Submitted by Leila Zand for FORpeace on August 5, 2009 – 6:01pm.

Much has been written, discussed, and debated since the Iranian presidential election in June. One of the most interesting subjects discussed in these conversations and debates, both in the U.S. among activist groups and in Iran among politicians on both sides (the “Principalists” and the“Reformists”), is the nature of the uprisings that began right after the election and that still continue.

Some argue that these latest crises in Iran are part of a planned “velvet”/soft/color revolution, much like what we witnessed in Eastern Europe in late 1980s and ‘90s. Based on conversations with those who believe the above to be true, I have seen this opinion to be raised primarily by those who support Mr. Ahmadinejad and his policies toward U.S. and Israel. In identifying the real history of colonialism and apartheid throughout the Middle East, these people believe the movement in Iran has been organized and is supported by foreign powers as part of plans for regime change.

With respect to these groups, I sincerely believe that those of us who live outside Iran – Iranians and non-Iranians alike – must listen more to what Iranians living in Iran are asking for. This has been our (the peace movement’s) policy. During the time when the Bush administration considered attacking Iran, or when Mr. Obama was not sure how to engage with Iran, what we did was to listen to the Iranian people, and do our best to serve their interest as people. We did our best to promote diplomacy, to help lift sanctions, and to prevent new sanctions because that was – we believed – best for the Iranian people.

At that time,we here in the U.S. supported Mr. Ahmadinejad and his policy in any possible way we thought would help the Iranian people. Because we respected the Iranian’s choice, we confronted any and all disrespectful and unfair behavior aimed at him as the elected president during the past four years. We joined rallies in support of Iran. We met with our senators and representatives where we defended Iran and its president (and his speeches). We wrote many articles in his defense, including his New York City trip in September 2007 when he was attacked in many U.S. media and treated discourteously by the president of Columbia University. When he returned to the U.S. in September 2008 to attend the U.N. General Assembly, we applauded when he was interviewed on “Larry King Live” and we organized a respectful meeting for him with participation of many national peace organizations and activist groups to encourage and promote direct dialogue. We wanted to let everyone know that we do not support the U.S. government’s policies of “threatening Iran.” We engaged in dialogue with him in his position as the president of Iran.

We did all this not because they related specifically to Mr. Ahmadinejad. Rather, we sat with him as the president of a country whose people were threatened. We did this for every single person in Iran and because we respect the intelligence and choice of Iranians. We believe that the 1953 coup d’état was not only illegal but also disrespectful – it was based on a paternalistic belief that outsiders know what is best for Iran, rather than the Iranian people themselves – and we are committed to ensuring such attempts will not be repeated.

We believe that separating the Iranian people from their government is wrong. We also believe that designating funds for regime change in Iran under the pretence of “promoting democracy” is wrong and is a form of interference in Iranian affairs. We believe that we must support Iranians in their dream of, and struggle for, independent freedom and democracy: a dream whose seeds were planted with the establishment of the Islamic Republic as early as 30 years ago.

Then how about now? What has changed now?

The short answer is: nothing! I believe nothing has changed in the nature of our support. We still support the Iranian people. We still support their dream and desire for democracy, freedom, and independence. We still support Iranians against all foreign interferences. We still support their right within the international community. And we still support them incombating any economic sanctions or military intervention. We are asking the U.N. to lift previous sanctions, which so far has only harmed the people of Iran – and that will be the case in the future as well. We are asking the U.S. Senate to remove the funding designated for “supporting democracy in Iran.” We practice and promote the same policies as before, because we have never changed our minds about the integrity and intelligence of the people of Iran.

At the same time, we must be aware that trusting the Iranian intelligence means that we must also believe in what it is that they are saying today. We must understand the reasons for which they are still in the streets protesting, even after many have been killed, many others lost their lives under torture, and thousands more are still in terrifying prison cells. We must acknowledge the reasons that keep the Iranian people in the streets in spite of all the hardships they face.

