|
The Mullahs' Transparent Moral Bankruptcy Reza Pahlavi
offers a sound investment plan for the political future of his
country. He warns the Iranian people and the international community
against any further squandering of hope on dodgy schemes and bankrupt
ideas churned out by the ruling clerical establishment and its
cohorts. The Islamic Republic he argues is one of the greatest
international shareholders in terrorism and repression.
Thongs of enthusiastic voters who were looking for a way out of the
impasse of the Islamic Republic supported Mohammad Khatami's
presidency. Some leading exponents of this movement today are
imprisoned by the Islamic Republic. Others live either in exile or
under virtual house arrest. What went wrong was that instead of
honoring his mandate and overseeing a transition to a democratic
system, Mr. Khatami chose to serve the interests of the sworn enemies
of freedom and human rights. So today the only hope of liberation for
the people of Iran is from the International community, led by the USA.
Fotki_____________________
It has poured the valuable resources of the country into creating
fear and instability throughout the world. "It is high time now to
open a moral and political account for the future of the Iranian
people on the basis of universally agreed upon values of democratic
governance." There can be no doubt such an account will in no time
yield a huge peace dividend that would tremendously benefit not only
Iran, but also the whole global community. The ameliorating effects
of a democratic and politically progressive Iran in the heart of the
troubled Middle East cannot be exaggerated.
In an interview with Deutsche Welle radio on May 19th, Reza Pahlavi
the man who for the past 26 years has been leading a peaceful
campaign against the theocratic dictatorship in his country, referred
to Mohammad Khatami's presidency as the final mask falling off the
face of a system that has been fundamentally at odds with democratic
principles since its violent genesis in 1979. Responding to questions
put to him by Elaheh Khoshnam, the correspondent of the German radio
station, he pointed out how Mohammad Khatami had a choice between
failing the people who elected him to office, and turning his back on
the repressive ruling mullahs. Mohammad Khatami, opted for the
former. Reza Pahlavi calls this a betrayal:
"When the first student movement and protest against the ruling
mullahs took place and was violently repressed by the fanatical thugs
in the pay of the regime, when students were thrown out of their
dormitory windows and murdered, Khatami instead of offering his
resignation in protest to such a heinous violation, sided with the
regime and thanked the repressive elements for preserving the order.
This was nothing but a clear betrayal of the people who elected him."
A great many former supporters of Mohammad Khatami share this view.
Thongs of enthusiastic voters who were looking for a way out of the
impasse of the Islamic Republic supported Mohammad Khatami's
presidency. Some leading exponents of this movement today are
imprisoned by the Islamic Republic. Others live either in exile or
under virtual house arrest. What went wrong was that instead of
honoring his mandate and overseeing a transition to a democratic
system, Mr. Khatami chose to serve the interests of the sworn enemies
of freedom and human rights. So today the only hope of liberation for
the people of Iran is from the International community, led by the USA.
An increasing number of Iranians today are rationally facing the
incontrovertible political reality and banking their hopes and
aspirations on a new political system whose constitution can be
consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
principles of civilized democracies. Faced with the impermeability of
the Islamic Republic to meaningful democratic reform, many leading
figures of the Iranian opposition have put their signature on a call
for a national referendum to decide the political future of the
country.
Reza Pahlavi who has supported this call draws a line of distinction
between the call itself as an instrument of pressure against the
mullahs, and the actual holding of the referendum. It is obvious that
holding a free referendum requires certain conditions that are not
feasible under the present repressive atmosphere. On the other hand,
advocating a call for a referendum is nothing but a support for the
supremacy of democracy and people's power vis à vis the tyrannical
rule of a clique that has based its legitimacy on extraterrestrial
rights and obscurantist privileges.
Lines of demarcation in Iranian politics are becoming increasingly
clear. Iranians as well as the international community can no longer
sit on the fence and waste irredeemable time. The choice has never
been so clear as it is today: To make deals with the mullahs will
render one a shareholder in international terrorism and clerical
dictatorship. To support the democratic rights of the Iranian people
to decide their political future in a free national referendum will
be an investment yielding inestimable interests in human lives and
global security.
Story Credits:
Reza Bayegan writing in the Frontpagemag
__________________________________________________
Discuss this
article
|
