ایران نوین

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Iran- U.S. relation; Soccer Diplomacy, breaking the ice?



Soccer is no longer considered merely a global sport, but also as unifying force whose virtues can make an important contribution to society. The power of Soccer is used as a tool of social and human development, by strengthening the work of dozens of initiatives around the globe to support local communities in the area of peace- building, health, social integration, education and more. The history of Soccer goes parallel to the history of the World, and sometimes Soccer matches have been more noted for the political significance than for their sporting importance.

Therefore, when the thirty- two qualified National teams were split in eight groups for the 1998 France World Cup and announced that the United States and Iran are in group F, the match between them was mentioned as “The most politically charged game in World Cup history”.(1) In this regard, many including the international community, U.S. government and the people of Iran hoped that this Soccer competition could break the ice between two countries and begin a new era of friendship and bilateral political relation.

Since Khatami’s so- called election (2) in 1997, the Clinton administration made all sorts of gestures to say they would like to improve relations. That is why; these efforts were compared to Ping- Pong diplomacy (3) during Nixon’s presidency that led to restoration of Sino- U.S. relation, which had been cut for more than two decades.

However, did these efforts really work? There is no doubt that the both political regimes of China and Iran are totalitarian and have some common similarities, nevertheless do they have same essence? Have the international community and U.S. government known the true essence and complicated structure of the Islamic regime after two decades? Moreover, is the Islamic regime interested like China in 1971 to re-build the political relation with U.S.

Iran- U.S. relation is full of vicissitudes through out history. (4) Relations between the two nations began in the mid-to-late nineteenth century. Initially, while Iran (5) was very wary of British and Russian colonial interests during the Great Game, the United States was seen as a more trustworthy Western power, and the Americans Arthur Millspaugh (6) and Morgan Shuster (7) were even appointed treasurers-general by the Shahs (8) of the time. Before Millspagh and Shuster, Howard Conklin Baskerville (9) is a famous and respectful American teacher among Iranian who died fighting for Iranian democracy. He has been called the "American Lafayette in Iran”. Many Iranian nationalists revere Baskerville. Schools and streets in Iran have been named for him (10). During the Second World War, the United Kingdom from the south and the Red Army of Soviet Union from the north, both U.S. allies, invaded Iran. After the war, the Red Army did not leave Iran and planed to separate the province of Azerbaijan from Iran. On 24 April 1952, President Truman sent Stalin an ultimatum to pull his Army out of Iran and mentioned, “if you don't get out, we shall come". (11) This positive and friendly relation between the two Nations and Governments continued until the end of President Truman’s presidential term. From 1951 to 1953, the people of Iran and the elected and popular Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh (12) struggled peacefully and through International organization for national sovereignty and oil industry Nationalization against British Oil Company. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) Established by the British in the early 20th century, the company shared profits (85% for Britain, and 15% for Iran), but the company withheld their financial records from the Iranian government. American President Truman pressed Britain to moderate its position in the negotiations and not to invade Iran. American policies created a feeling in Iran that the United States was on Mosaddegh's side and gave Iran significant amounts of economic aid.  In January 1953, President Harry Truman second term was in its final day and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican was about to succeed him. At this time, Churchill, the British prime minister, convinced the Eisenhower administration that the only way to control Iran’s oil industry and confront communist activity in Iran is to overthrown Mosaddegh’s government. That is why, the MI6 and CIA planned successfully a coup d'état (13) in summer of 1953 which turned the history of Iran afterwards. The coup that Iranian cannot forget it, because they believe it stopped the process of democracy in Iran. It brought twenty- five years of dictatorship and oppression for the people of Iran, which led to a revolution that became Islamic. Stephen Kinzer in his book- All the Shahs Men- (14) argued that the 1953 coup against popular government of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh is the root of Middle East Terror. Nevertheless, the relation between Shah of Iran and U.S. in these twenty-five years was glorious and the Shah of Iran was the best U.S. allies in the Middle East.

When Iranians rose up for freedom and justice, Mullahs and Islamist were the only organized group in that time. Therefore, this group with support of Marxists who see the Shah as the symbol and representative of Imperialism in Iran could divert the freedom Movement of Iranian and that Uprising led to Islamic revolution and the domination of the Fundamentalists, reactionaries and the lowest social groups of Iranian. Only a few months later- on November 4, 1979-, a group of young fundamentalists occupied the U.S. embassy in Tehran and 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. Who was behind the scene and who took the advantages of this crises is still a matter of debate. At first glance, the people of Iran were the big loser and the Fundamentalist who eliminated the opponents inside Iran and the Republican that won the presidential election in U.S. were the winners (15). At this point, U.S. broke diplomatic ties with Iran, expelled Iranian diplomats, banned American exports to Iran and froze Iranian assets in U.S. From 1981(release of hostages) to 1997(so- called election in Iran and victory of Khatami) there are some direct conflicts and some behind the door dialogues between two countries (16). When Khatami with some twenty million votes became fifth president of Islamic regime in Iran, many inside and outside of Iran believed his promises during his presidential campaign. He promised a political reform and freedom inside Iran, and to defuse tension between Iran and the international community and called for dialogue among civilization (17). In first two years of his presidency and with great demands of Iranian and especially students and young generation for Change and freedom, Khatami could take some steps forward but this process was subverted. In the beginning, U.S administration welcomed this wind of change in Iran and showed different attitudes to start negotiation and re- building the broken political relation with Iran. In this regard, Sport and especially Wrestling and Soccer were the tools that they hoped could break the wall of mistrust and begin a new era. 

When in December 1997 the draw for the World Cup pulled together the USA and Iran in Group F, the World experienced different reactions and mostly positive.

In U.S., the reactions were positive and many who were concerned with Politics or Soccer welcomed this competition. It was discussed, since with Soccer neither of country was particularly successful, it protected both countries from great defeats that might hurt national pride and become humiliating (18). They compared this competition with Ping- Pong diplomacy which re- builds the China- U.S. relation. In Iran, there were some different approaches. The common people who believe strongly in Conspiracy theory said that it was the time for change. They argued that the invisible hands (including bankers, Oil company owners and secret Think- Tanks) which control the whole world manipulated the World Cup Draw that Iran and U.S. play against each other and it would lead to diplomatic relation. Many including intellectuals, students, women activists, liberal parties and Exiled Iranian hoped that the competition could help to break the ice and would start a direct and positive dialogue based on mutual respect and bilateral interests. The third group was the hardliners including the leader of the regime- Khamenei. In the beginning they kept quiet and then started to chant regular slogans against U.S., Imperialisms and western community and mentioned, “It is the Will of God (!) that the troops of Islam  (!) defeat the troops of Satan (!) and imperialism in the field of Soccer”(19) and promised a glorious victory in coming June.  

On Wednesday, June 10, 1998 began the 16th FIFA World Cup in Paris (20). Both U.S. and Iran National Team lost their first matches, therefore the importance of the competition increased. U.S. Soccer Federation President described the match as “the mother of all games”. President Bill Clinton sent message to the teams and supported Soccer Diplomacy. President Clinton had said that the United States and Iranian Soccer teams, which play each other in the World Cup on Sunday, could help end the estrangement between two countries. He said Washington wanted a genuine reconciliation based on mutual understanding. This would require the Iranians to move away from their support of terrorism and their opposition on the Middle East peace process (21). Earlier, Iran’s government welcomed what it called the “positive tone” of an American offer to start a new relationship; 18 years after diplomatic tie with Islamic Republic were broken. This response came from the Iranian ambassador to United Nation- Hossein Nejad Hosseinian- in an Iranian television interview. He said that Iran was now awaiting "concrete action" from the United States on its proposals. The ambassador was speaking in reply to the American Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who had offered to explore new ways of improving links with Iran. In a speech in New York, Mrs. Albright said it was time to look at the options of bridging the gap between the two countries(22). American officials said the speech was intended to develop the slight thaw in relations since moderate President Mohammad Khatami came to power in Iran last August. I think this was the most conciliatory speech by American Secretary of States and Iranian official’s response in nearly two decades.

