Pages

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

An Inconvenient Truth

Americans who oppose overthrowing the Iranian regime like to insist that helping regime opponents only "taints" these activists and that pro-democracy people in Iran don't want our help.

This flies in the face of centuries of experience, of course. Not the least was our very welcome help to those resisting communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

And at least one Iranian activists warns us not to be fooled by those people here who claim that abandoning Iranian democrats is the best thing we can do for them:

As I write this, close friends of mine are sitting in cells of Evin prison in Iran. They are suffering from torture, solitary confinement and denial of medical care. Despite their suffering, they write and smuggle out of prison essays about the brutality of Iran's government and about how the democracy movement can stay resilient despite mounting repression.

Here in America, where I have been living since 2005 as an exiled activist, a controversy has emerged over the Bush administration's pledge to provide $75 million in democracy and human-rights assistance to Iranians. Critics of the funding, among them some Iranian-Americans, say the money endangers the lives of activists and gives pretext for the Iranian regime to crack down on their activities. Supposedly speaking on behalf of the Iranian people, these critics claim Iranians do not want and do not need America's help in their fight against oppression.

But it is not just among Americans that this debate is taking place. Even during this highly repressive time, Iranian democracy activists are debating the merits of accepting foreign support. Last month, in an open letter to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, my friend and fellow activist, Akbar Ganji, who spent six years in Evin prison, condemned the "intolerable" human-rights violations in Iran. But he also argued that funds from the U.S. to promote democracy in Iran had "made it easy for the Iranian regime to describe its opponents as mercenaries of the U.S. and to crush them with impunity."

I respectfully disagree. There are many sides to this debate, but one thing is clear: Those in Iran who favor receiving foreign assistance and consider international solidarity essential to the success of Iran's homegrown civic movements cannot speak freely. If they do, they will be subject to immediate retaliation by the regime. The lack of robust, transparent appeals for outside help by civic leaders should not be confused with a lack of need or desire for such help.


Iran's mullahs cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. I believe we will strike Iran if they threaten to go nuclear. So those progressives here who refuse to allow us to help the Iranian opposition--an opposition that is favorable to America--are just making it more likely that we will have to go to Plan B and bomb Iran.