We must listen to the Iranian people’s cries for democracy before we take the easy path of accusing them of attempting a “velvet revolution.” Before we associate this unprecedented movement with the CIA or MOSSAD, and plans to overthrow the Iranian regime. Does a velvet revolution have 14 million (based on official reports from Iran) people in it? Does a velvet revolution include people like the two-term presidents: Khatami and Rafsanjani? Does it include the former prime minister, Mousavi, the speaker of the house, Karoubi, and all those former high officials of the past 30 years?  Does it include so many of those leading figures who played such prominent role on establishment of this regime?

Before accusing them all of being members of a velvet revolution, and citing what happened in Eastern Europe as “evidence,” we must review the history of Iran, at least within the past three decades. We must ask ourselves: have these people been asking for foreign support? Are they asking anything more than what is written in the constitution of the Islamic Republic?

I say: we should believe in the intelligence of the Iranian people, and their efforts toward self-determination should not be argued as the work of foreigners and outside influences.

The failure by Barack Obama to chart another course in the Middle East, to defy the Israel
lobby and to denounce the Bush administration’s inexorable march toward a conflict with
Iran is a failure to challenge the collective insanity that has gripped the political leadership
in the United States and Israel.

Obama, in a miscalculation that will have grave consequences, has given his blessing to
the widening circle of violence and abuse of the Palestinians by Israel and, most
dangerously, to those in the Bush White House and Jerusalem now plotting a war against
Iran. He illustrates how the lust for power is morally corrosive. And while he may win the
White House, by the time he takes power he will be trapped in George Bush’s alternative
reality.

“Humanity Does Not Change”

There is nothing in human nature or human history to justify the idea that we are
progressing morally as a species.

We need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to stay the hand of Israel, which is
building more settlements—including a new plan to put 800 housing units in occupied
East Jerusalem—and imposing draconian measures to physically break the 1.5 million
Palestinians in Gaza. We need, most of all, to prevent a war with Iran.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, in a letter to President Bush on May 8, threatened
to open impeachment proceedings if Bush attacked Iran. The letter is a signal that
planning for strikes on Iran is under way and pronounced.

“Our concerns in this area have been heightened by more recent events,” Conyers wrote.
“The resignation in mid-March of Admiral William J. ‘Fox’ Fallon from the head of U.S.
Central Command, which was reportedly linked to a magazine article that portrayed him as
the only person who might stop your Administration from waging preemptive war against
Iran, has renewed widespread concerns that your Administration is unilaterally planning
for military action against that country. This is despite the fact that the December 2007
National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program
in the fall of 2003, a stark reversal of previous Administration assessments.”

The administration, in rhetoric that is eerily similar to that used to build the case for a war
against Iraq, asserts that the Iranian Quds Force is arming anti-American groups in Iraq
and providing them with high-tech roadside bombs and sophisticated rockets. It
dismisses the National Intelligence Estimate conclusion that Iran suspended its nuclear
weapons program. The White House has not provided evidence to back up its claims. I
suspect it never will. And when Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz tells the Israeli
newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth an attack on Iran is “unavoidable” if Tehran does not halt its
alleged nuclear weapons program, what he is really telling us is we should prepare for war.
Conyers’ threat is too little too late, especially if the Bush White House, possibly assisted
by Israel, launches airstrikes on some or all of 1,000 selected Iranian targets in the final
weeks of the administration. But it is an effort. Conyers tried.

This is more than we can say for the presumptive Democratic nominee. Obama went
before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Wednesday and said he will
stand with the right-wing Israeli government, even if this means backing an attack on Iran.
“As president I will use all elements of American power to pressure Iran,” he said. “I will
do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in
my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything.”
Obama went on to blame the Palestinians for the conflict, although the ratio of
Palestinians to Israelis killed in 2007 was 40 to 1. This is an increase from 30 to 1 in 2006
and 4 to 1 in 2000-2005.

“I will bring to the White House an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security. That starts
with ensuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage, …” Obama told AIPAC. “I will ensure
Israel can defend itself from any threat, from Gaza to Tehran. …”
Obama spoke about Israelis whose houses were damaged by the crude rockets, most
made out of old pipes, fired from Gaza on Israeli towns. He never mentioned the Israeli
siege of Gaza, the world’s largest open-air prison, or that Israel was deploying fighter jets
and helicopters to attack densely crowded refugee camps with missiles and iron
fragmentation bombs or that it had cut off food and fuel. He ignored the steady expansion
of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. He called for Jerusalem to become the
“undivided capital” of the Jewish state, erasing Arab East Jerusalem from the map in
contravention of international law. East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are
internationally recognized as occupied Palestinian territories, which Israel took over in
1967. Obama’s stance is the moral equivalent of assuring the Johannesburg government
during the apartheid era that one would support their repressive efforts to punish the
restive blacks in the townships.

The deterioration of the conflict in Israel, which would be accelerated by airstrikes on Iran
and an ensuring regional war, will propel us into the Armageddon-type scenario in the
Middle East relished by the lunatic fringes of the radical Christian right. And so, with
Obama’s enthusiastic endorsement, we barrel toward a Dr. Strangelove self-immolation.
No one will be able to say we did not go out with a spectacular show of firepower, gore
and death. Our European and Middle Eastern allies, who are numb with consternation over
our death spiral, are frantically trying to reach out to Tehran diplomatically.

The instant we attack Iran, oil prices will double, perhaps triple. This price increase will
devastate the American economy. The ensuing retaliatory strikes by Iran on Israel, as well
as on American military installations in Iraq, will leave hundreds, maybe thousands, of
dead. The Shiites in the region, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, will see an attack on Iran as
a war against Shiism. They will turn with rage and violence on us and our allies. Hezbollah
will renew attacks on northern Israel. And the localized war in Iraq will become a long,
messy and protracted regional war that, by the time it is done, will most likely end the
American empire and leave in its wake mounds of corpses and smoldering ruins.

The Israeli leadership, like the Bush White House, is increasingly bellicose and threatening.
The Israeli prime minister, after a 90-minute meeting with Bush in the White House on
Wednesday, said the two leaders were of one mind. “We reached agreement on the need to
take care of the Iranian threat,” Ehud Olmert said. “I left with a lot less questions marks
[than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and American
resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian
threat and the need to vanquish it and intends to act on the matter before the end of his
term in the White House.”

This time around, unlike about the war with Iraq, the Washington bureaucracy, loathed by
the Bush White House, did not remain silent and complicit. The National Intelligence
Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program released last Dec. 3 distinguished Iran’s enrichment of
uranium at Natanz and Arak from its formal nuclear weapons program, which it said had
halted in 2003 after the American invasion of Iraq. Adm. Fallon, who put his country and
his integrity before his career, spoke out against a war with Iran, tried to stop it and lost
his job as the head of CENTCOM. He has been replaced with Gen. David H. Petraeus,
whose devotion to his career admits no such moral impediments.

” … There is no greater threat to Israel or peace than Iran,” Obama assured AIPAC. “This
audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. And the enemies of Israel should
have no doubt that regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in support
of Israel’s security. … The Iran regime supports violent extremists and challenges us
across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race
and … its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. … [M]y
goal will be to eliminate this threat.”

Barack Obama, when we need sane leadership the most, has proved feckless and weak.
He, and the Democratic leadership, is as morally bankrupt as those preparing to ignite our
funeral pyre in the Middle East.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama on screen receives applause during
his address before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference 2008 in
Washington.

President George Bush and his tag-along buddy John McCain are repeating almost word for word about Iran the pattern of lies and threats they used to justify the war against Iraq.

Our intelligence agencies have said that Iran gave up the pursuit of a nuclear weapon three years ago. President Bush makes speeches as if he’s never heard of any intelligence agencies. That’s what worries me about President Bush. His words very often defy and contradict reality.

Recently, he almost repeated word for word a theme he often used in the buildup to the Iraq aggression. It was, he said, unthinkable to allow “the most dangerous regime to acquire the most dangerous weapons.” This guy might actually launch an attack on Iran before his term expires. If he does, you can kiss the world economy goodbye. You don’t like $4-a-gallon gas? How about $10 a gallon?

In the first place, Iran is far from the most dangerous regime in the world. I would say it is not dangerous at all, so far as the United States is concerned. Except for idiots, sane people assess threats based on capability, not on political rhetoric, intentions or imagination.