However, this was not the whole story before the match has started. The leader of Islamic regime made one of the tensions. It was over the trivial matter of shaking hands. Team A was the U.S. and Team B was Iran, meaning according to FIFA rules the Iranian Team was due to walk towards the American before shaking hands. That was until the leader of Islamic regime Khamenei gave express orders that under no circumstances were the Iranian to walk towards their American counterparts. The matter was eventually settled but the issue was one of the matters that indicated in Iran there are different decision makers and any of them can sabotage other efforts. FIFA had done its best to keep the politic out of the game on the field, but had no control over what went on off the field. One of political brush fire (23) broke out before the match was ugly incident of the France hospitality when one of the televisions broadcast the movie “Not without my daughter”. This controversial movie grimly depicted life in Iran under the laws of religious fundamentalist. The Iranian Soccer Federation has field a protest with Soccer’s World governing body over the timing of the broadcast. Jalal Talebi- the head coach of Iran- called the movie “insulting” and accused the privet French network that broadcast it of deliberately trying to roil political waters and added, “ In the World Cup, every one speaks of unity, love and togetherness, and somebody shows this film. Nobody can benefit”. Then off the pitch an Iraqi- based terrorist organization- Folks mojahedin(24))- bought 7000 tickets with the attempts to hijack the game. However, under strict instruction, TV camera- men avoided airing the offending protesters. Indeed, it was the most controversially event in 1998 World Cup.  Hugh dauncey and Geoff Hare mentioned in the book “France and The 1998 world cup” (25) that the security failed for England- Germany, but worked for Iran- USA. They continued, this match was a major test for security and the French authorities and Television coverage did the best to prevent the game from becoming a propaganda event for this specific opponent of the Iranian regime. (26)

The game itself was surprisingly sportsman like. Both side presented another with gifts and flowers and stood together for a photograph before the match kicked off. Iranian intentionally chose white rose as a symbol of peace in Iran.

Then the Swiss referee blew the whistle for the start of the probably the most political charged match in the history of World Cup. The game was everything the Iranians could have hoped for. Ii was a competitive, full- blooded but fair contest. The new arrangement of Sampson- the U.S. head coach- for this game brought more energy for U.S. to attack, and to put Iran on their heels. Sampson’s all- offence concept started off well enough, particularly with tree good scoring chances in first 15 minute. However, Iran began to counter-attack. Both teams cancelled each other and the ball traveled all over the pitch, and suddenly, around the twentieth minute, German bundesliga forward- Khodadad Azizi- created a dangerous one-on-one moment but Keller felled Azizi as he was about to enter the U.S. box. Surprisingly, the man in the middle from Switzerland who had to show Keller a red card remained neutral. Short before the end of first half, Javad Zarincheh played give-and-go outside the U.S box with Mahdavikia, carried the ball toward corner and crossed it past U.S sweeper Thomas Dooley. The ball found the head of midfielder Estili near the penalty spot, and he flicked a perfectly placed header shot into the upper-left corner of the goal. Estili ran down the field screaming after the goal. This euphoric celebration was reminiscent of Tardeli’s (27) when he scored in 1982 World Cup final. In the second half, the U.S. had to put more pressure to get an equalizer as the match intensity grew. The Iranians fought hard, stood well in defense, and was increasingly dangerous on their counter-attacks with their quick strikers.  In one of the counter-attack, Mahdavikia ran onto U.S. field with no one between him and goalkeeper Kasey Keller. Defender David Regis could not catch Mahdavikia before he entered the box and fired a shot into the right corner past a diving Keller. Only three minutes before time the Columbus Crew striker, Brian McBride scored on a diving header. At the score 2-1 the Iranians were very nervous, and the Americans had some good chances. Nevertheless, the score held to the end of the match. This victory was very important for Iran, as it also represented their first World Cup victory ever. So many Iranians all over the world regarded this game as a way of regaining due respect.

The reactions to Iran’s victory were very interesting but no one did care about the negative ones from both sides. President Clinton who was in China at that time, said that the U.S. defeat was very bitter but they beat us in a fair play (28). Jeff Agoos- the U.S. defender said,” we did more in 90 minutes than the politician do in 20 years”. One who missed the point of the game was Brent Musberger of ABC TV that proudly proclaimed “Three-nil, American all the way, BABY” before the match and during it pronounced Iran as “Ear-rrrrrrrrrraan”, said finally,” you beat us in Soccer, so what? We can still carpet bomb your country in three days”. The leader of Islamic regime sent message to the people of Iran and repeated the ordinary slogans of the regime’s leadership in last two decades. However, the Iranians reaction was extraordinary, feared the Islamic Regime and brought great joy to the streets in all around the Iran (29). The happiness in unhappy society. The happiness, that kept behind the closed doors in last two decades. Hundreds of Thousands of young people partied in the streets in defiance of government warning. It was good excuse for boys and girls to mix and dance, and in a way, it was political, because it was a demand for social change. It was the night when nobody slept and the regime could just watch the explosion of passion and defeat of its cultural revolution that it has been sought since 1979. It also brought Iranian around the World altogether. There were a lot of expatriate Iranian all over the world who hate the regime, nevertheless cheered the National Team.

This match proved the U.S. Administration and the Iranian government that Sport and especially Soccer could be used as a tool to break the mistruth wall between to countries. Hence, the two Soccer Confederations agreed to hold two friendly matches first in California and the in Tehran. Consequently, in January 2000, U.S. and Iran played before a lively pro-Iranian Rose Bowl crowed of 50000 in the first meeting on domestic soil. Iran scored the first goal by Mehdi Mahdavikia in the 7th minute U.S   equalized by Chris Armas in 48th minute. 

Only a few months later the leader of Islamic regime and his cliques, who were afraid of powerful demands of social and political change inside Iran, and détente with outside World, disabled the so-called reformist and moderate Government of Khatami. First, with the tool of judiciary system, 80 newspapers and magazines were prohibited in only one day and imprisoned tens of journalists with this Leader’s argument that the Papers became the enemies’ base in Iran. Then some reformer members of Parliament sentenced to jail. They even banned some parties whose members had got important roll in regime since the revolution but disagreed with the dictatorship of the leader. In this process, the president of regime announced that he had no more influence, and the Country is controlled by others (he was afraid to mention whose persons or which organs).

That is why Soccer diplomacy, which many compared with Nixon’s Ping- Pong diplomacy being forgotten. However, how did work Ping- Pong diplomacy and did not work Soccer diplomacy? Was it the matter of Sports, diplomatic approaches, the leadership or the structure of regimes? Nixon’s Administration verses Clinton’s. Mao leadership verses Khamenei!

Since Sport diplomacy may transcend cultural differences and bring people together, Ping-Pong, Soccer, Wrestling, Boxing and Cricket are examples that were applied from time to time to serve that goal.

Nixon Administration knew that Mao Zedong was still the most powerful man in China, supported the Prime Minister- Zhou Enlai- and only some voices in Communist Party- including Mao’s wife-  could interrupt the reconciliation process.

Regarding Iran, Clinton Administration counted too much on President Khatami who won the election with some twenty million votes that showed the potential of the society for political reform and even radical change. Nevertheless, they underestimated two important factors. First were the feeble character of Khatami and his fear of change that could lead to the collapse of Islamic regime. Second factor was and still is the roll of leader of the regime- Ali Khamenei.

From the dawn of the revolution, the leadership of the Islamic regime has always been afraid to be overthrown whether from the people of Iran or west powers. Because they know that the demand for freedom, democracy and justice are very much powerful inside Iran and the achievement of these demands in the Islamic system is impossible. Islam itself is a discriminating religion. It discriminates non-Moslems in favor of Moslem and woman in favor of man, etc. Furthermore, in such system, there must be only one legitimate voice and view to keep such ideological system alive that is totally in contrast with freedom and democracy. At the same time, they are afraid to be overthrown by western power and especially U.S government. That is why they should control and when it is needed eliminate the voices inside; and if they want to normalize and reconcile the relation with U.S., they ask for security assurance. The Nixon administration could give China such assurance regarding the conflict matter with Taiwan. The Clinton administration on the other hand, could not offer the regime of Iran such assurances. One reason is the behaviors of the Islamic regime that violet the international peace and security. Then, the Israel and its powerful lobby’s in U.S. Not only does not Israel agree with the reconciliation of U.S.Iran, but also request it the U.S. to attack Iran and destroys the Iranian nuclear facilities and its army bases. In this regard, the Nixon administration left its option open and could use all options that Clinton’s could not.

In comparison, the new evidence (30) on both sides (U.S. - China) bear out the shared Realpolitik logic that identified the Soviet Union as the more serious threat for each of them and reasoned that dampening mutual hostilities would allow each to concentrate on managing the Soviet’s threat as well as gaining additional leverage over them. On the contrary, such a question did not apply in the case of Iran.

The diolouge and political relation with U.S. was Taboo both in China and Iran. Nevertheless, Mao had already redefined the Imperialism toward Soviet as the “ Socialist Imperialist”. In Iran on the contrary, the definition of Imperialism remained the same since 1979 and the slogan of “ death to America” is repeated every Friday in the regime organized ceremony of “Friday pray”(30).

Furthetmore, The nixon administraition applied all possible tools to begin a new era with China and through which play the “china card” against Moscow even before the openning(31). On the other hand, The clinton administration applied the Carot and Stick policy toward Iran; The economic sanction continued and at the same time it showed various gesture to start negotiation.

The U.S administraion and the Islamic regime always emphesis on pre- condition to start the direct negotiation. The regime of Iran asked U.S. to free the Iran’s assets in America and not to interfere in Iran's internal affairs. U.S. asked Iran to stop the violation of Human Rights in Iran, to stop supporting the fundamentalist groups like Hamas and to recognize Israeil’s existance as a country and not violated the peace process between Palestain and Israel.

Finaly, the regime of Iran always needs an enemy to divert all attentions from mismanagments, coruption, violation of Human Rights, economic crisis and the poverty in one of the most richest countries in the world. The destructive weapone of religion as an idealogy that does not accept any reforms and is in contrast with the powerful and ancient Culture of Iran is getting more and more insuficient and only an outsider enemy and brutal and continous repression inside the country can keep this regime in power. Cosequently, which enemy is more legitimate than U.S. as the symbol of democracy in the world for the people of Iran and as the symbol of Imperialism, the enemy of Islam and moslems for the Islamic regime?

By: Nima Nasserabadi
Feb.2013





2)                      In the Islamic Republic of Iran, there is actually any presidential election, but rather there is a selection. It means that the guardian council, whose members were elected by the un-elected leader of regime, selects a few candidates and these candidates can run for the presidency.

3)                      http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/olympics/100660.htm  & http://www.historyinanhour.com/2011/04/10/ping-pong-diplomacy/   & also Melvin Small, A companion to Richard Nixon, 2011, Chapter Twenty- tree, Published by Blackwell Publishing

4)                      http://www.parstimes.com/history/us_iran.html

5)                      http://www.iranchamber.com/geography/articles/persia_became_iran.php

6)                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Millspaugh

7)                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Shuster

8)                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah

9)                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Baskerville

10)                   http://www.jadidonline.com/images/stories/flash_multimedia/Baskerville_tabriz_test/bas_high.html  ( Documentary in Persian)

11)                   http://www.ardeshirzahedi.org/zahediwarns.html

12)                   http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/

13)                   http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/1953/

14)                   https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html - Stephan Kinzer, All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, 2003, published by John Wiley and son Inc., Hoboken, New jersey

15)                    In Iran, some political organizations and parties condemned the hostage taking, in spite of the fact that Khomeini (the so- called leader of revolution) supported that. At the same time, the hostage takers revealed and published hundreds paper of the U.S. embassy documents and claimed that some opposition figures were in contacts with U.S. and called them the spies of C.I.A. One of the most famous Iranian politicians who was imprisoned and is still in Islamic regime prison is the deputy prime minister Abbas Amir Entezam (http://www.entezam.org/ ).  

16)                    1986: Revelations emerge of an American deal to exchange arms for Iranian help in freeing hostages held in Lebanon (The Iran- Contra Affair): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/ .1988: The USS Vincennes mistakenly shoots down an Iran Air flight over the Persian Gulf killing 290 people.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707.stm . 1993:  The United States implements a policy toward Iran and Iraq known as "dual containment" in an effort to isolate both countries and contain their regional ambitions.     

17)                   http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/07/iran/interview.html   . This Khatami’s slogan was in contrast with Samuel Huntington’s “The clash of Civilization”.         

18)                   http://publicandculturaldiplomacy4.wordpress.com/page/5/    

19)                   Abrar e Varzeshi, 1997- Iranian Sport News Paper

20)                   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_FIFA_World_Cup

21)                   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/115789.stm

22)                   The New York Times, Jun 18, A, 1:1

23)                   Amy Shipely and Anne Swardson, The Washington post, Jun 19- C, 8:1,1998


25)                   Hugh Dauncey & Geoff Hare, France and the 1998 World Cup, 1999, Published by Frank Cass London- page 178


26)                   It is true that most of the Iranian is against the Islamic Regime in Iran. But at the same time, they are strongly opposed this Armed Terrorist Organization based in Iraq which was supported by former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hossein.

