- The Washington Times - Monday, June 2, 2003

As soon as U.S. officials warned Iran of full rupture of communications, many East and West projected an imminent American military march on the second associate of the Axis of Evil. Some, repeating the anti-war slogans of the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns, decried yet another “imperialist” enterprise. Critics were fast to accuse Washington of interference in Iran’s domestic affairs. As for the case of Syria, a few weeks ago, the United States had to put pressure on Iran as a result of acts and policies aiming at harming American troops and plans in the region. Tehran’s fingerprints have appeared in several spots. One, across the border with Iraq, with operatives infiltrating the Shi’ite community and inciting for an Intifada against future interim Governments. Two, through its proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah, whose secretary general Sayyed Nasrallah openly told Al-Jazeera last week that “as soon as the Iraqi people would rise, we would join resistance -read Terrorism- against Americans.” Three, and lastly, al Qaeda members were detected in Iran, under the protection of security apparatuses. In sum, the Iranian regime was in full, albeit covert casus belli against the United States in the region.

But what triggered Uncle Sam’s wrath and words on “destabilizing” the government in Iran, was a red line crossed by the Mullahs. Both Saudi and Western intelligence, including American, got information that the suicide attacks in Riyadh were remote controlled by al-Qaida operatives out of Iran. This was the final straw. Tehran’s regime was made responsible for new Terrorism. The question now is: who in Iran is behind it? And a wider file has been opened as the US is scrutinizing further Persian politics. Are we faced with a centralized regime, resurrecting the Jihad of the 1980s against the Greater Satan? Or are we handling more than one power inside the Islamic Republic. What’s inside Iran?

Over the past decade -and to be precise since the death of Imam Khomeiny in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union - the country’s political map has significantly changed. With the passing of the founder of the Republic, the grip of the radical clerics loosened up. Khamenei lacks his predecessor’s charisma. Besides, many Mullah consider him more of a peer rather then a mentor, including an open minded scholar, Mohammed Khatemi. The latter will be elected few years later as the President of the state. The 1990s will witness a bi-polarization of Iran’s institutions between “radicals” attached to the mandate of the Vilayet el-Faqih (literally Mandate of the Wise, or the strict religious roots of power) and so-called “reformists” calling for an Islamic Pereistroika. The first camp sees in the Vilayet, the only source for policies and laws, let alone the selection of leaders. In other words, only clerics can assume the destiny of the nation. And accordingly the only foreign policy to follow is Global Jihad.

On the other side of the fence, the “reform” camp promoted more of a pragmatic thinking than ideological change. They postulate that economic liberalization and commercial openness will improve the Republic not de-Islamize it. By the end of the decade, the “reformists”led by President Khatemi took the control of the Presidency, the Parliament, the technical ministries in the cabinet and segments of the Army. Many in the business community supports them, as well as few moderate clerics. The old guard dominates the security apparatuses, the other segments of the armed forces, the omnipresent Guardians of the Revolution Pasdaran, and the agencies that “export” the revolution, i.e. the budget and logistics for the support of Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad among Palestinians.

The two giants of Iranian politics struggles constantly over public life. While the pragmatic camp scores small advances, due to the large popular support it obtains increasingly from the electoral body, the radical clerics continue to dominate national security and their international web of Jihad. Between the two mountains of power lays a third party, emerging slowly but steadily: The students. In a symbolic irony while the Afghan Talib (students) turned extreme Wahabi, their Iranian colleagues turned freedom wannabe. Over the past few years, the student movement -mostly led by young intellectuals and academics- is demonstrating its rejection of the old order. Marches are frequent on campuses around the country and in Tehran. So is the repression by the Mullah police. The generation huriye (freedom) is not demanding an amelioration of their status. It is asking for regime change! In response to Khamenei’s crack downs, the boys and the girls of Iran granted Khatemi a comfortable Presidential and legislative majority. Also voted in the same direction, the other suppressed sector of society: Women. From under their black Chadors (Iranian style veil) the women lib of Persia blasted the all-male hierarchy of the Islamic regime.

September 11 had its own effects in Iran as well. While the radical clerics detected a change of times to come, as they witnessed the uprooting of their Sunni counterparts in Afghanistan, Iranian students amazingly flew the American flag in the face of their oppressors. Their slogans, chanted in the streets of Khumeiny were revolutionary: “From Kabul to Tehran, no return to Taliban”! The Iranian kids are now on their own, as they have identified their young colleagues pacifying and democratizing their neighbor to the East. That alone sent chills in the bones of the oligarchy. But things got really worse, when last April US-led Coalition forces brought down Saddam statues to the West of Iran this time. That morning, the Spring of Baghdad sent memorable pictures of young Shiites exploding their feelings in freedom to their brothers and sisters across the Zagros mountains (border between Iran and Iraq). In sum, the students of Persia are surrounded with freedom, while the Mullah of Iran are encircled with Democracy.

Responding to the threat, the radical Mullah harbored al-Qaida remnants, increased support to Hizbollah and Hamas and went on the offensive against moderate regimes in the region. Inside the Republic, the Ayatollah are preparing for an all out crushing of both the students and the reformists. Call all of that preemptive strikes. Washington understood the message and suggested “regime de-stabilization.” As Khatemi feels the danger from all sides he attempts to calm down Washington with periodic assertion by his Foreign Ministry that Ben Laden followers are arrested. No names are ever revealed. But the real confrontation won’t be between the President and the Revolution, it will be between the Islamic state and the young generations. What separate them is a view of the future. The turbaned and bearded men of the Vilayet wants to spread Jihad and build nuclear power. The boys and girls in jeans wants to spread Human Rights and construct Democratic power.

The United States must be wiser than it has ever been before. It should work for the weakening of the religious dictatorship but must not take credit for it. It should use its resources in the change to come, but only to help the coalition of the willing inside Iran. Washington may have today the keys for a much better tomorrow in Iran. All it has to do is to contain the radicals firmly from the outside, and allow the flower of liberty to grow at will on the inside. From the East and from the West, the future of Iran’s people is closer than ever to freedom. We need not to brake that dream prematurely.

Dr Walid Phares is a professor of Mideast Studies at Florida Atlantic University and an MSNBC analyst. He is the author of several books including the “Islamic Khumainist Revolution of Iran,” Beirut 1987. [email protected]

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide