Column by Shahram Ahmadi Nasab Emran
Understanding contemporary Iran and crafting a successful Iran policy require making a key distinction between organized freedom fighters devoted to the cause of bringing about change in Iran, and various groups and individuals who dislike the ruling regime. If we equate all dissidents under the umbrella term “Iranian opposition,” we only complicate our ability to recognize and work with viable pro-change forces.
The terminology can be misleading. A key distinction needs to be made between freedom fighters and dissidents. Dissidents are those groups and individuals who are not happy with the current state of affairs. There is no question that the majority of Iranians and almost all Iranian groups in the diaspora fit in the category of dissidents. Dissatisfaction with the status quo and the ruling elites is both pervasive and unhelpful in distinguishing among the different players.
The term freedom fighters, in contrast, is very specific. It applies only to those who have stood up against the tyranny and actively pursued regime change. The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)–a coalition of pro-democracy groups and individuals, was founded in 1981. NCRI has a prominent presence in international political circles, and has been behind numerous revelations about Iran’s secret nuclear program, including the 2002 breakthrough disclosure of the nuclear sites in Natanz and Arak, which triggered the inspections of Iranian nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
NCRI’s pivotal member, the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), has been at the forefront of the pro-democracy movement in Iran for over 50 years. MEK and their allied forces have paid the highest price for their resistance; as many as 120,000 MEK activists and supporters have been executed. Their courage and sacrifice for the cause of freedom has been a source of inspiration for the young activists inside Iran, who today depend on the MEK’s organizational capabilities to turn current nationwide protests into an existential threat for the regime.
There are fundamental differences between the MEK’s, NCRI’s, and other Iranian groups’ goals, organizational capacities, and the role they can play in the process of democratic change in Iran. The freedom fighters (MEK and their allies) launched their campaign for regime change four decades ago. In contrast, most of the Iranian dissidents, which include many groups with various political ideologies, were until recently hoping for and supported reform from within the regime. When Mohammad Khatami, the “reformist,” became president in 1997, many of these same dissident groups and individuals, including the former crown prince Reza Pahlavi, supported him and his “moderate” allies.
These are crucial distinctions,which identify the true players in Iran and in the Iranian diaspora.
After decades of desperate hope for the mythical moderate mullah, most dissident groups and individuals, including the son of the deposed dictator, have realized that regime change is the only pathway to democracy in Iran. That is a move in the right direction, which should lead them to support the existing coalition of Iranian freedom fighters, i.e. the MEK and NCRI.
Instead,Reza Pahlavi is promoting an alternative path for a “peaceful transition to democracy” in Iran. In recent remarks at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, he suggested that the people of Iran need to get in touch with the repressive forces, such as Bassij and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), because, he says,most of the rank-and-file of these forces and many “highly-situated” members oppose the ruling regime and “want to be part of the solution.”
Pahlavi is promoting a fantasy based on wishful thinking and questionable “contacts” with even more questionable IRGC“dissidents.”The IRGC has been and remains the regime’s main means of repressing the Iranian people and slaughtering Syrians while propping up Assad. IRGC funds, finances and supports Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, Houthi rebels in Yemen, and Taliban extremists in Afghanistan. To think that the IRGC might be a part of a solution is beyond naivete.
Simple question: If certain IRGC members do oppose the regime, why are they still serving it? If they know what they are doing is wrong, horribly wrong, why continue? The world community long ago rejected the “just carrying out orders” excuse.
Other distinctions are also critical.While Iranian dissident groups are diverse, disparate and discordant, the MEK freedom fighters are unified and organized, making themthe only effective force to confront the regime. The NCRI is the longest-standing political coalition in Iranian history, has declared a Plan for Future Iran, and presents a substantive, viable alternative to the ruling regime.
That’s a workable option we can all get behind.
Share
Contributors