27)                   Jomhouri- Eslami, June 1998- Iranian News paper

28)                   The New York Times, Jun 21, 1998, VIII, 1:1

29)                   Melvin Small, A companion to Richard Nixon, 2011, Chapter Twenty- tree, Published by Blackwell Publishing

30)                   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumu%27ah

31)                   Dexter Perkins, The Diplomacy of new Age, 1967, Indiana University Press, Published by Bloomington and London


اندیشه های مصدق کدامند؟


پس از انجام کودتای 28 مرداد سال 1332 و پايان کار دولت ملی دکتر مصدق، در زمانهای مختلف مبارزه آزاديخوهانه، از مبارزات (نهضت مقاومت) به رهبری مرحوم آيت الله رضا زنجانی، تا مبارزات (جبهه ملی دوم) به رهبری شادروان الهيار صالح و سپس (جبهه ملی چهارم) تاکنون پيروان راه مصدق و هواداران جبهه ملی، همواره از مکتب و انديشه های مصدق الهام گرفته و از آن ياد کرده و می کنند. بيان دوباره اصول انديشه های اين بزرگ مرد تاريخ معاصر شايد فرصت تازه ای باشد برای انديشيدن پيرامون گوشه ای از تاريخ مبارزات سياسی اخير کشور که برای همه ما لازم و ضروريست. درست است که نمی توان و نبايد در گذشته زندگی کرد ولی آگاهی از گذشته برای جلوگيری از تکرار اشتباه در جهت ساختن حال و آينده لازم است. آگاهی از گذشته اگر باعث شود در گذشته زندگی کنيم می تواند ما را از درک واقعيت های امروز جهان و ايران و در نتيجه يافتن راه کارهای درست برون رفت از شرائط ناگوار کنونی و ساختن آينده ای آزاد باز دارد

مصدق فرزند نهضت مشروطه بود و همواره به اصول قانون اساسی آن وفادار ماند. سخنان و هشدار او در مجلس شورای ملی هنگام طرح خلع سلسله قاجار و انتقال پادشاهی به خاندان پهلوی و همچنين نسبت به نقض قانون اساسی و پيشگويی استقرار مجدد استبداد پادشاهی، ضمن آنکه از روشن بينی و آينده نگری او حکايت دارد نمونه بارزيست از وفاداری او نسبت به قانون اساسی مشروطيت و وفاداری او به اصول آرمانی. بدليل همين وفاداری بود که مبارزات ملی و آزاديخواهانه مصدق همواره در چهارچوب قانون اساسی انجام گرفت. روشن است که تفاوت بنيادينی ميان قانون اساسی مشروطه و قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی وجود دارد و اين ادعا که مبارزات آزاديخواهانه کنونی می بايست در چهارچوب قانون اساسی اسلامی صورت پذيرد، ادعائی دور از واقع بينی است. قانون اساسی مشروطيت خون بهای مبارزان راه آزادی و ترقی ملت ماست در حالی که برای پايان بخشيدن به عمر قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی هزاران تن از بهترين فرزندان ملت جان خود را فدا کرده، راهی زندانها شده و يـا ناگزيـر بـه جلای وطن گرديده انـد. بديهی است که در شرايط کنونی راههای سياسی و بدور از خشونت، بهترين راه تحقق آرمانهای ملی و تاريخی است و اين سردمداران نظام کنونی هستند که می توانند با پافشاری در مخالفت با خواست های عادلانه مردم و اتخاذ شيوه های نادرست و سرکوبگرانه مسير مبارزاتی را به سوی حرکت های قهرآميز سوق دهند

اصولی بودن مصدق نشان دهنده وفاداری او به اصول اعتقادی و آرمانی او بود، چيزی که آزاديخواهان و بويزه برخی از پيروان انديشه های او در انقلاب اسلامی باندازه کافی به آن توجه نداشتند. مصدق با اعتقاد به اينکه مبارزات نهضت مشروطيت تنها برای کوتاه کردن استبداد پادشاهان خودکامه نبود، بلکه در جهت کوتاه کردن دخالت دکان داران دين در امور اجتماعی، قضائی و سياسی کشور هم بود، در دوران زمامداری خود هيچگاه امکان نداد آيت الله کاشانی - نماد آنروز روحانيت - در امور مملکت دخالتهای ناروا بنمايد. مصدق از جمله به اين دليل چهرة برجستة نهضت آزاديخواهی ايران بشمار می رود که همواره به اصل جدايی دين از حکومت وفادار ماند

مصدق معتقد به آزادی و حاکميت قانون بود و برای تحقق آن حضور نيروی مردم را در صحنه سياسی کشور ضروری می دانست و آگاه بود بدون پاگيری احزاب، سازمانهای سياسی و اتحاديه های کارگری و صنفی امر آزادی در کشور اگر هم تحقق پذيرد پايدار و ماندگار نخواهد بود، از اين رو شرط عضويت در شورای مرکزی جبهه ملی را موکول به نمايندگی سازمانها کرد

در پاسخ اين پرسش که چرا مصدق خود اقدام به تأسيس يک سازمان سياسی - به مفهوم حزبی آن - نکرد؟ باور من اين است که مصدق از جايگاه ملی خود در ميان توده های مردم آگاه بود و اعتقاد داشت که وابستگی به يک جزب می تواند اين پايگاه را آسيب پذير سازد و کارآئی او را بعنوان يک رهبر ملی کاهش دهد که بی شک به سود مبارزات ملی نبود

مصدق اعتقاد داشت روزنامه ها و اصولاً رسانه های گروهی بايد آزاد و مستقل از دولت باشند از اين رو مراتب را طی نامه ای که به شهربانی کل کشور نوشت اعلام داشت که چنانچه نشريه ای او را مورد حمله قرار داد مورد تعقيب قرار ندهند، ضمن آنکه اين حق را برای همه شخصيت های مملکتی قائل بود که چنانچه به ناروا مورد توهين و تهمت قرارگيـرند نسبت بـه احقـاق حق خود اقـدام کنند

ملی شدن صنعت نفت از ديد مصدق و ياران او باعث می شد نه تنها درآمد حاصل از اين ثروت طبيعی در خدمت پيشرفت و ترقی مملکت قرار گيرد بلکه مهم تر از آن باعث قطع نفوذ بيگانه و تأمين استقلال کشور می شد. مصـدق معتقد بود کـه ايـران بـدون استقلال کـامل سياسی واقتصادی و اقتدار حکومت قانون نمی تواند به فقر و عقب ماندگی نقطه پايان گذارد و در مسير پيشرفت و ترقی قرار گيرد و با کاروان تمدن جهان همراه و همگام شود. مصدق معتقد به اقتصاد بدون نفت بود و اعتقاد داشت که چرخهای اقتصاد کشور، بايد بدون وابستگی به درآمد نفت بچرخد تا بيگانگان نتوانند با تحريم فروش نفت اقتصاد ايران را فلج کرده و خواستهای نامشروع خود را تحميل نمايند و بدين ترتيب باستقلال کشور لطمه وارد آورند، او اتکاء اقتصادی کشور را تنها به درآمد حاصل از فروش نفت فاجعه آميز می دانست، چيزی که امروز به عنوان کشورهای تک محصولی معروف گرديده و نشان داده است که کشورهای متکی به توليد و فروش تنها يک يا دو فرآورده همواره نيازمند به خارجی بوده و در برابر پايين آمدن قيمت ها آسيب پذيرند. او معتقد بود از درآمد نفت و ساير معادن کشور بايد برای افزايش توان توليدی کشور، ايجاد واحدهای صنعتی، رفع بيکاری و بالا بردن ثروت ملی استفاده نمود

امروز که در اثر 26 سال تسلط حکومت جور و فساد، نابودی و کشتار، شيرازه امور کشور از هم گسسته شده و دولت به مفهوم واقعی آن در ايران وجود ندارد، انديشه های مصدق می تواند راهنمای باارزشی برای نسل جوان و به ويژه پيروان راه او باشد. برای رهايی از شرايط دردناک کنونی، حضور مردم در صحنه پيکار آزاديخواهانه لازم و ضروری است که تنها در سايه ائتلاف حول محور خواستهای مشترک امکان پذير است. در نجات ايران، از شرايط مرگبار کنونی، همه مردم بايد سهيم باشند، همانگونه که در سازندگی ايران فردا نيز همه بايد شرکت داشته باشند. تنها راه پديد آمدن اين همبستگی ملی، تشکل حول آرمانهای تاريخی است. امروز شعارهای آزادی، مردم سالاری و جدايی دين از حکومت می تواند عامل بزرگ پيدايش اين همبستگی ملی گردد

تاريخ نشان داده است که هيچ خودکامه و ستمگری نمی تواند مدت زيادی در برابر فشار خواست و اراده مداوم مردم تاب آورد و دير يا زود از ميان برداشته می شود. با اعتقاد به آگاهی و اراده ملی و با وفاداری به ارزش و آزادی مردم در تعيين سرنوشت سياسی خود است که می توان به راه و انديشه های مصدق وفادار ماند. چنين باد

مهندس هوشنگ کردستانی

اردیبشت 1384 خورشیدی



Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Why Argo is hard for Iranians to watch. آرگو، فیلمی که به مذاق ایرانیان خوش نمی آید


People usually go to the cinema for entertainment, especially when it comes to Hollywood movies, but when I went to watch Ben Affleck's Argolast week I knew beforehand that it was going to be a rather painful experience. Temptation outweighed the agony, I'm afraid.

I had prepared myself. "It's a film, not a documentary," I had tried to remember. But the claim that it was "based on a true story" created greater expectations in me. I didn't try to fact-check – although others have done with some disappointment – but other things caught my attention.
First, it was Affleck's desperate attempt to make a film set in Iran without having been either there in person or able to shoot within its borders. Having chosen to film in Turkey instead, Affleck has done his best – well, the best you can when making a film about Iran by shooting in a neighbouring country.
To be honest, the locations are not too bad. Buildings are similar to those in Iran, the houses are not that different, the bazaar is quite like the actual shopping centre in south Tehran. Banners, placards and signs are in Persian and many characters actually speak the language, although some with accents.
There are silly mistakes, however. In one scene, for example, the protagonist Tony Mendez (Affleck) says "salam" at the end of his conversation with an Iranian official. Salam means hello in Persian, not goodbye.
Minor mistakes aside, the film takes a black and white view towards Iranians, like many other western films about Iran. It portrays them as ugly, poor, strictly religious, fanatical and ignorant – almost in line with the young revolutionaries behind the hostage-taking at the US embassy in Tehran after the 1979 Islamic revolution, which the film is about. The only nice Iranian in the film is the Canadian ambassador's maid.
The whole experience is like asking an Iranian who has never been to the US to make a film (let's say in Cuba) about the Columbine high school massacre. You'll probably end up watching a film in which all Americans are crazy, have a gun at home and are ready to shoot their classmates.
As I was leaving the cinema with my Iranian friend (and I assume we were the only Iranians in the room), we were cautious not to speak Persian too loud to be noticed. "Oh my God, they're Iranians," we assumed others would say, as if we were from Mars.
But what troubles me most is how the film reminds me of Iran's history, of how a group of my countrymen betrayed Iran, took a group of people hostage and brought pain and trauma to another country for 444 days.
For years at school I was taught that the hostage-taking of American diplomats was an act of resistance, heroism on behalf of revolutionaries showing their anger at US interference in Iran's internal affairs.
Argo suddenly wipes out all that revolutionary rhetoric and reminds me of the other side of the story. It shows the yellow ribbons in the streets of Washington DC, the anguish and pain caused by the incident, and it makes me regret what happened more than 30 years ago.
Affleck's film may depict an Iran I hardly recognise but it is a bitter reminder of how young revolutionaries and their leaders failed their country, putting Iran in a crisis that has had consequences for its people to this day.
In reaction to the film, some of the hostage-takers have defended what happened after 1979. But Argo should make them reflect and at least face up to the reality.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iran-blog/2012/nov/13/argo-iranians-ben-affleck?CMP=twt_gu

'Argo': Another Hollywood insult aimed at Iran. آرگو، فیلمی سیاسی و هدفمند

Ben Affleck's movie fails to show the Iranian people as victims of the revolution





Iranians have increasingly become a mainstay in Hollywood, but they aren’t exactly pleased with the attention. From the portrayal of the beloved Persian emperor Cyrus the Great as a blood-thirsty charlatan in the movie “300” to the shallow Iranian-American characters in Bravo’s modern-day “Shahs of Sunset,” many Iranians have had enough with the backwards depictions of their country and culture.
As an Iranian Jew who left the country during the Islamic Revolution, there is another film I will be watching for when I tune into the Academy Awards on Sunday.
When the movie “Argo” came into theaters, I felt compelled to see it but dreaded stepping into the theater for two reasons: I was terrified of confronting my own painful memories of the Iranian Revolution, but more importantly, I didn’t want to sit through another negative portrayal of Iranians in the media.
It turns out I was correct on both fronts.
“Argo” was so good that it made me squirm in my seat. The largely accurate account of events — based on declassified government documents and firsthand accounts from people involved — stirred long-repressed memories of my anguished flight from Tehran.
However factual, “Argo” also aroused a sense of anger in me, not for anything it got wrong (and there were some sensationalist fabrications), but for what it was: yet another apparent indictment of the Iranian people as thuggish, fanatical and stupid. In dramatically recreating this story, one that most Iranians consider a stain on Iran’s place in the international community, “Argo” is only the latest in a string of movies and television shows that paint all Iranians in a negative light.
American policymakers and the American public need to understand that Iranians themselves have been held hostage by the current regime, which has trampled their social freedom, imperiled economic opportunities and tarnished Iran’s glorious history.
Following the release of “Argo,” Farsi language blogs were saturated by many young Iranians — and Iranian Americans — who questioned the wisdom of yet another negative depiction of Iranians in the media. More than 30 years after a revolution that their parents’ generation activated, they want the world to know that they were not born at the time of the hostage crisis, did not take part in the revolution and do not condone the inexcusable actions of the current regime.
They know all too well that revolutions are not pretty and are rarely known for bringing Chanel-clad, Proust-loving people out onto the streets. Angry mobs are a staple of any country undergoing unprecedented transformation — we witness it today in Egypt, Libya and Syria. In 1979, Iran was one of them.
They have also learned first-hand that revolutions rarely finish how they start. This is especially true for the Iranian Revolution, when, seemingly overnight, students, women, clerics, the bazaaris and many of the upper-class came together to dethrone the Shah, only to be violently suppressed by a fearsome cleric who looked like he landed from another era, declaring any modicum of modernity as un-Islamic and a Moharebeh — a crime against God and punishable by death.
Despite more than 30 years of hard-line rule, many of the Iranian people have remained staunchly pro-American, in stark contrast to most of the other countries in the Middle East. It is worth remembering that Iranians poured into streets to hold a candlelight vigil on Sept. 11, 2001. Arabs in neighboring countries also gathered in the streets and squares, but they were celebrating.
Unless the American administration can find a way to empower and engage Iranian civil society, the Islamic regime will grow stronger. Though the Iranian government remains beyond reach, the Iranian people are not, and we shouldn’t continue to alienate them.
And that is precisely what happens when Hollywood serves up its usual fare.
“Argo” makes the viewer wonder why America hasn’t bombed the country whose men look like they haven’t showered in weeks, are prone to angry outbursts and want nothing more than America’s destruction. Without acknowledging the suffering of the Iranians themselves or giving credit to those who perished in the struggle for democracy and the protection of democratic ideals, the film offers another wholesale rebuff of the Iranian people.
And this time, the stakes are too high to give Hollywood another pass.
Moinian is a native Iranian who immigrated to the United States with her family after the country’s revolution. She recently co-produced the PBS movie “The Iranian Americans” and is a previous consultant at the Council on Foreign Relations.


