Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian human rights leader, says the United States ought to be promoting democracy in Iran rather than hinting at a "military option" against Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
War talk over atom bombs inspires the average Iranian to defend Iran’s otherwise hated theocratic dictatorship, she says. On the other hand, spotlighting Iran’s human rights abuses stirs the populace to action against their oppressors.
Right now, the United States is playing right into the Iranian mullahs’ despotic plans, says Ebadi, winner of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize. She says:
The U.S. will not solve the nuclear problem by threatening military strikes or by dragging Iran before the U.N. Security Council. Although a vast majority of Iranians despise the country's hard-liners and wish for their downfall, they also support its nuclear program because it has become a source of pride for an old nation with a glorious history.
A military attack would only inflame nationalist sentiments. Iran is not Iraq. Given Iranians’ fierce nationalism and the Shiites’ tradition of martyrdom, any military move would provoke a response that would engulf the entire region, resulting in countless deaths and a ruined economy not only for the region but for the world.
Democratic priority. Ebadi notes that a democratic Iran might not want nuclear weapons, and even if it had them, the openness of democracy would reduce the threat. Obvious conclusion: Make democracy the priority.
Her proposal:
Western nations should help the U.N. appoint a special human rights monitor for Iran. It would remind the General Assembly of Iran’s human rights record annually, and strongly condemn it if the record keeps deteriorating. Contrary to the general perception, Iran’s clerics are sensitive to outside criticism.
The World Bank should stop providing Iran with loans and, instead, work with nongovernmental organizations and the private sector to strengthen civil society. The West should support Iran’s human-rights and democracy advocates, nominate jailed leaders for international awards and keep the cause in the public eye….
[T]he West should permit Iran a limited uranium enrichment program (as allowed under the nonproliferation treaty) under strict safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency — but only when Tehran undertakes meaningful reforms, including freeing political prisoners and holding free and fair elections.
Lastly, the U.S. and Iran should enter direct negotiations.
Europe’s role. Keep the United States out of any military option in Iran. A U.S. attack would only hurt. This is exactly why I’ve been saying the U.S. should have left Iran’s nuclear program for the Europeans to solve. The U.S. could appeal to the Iranians’ yearning to breathe free, and Europe could accept fully its mission to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of another dictatorship.
The parallel tracks would let the Iranians hear America’s democratic song loud and clear, without the refrains offensive to Iranian national pride.
According to some intelligence agencies, it will take Iran at least four years (maybe even 10 years) to build the centrifuges and enrich the uranium it needs for an atom bomb. (I admit I’m skeptical it would take that long. Heck, it took the U.S. only four years to build the first bombs from scratch. Iran has been working on this since 1997. In any case…) We probably have some time.
Free Iran. Let America take the job of revealing Iran’s brutal repression. Let America call for those free and fair (and regular) elections, and those other human rights. Let Europe handle Iranian nuclear non-proliferation, and let the Europeans know we’re not going to touch it. For their own prestige, the Europeans must find a solution. If they feel the responsibility, perhaps they’ll succeed.
Shirin Ebadi is right about the role of the United States. Iranians don’t want to hear America blustering about how to make Iran weak. Iranians want America to advocate the freedom that will make them strong.
Frank Warner
She can only make statements that make America look like the bad guy. It's part of the documents you have to sign to win the nobel prize.
It's a happy thought to think that the Iranian youth could rise up and break free of the mullah shackles on their own. But that's all it is - wishful thinking. If I was in charge, I would not be comfortable risking all of the lives in Israel on it.
The Iranian kids chance to create a democratic state has passed, and now cannot succeed in time to avert disaster. Many people compare where we are now to 1933 Germany, when WWII could have been averted. I think we are closer to 1938 Germany. We can still minimize loss of life, but not with talk.
Posted by: Kevin | January 31, 2006 at 11:18 AM
I agree with Kevin. It's all easier said than done -- with the likely false assumption that it can be done.
How do you negotiate with a country that doesn't abide by the treaties it already signed? Unfortunately, it is too late for the Iranian citizenry. Protecting the world is more important than protecting them. They will learn that life and death choices are made by their government and, unless they do something about it, they are forced to live (or die) with the results.
In Iraq, the world has seen that some are determined to bring democratic order to this world. That makes the remaining despots go to even further extremes. The sooner they go, the better for the world.
Posted by: George | January 31, 2006 at 12:33 PM
The negotiating part of her proposal was the least interesting to me, as far as a direct "solution." However, talks with Iran might at least spotlight what madmen they have for Supreme Leader and president.
It's true that Ebadi says a few negative things about the United States only to guarantee a ride home to Iran. But in general, she knows what she's talking about.
Her point is that, if the U.S. attacks Iran, the action is likely to delay democracy in Iran. I think she's right. On other hand, if Europe sees fit to attack, that would be an entirely different story.
Posted by: Frank Warner | January 31, 2006 at 03:27 PM
I would like to believe that she is right, but the 1991 uprising of the Shia in southern Iraq and the way the brutal suppression was all but been stricken from the record of history, has to give one great pause.
Posted by: Neo | January 31, 2006 at 05:10 PM
Wishful thinking. That's right. This situation is not going to get better on its own. Advocating an innocuous response, admirable and sensible though it may be, is merely a stalling tactic. Are we or are we not going to suffer in some major way as a result of Iran obtaining atomic weapons? If not, then I guess we can ignore it.
Posted by: jj mollo | February 01, 2006 at 12:16 AM
I'd still leave Iran's nukes to the Europeans, and make it clear they are responsible for choosing what to do about the problem.
Posted by: Frank Warner | February 01, 2006 at 12:25 AM