari also notes that the Green Movement is not seeking a complete overthrow of the Islamic Republic, but rather sweeping reforms limiting the central government’s power.

Ansari’s interview also raises another concern of the Green Movement, namely the threat of American sanctions. Sanctions, Ansari stresses, must not affect ordinary Iranians, or Ahmadinejad will be able to scapegoat the West for Iranian economic woes.

Trita Parsi, of the National Iranian-American Council, and Muhammad Sahimi, a professor of engineering at the University of Southern California, raise an important concern regarding proposed sanctions against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in an article in The Hill. The IRGC has a vast network of companies and affiliates involved in everyday Iranian life, ranging from SMS messaging services to Internet service providers and telecommunications industries. Consequently, the authors argue, “it would be difficult to identify effective sanctions that can hurt only the IRGC, while sparing the regular population. Thus, the prudent policy would be to try to target the main figures of the regime individually.”

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal by Nazenin Ansari, an Iranian journalist based in London, and Jonathan Paris, a political analyst specializing in the Middle East, extend the idea of targeting individual members of the government, mentioning international visa and travel bans as another possibility.

Despite the diversity of opinions within the Green Movement, most agree that Western governments must demonstrate solidarity with the Iranian people by publicly condemning the Iranian government’s human rights abuses. At the same time, the West must not show too much support or interference or the Green Movement will be marginalized as a foreign-backed velvet revolution. Finally, regarding the nuclear issue, if sanctions are to be pursued, they must be specifically targeted to ensure they don’t hurt ordinary Iranians. Needless to say, this is a very narrow tightrope for the United States and its allies to walk.