http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/argo-hollywood-insult-aimed-iran-article-1.1271000?localLinksEnabled=false#commentpostform

Mossadegh’s legacy: a sleeping lion called nationalism.یادگار مصدق،شیر خفته ای بنام ناسیونالیسم ایرانی



Mohammad
 Mossadegh was Prime Minister of Iran for only two years in the early 1950s, but he has left a lasting mark on the country and the Middle East as a whole. Holly Dagres visited his ancestral village.
In the Giza governorate of Egypt the Mossadegh Street is of no significance to most, although its Iranian namesake has left a lasting imprint on Egypt’s political history. Without Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh’s influence, Gamal Abdel Nasser might not have nationalized the Suez Canal. But this story is not about Egypt, it is about the legacy of a man who changed the course of the Iran’s political future.
Many Iranians are seemingly convinced that Mossadegh was indeed a communist and rightfully overthrown to save the Pahlavi throne. According to New York Times journalist Stephen Kinzer’s highly readable book All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror this is not the case. Rather, he portrays Mossadegh as an aristocrat who despised socialist and Marxist ideas. Kinzer views the coup as one of the leading causes of anti-Western sentiment in the Islamic Republic today as well as one of the main reasons behind the US Embassy takeover in 1979.
Mossadegh served as prime minister of Iran (1951-1953) under the Pahlavi dynasty and was Iran’s last strain of democracy; the country never has yet to see past the constitutional monarchy-turned-dictatorship. He firmly believed in the concepts of nation building and modernization, envisioning a free and democratic Iran. He sought to do this by ending the control of Iran’s oil reserves by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), owned by the British government, which refused Iran any significant share of the high profits from oil.
In 1951, with the unanimous support of the Iranian parliament, Prime Minister Mossadegh nationalized AIOC, now known as BP (British Petroleum). The nationalization created an international dispute, causing the British to sanction Iran economically and even threaten with war. Mossadegh travelled to the United Nations and made a plea to the Security Council for what he thought constitutionally belonged the Iranian people. This led to him gracing the cover of Time Magazine as ‘Man of the Year’.
The British sought a way to get back what they deemed was rightfully theirs. Realizing they could not do it alone, the UK’s MI6 intelligence agency conjured up a plan that would convince the Americans to get on board with his overthrow by labeling Mossadegh as a communist. This worked well as the ‘Red Scare’ was a dominating factor in US foreign policy at the time. Under the name Operation Ajax, the CIA with the help of MI6 carried out its first coup d’état. In December 1953, Mossadegh was tried in court and convicted of treason.
In his defense, he said: “Yes, my sin – my greater sin... and even my greatest sin is that I nationalized Iran's oil industry and discarded the system of political and economic exploitation by the world's greatest empire… This at the cost to myself, my family; and at the risk of losing my life, my honor and my property… With God's blessing and the will of the people, I fought this savage and dreadful system of international espionage and colonialism... I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle East in breaking the chains of slavery and servitude to colonial interests.”
Mossadegh spent some time in prison and was eventually sentenced to house arrest in Ahmad Abad, his ancestral village some 100 km from the capital Tehran. After about a decade, he passed away and was buried in his home on March 5, 1967.
Ahmad Abad is a quaint village and without proper directions from Tehran you can get lost – up until a point. From the outskirts of Tehran onwards, everyone is familiar with it. Stopping to ask for directions at a local Red Crescent office, one worker exclaimed, “Mossadegh’s Ahmad Abad?”
Given how subtle but intimidating the gate to his villa in Ahmad Abad is, it is certain what is hidden behind its doors still creates angst until this day. The turquoise green gate is deceiving, as there is no house number and only a doorbell. On my visit, I rang it a couple of times until a woman in chador appeared and opened it for us. It went without explanation why we were there.
Madar joon (‘Mother Dear’), is the daughter of Mossadegh’s cook and now the caretaker of his property. “We get 5-6 families on Thursdays and Fridays who come from all over the place to pay their respects,” she explained.
We walked the rocky pathway lined up by a garden of elm trees that led to a modest brick villa. “Why is it so difficult to locate his compound?” I inquired. “They do not want people to know he’s here to arouse nationalism again.”
She pointed to an empty plot of land against the wall, “That’s where the guards stayed while he was under house arrest.” I curiously asked if the Shah ever visited his nemesis -- not a chance.
The assumption was that years of confinement would be in a home with furniture, books, and so forth -- but was not the case. A door was opened and there lied his tomb in the middle of an off-white room adorned with photos of Mohammad Mossadegh. His grave was uplifted and covered with Iranian tapestry, two beautiful crystal lamps, and piles of prayer books. If you did not pay attention, you would think it was a makeshift table.
“People like to pray here, it’s a pilgrimage site for some,” Madar joon commented on the prayer books.
Mossadegh was never allowed a proper burial elsewhere; the Shah feared it could become a gathering point for the opposition. His body was buried without the traditional Muslim ceremony conducted for the dead. He requested that no gravestone be marked where he lay. The area we were standing in was once his dining room. As humble as the space appeared to be, the entry way and windows both shined light from the outside, giving it a holy aura and the feeling of a shrine.
My friend asked, “Did he leave this world content or resentful given what happened?” Mardar joon did not have an answer. What is clear though, is that Mossadegh left an impression on the world he lived in.
“By the passage of history, the visage and legacy of Mohammad Mossadegh has only gained in stature and significance. No wonder that monarchist revisionists altogether deny the coup and accuse Mossadegh of populism, while the Islamic republic, beginning with Ayatollah Khomeini himself has consistently downplayed or distorted the legacy of Mossadegh in the nationalization of Iranian oil, and exaggerated the role of the clergy, while new evidence are now surfacing implicating the clergy itself in the coup,” wrote Dr.Hamid Dabashiof Columbia University in an opinion piece on Al-Jazeera.
What Mossadegh did for Iran and the outcome he suffered as a result of it was a tragedy. However, the message of nationalism he carried was not about his loss of power, but the downfall of what he aspired for his homeland. Although Mossadegh has passed, his message lives ever so strongly. As journalist and analyst Robin Wright noted, “Persian nationalism is among the strongest forces in the world. If you know a Texan, add 5,000 years and you've got Persian nationalism.”
No matter how hard some attempt to tarnish the memory of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, nationalism thrives and will make itself known again when the time is right. To outsiders and regimes, old or new, nothing is more daunting than a sleeping lion.
Holly Dagres, an Iranian American, is an analyst and commentator on Middle East affairs. Currently living in Egypt, she is a researcher at the Cairo Review of Global Affairs and pursuing a master’s degree in political science at the American University in Cairo.

http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/features/mossadeghs-legacy-a-sleeping-lion-called-nationalism_9281

