By Nathan Yadgar

In the most recent issue of The Chronicle, Brian Bohl had an article about the recent act that passed through congress known as the Iran Freedom and Support Act. While Bohl did make some good points, the basis of his argument was predicated on an idealistic falsity that must be realized sooner rather than later. As stated, the act would fund groups of Iranian dissidents the amount of $10 million. In addition, Iranian government officials would not be able to enter American governmental buildings. Yet, what he fails to realize is that this is not merely a way for the alleged “neoconservatives” to rush to war. Rather, tougher stances like this are part of an ongoing American foreign policy shift, which looks to secure the world through the advancement of freedoms in the very countries that produce the exact dangers we are trying to fight.

Bohl points to diplomacy as the best solution to the Iranian problem. What needs to be understood is that western style diplomacy is not a tool that can be used when working with totalitarian regimes such as Iran. The only way to use diplomacy as a possible tool is with the encouragement of Democracy and expanded rights as a bargaining chip. Looking back to the fall of the Soviet Union, diplomacy was a lost cause until we started linking foreign aid to internal freedoms. Gorbachev was not in favor of a failing Soviet Union, but it almost appears that he was because he had no choice. By linking external aid to the Soviet Union with internal reform we essentially ended the totalitarian regime by forcing them to choose between reform or internal economic failure which would obliterate the totalitarian regime. This model is very applicable to the situation with Iran. The three party talks that have been held with Iran have been an utter failure as the regime has continued to work towards its atomic desires.

Rather than diplomacy we must slowly move to a policy of regime change in Iran. A democratic Iran would possibly be the single most important development in the Middle-East since the Iranian revolution of 1979 launched the region into chaos. With a strong policy towards the democratization of Iran, as well as the budding democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a hopeful continuation of the trend in Lebanon, we have a new Middle-East. In addition, a situation like this would severely limit the lifespan of the Allawite regime still in Syria.

I realize that an invasion of Iran at the moment may not be feasible as we still have a large presence in Iraq. Also, a war with Iran would be nothing like what we have experienced in Iraq. Iran is a larger country with a stronger army, but most importantly, we would be facing an element of nationalism that we have not seen since World War II. Iranians are proud of their ancient Persian identities, and would fight to the death. Iraqis have no Iraqi identity, as the country of Iraq is a British creation, and they are not nearly as homogeneous as Iran is.

That said; let us hope that an invasion is not necessary. In Iran there is a lot of unrest facing the regime that rules them. Fifty percent of the population of Iran is under the age of thirty, and have no real memory of what life was like before this regime took hold. They want change. Change from within would be tricky, and we would have to be very smart as well as careful on how we can bring it about. We can use the model of the Soviet Union, and it may conceivably work, but there are no guarantees.

In addition, we would have to be careful about who we support regarding external Iranian organizations. I agree with Mr. Bohl that the Mujahhideen-e-Khalk is not the route we should be taking. They are an extremist organization whose only distinction from the Iranian Regime is that they are not in power; however, in anticipation of possible changes in the country, many dissidents have stepped up as possible leaders of a new government, one of them being Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former Shah.

If you are still not convinced of the importance of regime change in Iran, and how it is universally wanted by everyone other than the regime itself, this may affect your viewpoint. Recently at an event hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, a distinguished speaker of Iranian descent spoke. He declared, “freedom is the most important thing, and that all people share a belief in freedom and have a common need for freedom. The Iranian people have become tired, fatigued, after twenty-five years of deprivation and suppression . . . They have been deprived of the basic means of life, or living. We cannot remain silent and watch the destruction, further destruction, of Iran and Iranian People.” This speaker received a standing ovation. He was none other than Hussein Khomeini, the grandson of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

The Idealistic nature of a college campus like ours would love to see diplomacy work in a country like Iran. But I submit to you, diplomacy will not work. Even if we see short term benefits, we can always rest upon the fact that the true long term benefits rest with a democratic Iran.