So what are the capabilities of Iran? It has no nuclear weapons. We have about 3,000 or more. One American submarine could destroy the entire country of Iran and its population. Iran has no missiles that could reach us. It has no aircraft that could reach us. Its army couldn’t even defeat Iraq.

So what I want to know is how in the blankety-blank Hades Bush and McCain define the word “dangerous”? When their statements about Iran are placed side by side with the known facts, Bush and McCain sound insane.

Nothing alarms me more than the thought of an irrational person in the White House. I’m OK with stupid. I can live with venal. I can tolerate a womanizer, even a drunk, but a crazy person in command of our nuclear forces gives me the heebie-jeebies. Somebody who can’t tell the difference between a nuclear-free Iran with no ICBMs and Russia with thousands of nuclear warheads sitting atop advanced intercontinental missiles has no business being allowed in the White House, even as a tourist.

There are two countries that have the capability of being a threat to us – Russia and China. That’s foreign policy and geopolitical strategy at the kindergarten level. They have the capability. No other country in the world does. Only a moron would worry more about an ex-college professor with a long name whose office doesn’t even control the armed forces than he would about Vladimir Putin. This present American administration, in one of the dumbest moves in the history of diplomacy, neglected our relations with Russia while it got us bogged down in two small desert countries that don’t amount to a hill of coffee beans.

Also bear in mind that it doesn’t matter diddly squat if some small country manages to make a few nuclear weapons. A few is no threat to many. Nobody with a few would be tempted to attack any country with many nuclear weapons.

Deterrence worked when the Soviet Union had 30,000 nuclear warheads, but these moronic, unscrupulous, intellectually dishonest, dishonorable neocons would convince you that deterrence wouldn’t work against Iran.

I know most secular folks equate religion with insanity, but they are not the same. Iran is a religious nation, but its leaders are not crazy. They are smart and well-educated. They fought a long, grueling war with Iraq, and I think what they want more than anything else is a little peace and prosperity. But I think they are worried about Bush, McCain and Israel, and I don’t blame them.

Run Date: 04/24/08

By Soheila Vahdati

Iranian activists are bravely pushing for women’s rights. But Soheila Vahdati warns that an outbreak of an Iran-Israeli war that involves the Bush White House would fan the flames of fundamentalism and destroy the cause.Editor’s Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women’s eNews.

(WOMENSENEWS)–In case you missed it, here’s how a Reuters story started out on the day Pennsylvania Democrats were nominating deciding who they want as a presidential candidate.

“Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could ‘totally obliterate’ Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.”

While many American women may be measuring the next U.S. president for his or her policies on health care, gender pay equity and a struggling economy, women in Iran are looking for foreign policy approaches. More immediately, we’re also wary of what the remaining days of President Bush’s time in office might bring.

The possibility of U.S. military action against Iran has been rising this month along with the saber rattling between Israel and Iran.

Some analysts have speculated that Israel might attack Iran to stop its nuclear activities, which the West fears are a front for weapons development. Iran has responded by saying it will obliterate Israel if it comes under attack.

Amid this, female activists in Iran hope that war can be avoided, fearing the Iranian women’s movement would be among the first casualties.

This would be a major loss because the women’s movement is making progressive gains.

Last year, for instance, the fundamentalist daily newspaper Kayhan called upon lawmakers to disarm the movement by reforming the Islamic law in favor of women’s rights.

In this fashion, the women’s movement is chipping away at fundamentalism. And it is best that we continue doing it that way, within the context of peace. If bombs start falling we won’t have that chance. Nationalism and fundamentalism will rise to meet the external aggression and dissidents of every variety will be stifled.

Troubling Rhetoric

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s anti-Israeli rhetoric along with the country’s nuclear program are of obvious concern to Israel, especially in the past few weeks as the war rhetoric has risen. Although Iranian officials have repeatedly claimed the nuclear program is for civilian purposes only, the United States and Israel are not yet convinced.

Following an April 16 meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, President Bush said it is “naive” to think Iran would not be able to transfer nuclear enrichment into a weapons program.

That same day, prominent Israeli newspaper Haaretz opened its editorial by reiterating: “Iran under the Islamic revolutionary government represents a serious security problem for Israel.” And to underscore the extent to which the U.S. military stands behind Israel in this matter it concluded: “Bush may not be the world’s police officer, but in the absence of any other cop on the horizon, he can be expected to make good on his promise to prevent Iran from acquiring the ability to destroy Israel.”

Meanwhile, at a joint congressional hearing, congressional members bluntly expressed their frustration at the lack of an effective U.S. policy toward Iran. “Having a policy of hope is horse dung,” is how Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, expressed it.

Diverting the Fifth Column

In the face of U.S.-Israel opposition the Iranian government is reacting by not only strengthening its military forces but also eliminating any potential “fifth column” recruits, including anybody who dares voice their criticism of the state.

The government strictly controls the media and has closed down magazines that it deems are unsupportive of the government or hold the slightest critical views and commentaries. Zanan, a monthly magazine and the only women’s independent publication in the country, became the latest victim of the government crackdown on media in January.

The state’s strict policies never allow the public to openly voice their opinions about negotiating peace with Israel. A few years ago, I had an interview with an Israeli peace activist, Ada Aharoni, about the joint efforts of some Israeli and Palestinian women for building peace. After the piece was published online, I received e-mails from women in Iran who wished they could join efforts to make Israel and Palestinians negotiate a peaceful solution, but no one was willing to be interviewed.

Yet, female activists have been among the most vocal critics of the Islamic regime, demanding an end to the systemic gender discrimination by the state-imposed Islamic laws. Consequently, they are the first to be oppressed.

Activist Attacked Every 4 Days

Scores of female activists face charges of acting “against national security” and for the first time they face sentences of flogging in addition to prison terms, though the sentences are mostly suspended. Women’s groups are tracking these cases online. During the past three months, on average, one female activist has been summoned, tried, sentenced or threatened every four days.

According to one prominent women’s rights activist, who does not want her name to be revealed, the fundamentalists have all activists and vocal dissidents, at most a few hundred, under surveillance.

“We know that we can work when there is peace,” she says. “But if there is any serious military threat, the regime will round us up and execute us immediately in order to make sure nobody thinks of a replacement for the current regime.”

Iran has made it clear that any military action against the country would lead to a full-scale war. As in any war, nationalism and patriotism will come to support the state, which in this case is in the hands of the fundamentalists. Furthermore, Iran plans to actively recruit its fundamentalist supporters from all over the world to target U.S. interests.

Such a scenario is the worst nightmare of Iranian women’s rights activists. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, women have successfully brought severe theoretical and practical challenges to the Islamic fundamentalism. Women have defied barriers set by the Islamic regime and found their way into nearly all aspects of social life. The headscarf has been no barrier for women to enjoy education and employment and now they are showing their presence in the fields of music and sports.

Women are continuously pushing for reforms to the state-imposed Islamic laws. The child custody law, for example, has been reformed to increase the mother’s share of child custody. The inheritance law was reformed to lessen discrimination against women. Last year, when the lawmakers were drafting the Islamic polygamy bill, women brought sharp criticism to it. Before it could reach the parliament the Supreme Leader–Iran’s highest-ranking religious and political authority–announced his opposition to the bill in a meeting with the 12 female members of the 281-seat parliament.

The Stop Stoning Forever campaign–initiated by women in August 2006 after activists learned of a case where a man and a woman had been stoned and another woman was sentenced–caused some of the prominent grand ayatollahs to distance themselves from the practice of stoning, a legal form of punishment for adultery prescribed under Iran’s Islamic Penal Code. When the campaign drew public attention to stoning, some prominent religious figures, including Ayatollah Montazeri and Ayatollah Mousavi Bojnordi, issued decrees allowing the state to bend the Islamic law and put an end to stoning.

Dr. Soheila Vahdati is an Iranian American human rights activist who has written many articles about women’s human rights and gender issues in Iranian journals. She is a coordinator of the Stop Stoning Forever campaign and is based in California.

Women’s eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org.