Sunday, February 3, 2013

به کنون و آینده ایران بی اندیشیم


در دورانی زندگی می کنیم که دوران شگفتی هاست، شگفتی های ناشی از آهنگ شتاب تغییرات و دگرگونی های بزرگ و گاه غیر قابل پیش بینی. دگرگونی های دوران ما بقدری تند و پرشتاب صورت می گیرد که باور کردن، و به تصور در آوردنشان اگر نگوئیم امکان ناپذیر، دستکم دشوار است. به همین دلیل آینده نگری و تفکر و چاره جوئی برای  آنچه ممکن است در آینده نزدیک روی دهد از وظایف متفکران و اندیشه وران می باشد و چنانچه نتیجه مطلوب حاصل نگردد  چه بسا بهره حاصل  سودمند تر از عدم آینده نگری باشد.
بررسی نوشتارها، سخنرانی ها و نظریه پردازی های بسیاری از آزادیخواهان و ملی گرایان نشانگر عدم توجه و آگاهی آنان از آنچه ممکن است در آینده در سطح منطقه و سرنوشت ملی ما رخ دهد را بدست میدهد.
نگاهی گذرا به رویدادهای اخیر خاورمیانه و برخی از کشورهای آفریقایی می بایست ما را نسبت به خطرهایی که موجودیت و  بنیان ملی را تهدید می کند هوشیار و حساس تر کرده باشد. برای حفظ بقا و سرنوشت آینده میهن مان نخست باید سیاست های کاربردی قدرت های جهانی را نسبت به این بخش از جهان تجزیه تحلیل کرده و شناخت.
ما شاهد بودیم و هستیم که رسانه های غربی که بلندگوهای سیاست های دولت هایشان هستند آن کسانی را که به دستور معمر قذافی دیکتاتور لیبی زیر بمباران ها کشته می شدند آزادیخواه می نامیدند، ولی در سومالی و مالی به آن ها تروریست و آدمکش گفته می شود. جالب این جاست که بخشی از همین تروریست ها و آدم کش ها که به سوریه رفته و علیه دولت، مردم و بویژه اقلیت های مذهبی آن کشور می جنگند و در پی آنند که احکام شریعت را در آنجا برقرار نمایند آزادیخواهانی نامیده می شوند که برای تحقق آزادی مبارزه می کنند!
زمانی که طالبان را برای رویارویی با ارتش اشغالگر روسیه شوروی سابق در افغانستان سامان دادند، از آن ها به عنوان مجاهدین، نیروهای آزادی بخشی که می خواهند افغانستان را از دست کفار بیگانه رهایی بخشند نام می بردند ولی پس از رویداد دردناک نیویورک، همین طالبان و گروه القاعده تروریست و آدمکش شناخته شدند و برای نابودیشان ارتش های کشورهای عضو پیمان ناتو به افغانستان یورش برده و این کشور را اشغال نمودند. از همین گروه طالبان که اکنون در بخش هایی از افغانستان و پاکستان پراکنده اند، تروریست و آدمکش شناخته می شوند در لیبی دوران قذافی و سوریه کنونی به نام آزادیخواه نامیده می شوند که باید مورد حمایت شان قرار داد و نیازهای مالی و تسلیحاتی آن ها را تأمین نمود. به همین دلیل است که برخی از جنگ افزارهایی که از انگلستان به عربستان فروخته شده به جای عربستان به سوریه رفته در دست این گونه آزادیخواهان قرار می گیرد.
همچنین در شرایطی که دو واژه «حقوق بشر» و «دموکراسی» ورد زبان دولت مردان قدرت های  بزرگ غربی است و نگرانِ به خطر افتادن آن در کشورهای  دیگر هستند، پیرامون آنچه در حکومت های «استبدادی» شیخ های عرب، عربستان، قطر و سایر امارت نشین های  جنوب خلیج فارس می گذرد سخنی گفته نمی شود و اعتراضی صورت نمی گیرد، تو گویی در این کشورها دموکراسی به نحو احسن وجود داشته و منشور حقوق بشر به طور کامل اجرا می شود!
جنگجویانی که در سومالی و مالی تروریست نامیده می شوند و در سوریه آزادیبخش، در پی آنند که در سایه حمایت های مالی کشورهای عربی صادر کننده نفت و گاز، موضوع کهنه و فراموش شده سنّی و شیعه را دوباره زنده کنند.
وهابی ها، سلفی ها، اخوان المسلمین و ... به پیروی از سران مذهبی شان جنگ در سوریه را جهاد علیه شیعیان می دانند، کار به جایی رسیده که یکی از تلویزیون های عربی، پیروزی تیم فوتبال قطر بر عراق را پیروزی سنّی ها بر شیعیان نامید.
آیا ما ملی گرایانِ آزادیخواه این رویدادها را می بینیم که برای پیروزی آنان در سوریه دست می زنیم؟ رویداد تلخی که ممکن است فردا در عراق و سپس به امکان زیاد در ایران تکرار شود.
آیا متوجه شده ایم که برنامه ریزی قدرت های بزرگ غربی در جهت تحقق سیاست کاربُردی شان در خاورمیانه، نخست حمایت از ملت ها در مسیر سرنگونی دیکتاتورها و سپس استقرار نظام های مذهبی است؟
آیا توجه داریم که قدرت هایی که اسلامی ها را در تونس، مصر و لیبی جایگزین خودکامگانی چون بن علی، حسنی مبارک و معمر قذافی نمودند و می خواهند در سوریه نیز آن ها را جایگزین اسد سازند طبیعی است که در پی تغییر دادن جمهوری اسلامی و استقرار نظامی مردم سالار در ایران نبوده باشند؟
این فرض که ممکن است قدرت های غربی متوجه خطرهایی که اسلام گرایان تندرو در مخالفت با منافع آن ها ایجاد کرده و می کنند شده باشند، نظیر آنچه پس از حمله به افغانستان تصور می شد. با توجه به رویدادهایی که پس از اشغال افغانستان در کشورهای عربی اتفاق افتاد و در آفریقا نیز در حال شکل گرفتن است نمی تواند فرض قابل قبول بوده باشد.
شاید بهتر بتوان نتیجه گیری کرد که هر گاه اسلام گرایان افراطی بخواهند از خط قرمزی که غرب برایشان تعیین کرده است عبور نمایند و منافع اقتصادی و اعتبار سیاسی آن ها را به خطر اندازند، با واکنش تند این قدرت ها روبرو خواهند شد. آنچه اکنون در سومالی و مالی در حال اتفاق افتادن است می تواند تأییدی بر این فرضیه می تواند باشد.
شاید هم جنگ- همانطور که خمینی می گفت- در شرایط ناگوار اقتصادی کنونی کشورهای پیشرفته صنعتی نعمتی باشد در مسیر نجات اقتصاد بیمارگونه آن ها!
در ایران خودمان شاهد بودیم که ماه ها پیش از تاریخ انتخابات ریاست جمهوری اسلامی در سال 1388 بیشترین حمایت های تبلیغاتی و سیاسی برون مرز پشت سر شخصی قرار داشت که بالاترین شمار اعدام ها – پس از انقلاب  مشروطه تا کنون- در دوران هشت ساله نخست وزیری او صورت گرفته است و او نه تنها از این بابت از مردم معذرت خواهی نکرده بلکه اجرای این اعدام ها را به سود بقای انقلاب اسلامی اعلام کرده است. 
در مصر پس از آن که «مُرسی» به ریاست جمهوری رسید و همه اختیارات را به شخص خود واگذار کرد، آزادیخواهان مصر که به جای رسیدن به آزادی، دچار دیکتاتوری مذهبی شده بودند در اعتراض به این تصمیم به سمت مقر اقامت «مُرسی» به حرکت در آمدند. با وجود آنکه شمار اعتراض کنندگان شاید یک دهم شمار ایرانیانی بود که در اعتراض به تقلب در انتخابات ریاست جمهوری اسلامی به خیابان ها آمده بودند، «مُرسی» از کاخ ریاست جمهوری گریخت. در تهران اما شخص مورد حمایت رسانه ها، که هدفش رسیدن به قدرت در چهارچوب نظام جمهوری اسلامی است، با کشاندن مردمِ به جان آمده و به پا خاسته به میدان آزادی، با بیان آنکه حضور میلیونی شما برای اجرای قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی و بازگشت به دوران طلایی امام – یعنی دوران وحشت بزرگ - است، همانگونه که می خواست به یکی از هدف های خود که جلوگیری از سقوط نظام بود رسید.
آیا متوجه شده ایم که دو عامل بزرگ بقای نظام جمهوری اسلامی، یکی وجود جناح های قدرت در حاکمیت نظام و دیگری پشتیبانی قدرت های بزرگ غربی از این نظام است که نگران سقوط جمهوری اسلامی و جایگزین شدن آن به یک نظام مردم سالار هستند؟
ساده انگاری است وعده های فریبنده و شعارهای آزادی خواهی و مردم سالاری کسانی را باور کردن و به آن ها دل بستن.
به قول مولانا:
.   پس به هر دستی نشاید داد دست .»
چگونه به این باور رسیده ایم که کسانی که در پایه گذاری نظام استبداد مذهبی کم و بیش دست داشته و در ستم ها و جنایت هایی که در این سال ها بر ملت ایران رفته است، سهیم بوده اند، در پی سرنگونی جمهوری اسلامی، تحقق آزادی و استقرار مردم سالاری باشند؟
شک نیست در صورت تحقق آزادی، رسانه های همگانی به افشاگری سوءاستفاده های مالی، سیاسی و نیز جنایت های صورت گرفته خواهند پرداخت. همچنین استقرار مردم سالاری، اقتدار حکومت قانون که تشکیل دولت برآمده از اراده مردم، تفکیک قوای سه گانه و استقلال دستگاه قضائی نتیجه آن است، باعث خواهد شد که جای بسیاری از سردمداران و دست اندرکاران نظام اسلامی نه در پُست و مقام ریاست که پای میز محاکمه  باشد. مسلماً هیچ یک از آنان حاضر نخواهند بود پست ریاست را با پشت میز محاکمه – صرفنظر از اینکه چه آینده ای در انتظارشان خواهد بود - عوض  کنند.
حال بپردازیم به اینکه هدف قدرت های بزرگ غربی در حمایت از جناح های داخلی حاکمیت اسلامی چیست؟
آن ها با حمایت های پنهان و آشکارشان در حقیقت با یک تیر سه هدف را نشانه رفته اند:
1- جمهوری اسلامی را از سقوط حتمی رهایی می بخشند.
2- با جابجایی جناح ها در رأس هرم قدرت، به مردم و به ویژه جوانان عاصی و خشمگین وانمود می نمایند که با تغییرات در رأس هرم قدرت در حاکمیت، شرایط ناگوار و دردناک گذشته عوض خواهد شد و بدین شکل آنان را آرام و به آینده امیدوار می سازند.
3- افکار عمومی مردم کشورهای شان را  که مخالف جمهوری اسلامی هستند متقاعد می سازند که در ایران کسانی قدرت را در دست  دارند  که از قماش دیگری هستند و در پی دستیابی به جنگ افزار هسته ای و دشمنی و حذف اسرائیل از نقشه جغرافیای جهان نیستند. از این رو است که باید مورد حمایت و یاری قرار گیرند.
برخی از هموطنان ما متأسفانه  براین باورند که قدرت های غربی در منطقه خاورمیانه و شمال آفریقا در پی استقرار حکومت های اسلامی از نوع ترکیه هستند که به اسلام معتدل معروف شده است.
نباید فراموش کرد حکومت های دینی به قول خودشان در پی اجرای احکام شریعت هستند از این رو عنوان تندرو و معتدل دادن به آن ها خالی از معنا است.
درست است که در ترکیه به دلیل پیشینه نظام گذشته آن اسلام «تندرو» نتوانسته است شکل بگیرد ولی رفتار دولت اسلامی ترکیه با خبرنگاران رسانه ها و به رسمیت نشناختن حقوق انسانی، حفظ زبان، فرهنگ و آئین ها و سنت‌های کردان نشان از غیر دمکراتیک بودن نظام  دارد.  شاید  اگر در ایران دولت نماینده واقعی مردم بود  دولت ترکیه به خود اجازه نمی داد به بهانه پیکار با یک گروه مسلح سیاست تبعیض  درمورد کُردها اعمال نماید . 
جالب اینجاست در شرایطی که دولتهای غربی نام حزب کارگران کرد ترکیه را در فهرست سازمانهای تروریست قرارداده اند سازمان مجاهدین خلق را از آن لیست خارج کرده در آمریکا به اعضای آن آموزش نظامی میدهند.
حال باید دید در دنیای شتاب آمیز تغییرات و بازار آشفته سیاست جهانی دیگران چه خواب هایی برای منطقه و میهن ما دیده اند و وظیفه ملی و میهنی ما در این برهه از زمان چیست و در رویارویی با آن ها چه باید کرد ؟
در درجه اول لازم است که با هر سلیقه و تفکر سیاسی، عقیدتی و وابستگی سازمانی به دور اصول آزادی، مردم سالاری و اجرای مفاد منشور حقوق بشر یک ائتلاف بزرگ ملی پدید آوریم.
گرچه  شرایط و امکان های تبلیغاتی و مالی چنین حرکتی در برابر امکان های گستردة شبکه های مالی و تبلیغاتی و سیاسی حاکمیت اسلامی و جناح های وابسته به آن محدود بوده و قابل مقایسه نیست و با وجود عدم پشتیبانی قدرت های خارجی از چنین حرکتی که حتی  ممکن است به  رویارویی با آن برخیزند بسیار دشوار خواهد بود، ولی خوشبختانه چنین حرکتی از پشتیبانی مردم به ویژه جوانان که نیروی محرکه هر حرکت ملی و آزادیخواهانه هستند برخوردار می باشد.
ممکن است گفته شود که با وجود آنکه همه تلاش های سی و چند سال گذشته در شکل گیری چنین حرکتی تا کنون ناکام بوده، چه امیدی به شکل گیری آن در آینده هست؟
باید توجه داشته باشیم که چنین حرکت بزرگی حول محوریت هیچ شخصیت سیاسی که بخواهد خود را در بالا قرار داده و اعضاء شورای ملی تعیین نماید، - به همانگونه که خمینی اعضاء شورای انقلاب را تعیین کرد- شکل نخواهد گرفت.
تلاش کسانی که بجای ایجاد یک مرکزیت سیاسی در پی یافتن رهبر سیاسی هستند و امتیاز رهبر را هم در معروفیت بیشتر آن از دیگر شخصیت های سیاسی می دانند غیر  منطقی و غیر موجه است.
بیاییم یک بار برای همیشه بجای آنکه در پی رهبر و رهبرسازی باشیم یک سازمان ملی را بنیان گذاری نمائیم که هم توان و قدرت مبارزات آزادیخواهان ملی را افزایش دهد و هم مانع افتادن در دام نظام خودکامه فردی دیگری در آینده ایران گردد.
بیائیم همگام و همراه با هم، با برخورداری از حقوق مساوی، برای تحقق آزادی، استقرار مردم سالاری، اقتدار حکومت قانون و اجرای مفاد منشور حقوق بشر تلاش و پیکار کنیم تا هم خواست های تاریخی ملت ایران را تحقق بخشیم و هم مانع اجرای برنامه های شوم ایران برباد دِهِ دشمنان شویم.

هوشنگ کردستانی