The question of military engagement against Iran ~ My comments to Tehran Bureau

A number of months ago, I had an email exchange with a journalist at Tehran Bureau, Frontline, PBS, regarding the rape crisis in Iran. As a sudden shift, I was asked about military strategy against Iran and any conservative affiliations. ABS Community Research, Inc is concerned with human rights protections, coalition building, and anti-corruption. I am not sure where this question came from. Given a number of Iranians both inside the US and inside Iran had shared their opinions with me since June 2009 demonstrations, my answer was a synopsis of their opinions. Of note, Iran belongs to the Iranian people, not Americans, not Israel, not Palestine, nor any western country. It is my firm stance that any government's action in any form be taken with the Iranian citizens, nothing less, and nothing against them.

Military Engagement Against Iran - My Comments to Tehran Bureau

by Velma Anne Ruth on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 1:19pm

Through communications with multiple Iranian-American groups, I have been presented with a broad range of perspectives concerning military engagement. None of which include pre-emptive strike on Iran, most especially in a manner as Iraq – this is out of line. However, as Iran is engaging in nuclear development without fear of the US, rhetoric from those like Sen. McCain is a message to reflect that yes – the US has been making idle threats for a long time, why should Iran be afraid? 

In general discussion, consensus I hear from Iranian-Americans with backing leadership support is:

1) Iran belongs to the Iranian people. Any shift in governance is ultimately in their hands, as it very well should be.

2) No one wants a repeat of 1979, and certainly the 1950s did not bode well for Iran either. For the 21st century, US dominance over Iranian government is a presumed failure.

3) Who the Iranian people want to lead them should be up to their vote, solely their vote. This is a core human right that was unjustifiably stolen from them, and has lead to increased violence.

4) Regardless of what Ahmadinejad wants, there are two dueling views among Iranians: reform vs. secular democracy. It is undetermined which is preferred by the majority of Iranian people, both in the country and outside. While it is rumored that secular democracy is being called for by the Green movement inside Iran, this is a matter of political preference; like Republican v Democrat, or Libertarian v. Communist. Due to communications challenges imposed by the Iranian Cyber Army, an accurate poll is virtually impossible to obtain without intelligence support.

5) The concern over reform is similar to “regime change” concerns. By merely replacing Ahmadinejad with a new leader, that the government will continue atrocities inside prisons, on the streets, in international markets, and maintain funding terrorist organizations. 

6) The US government does not necessarily support any leader for Iran, not Mousavi, not Reza Pahlavi, no one. It is not up to the US, nor should it be because it is not our vote – it is not up to Iranian-Americans or non-Iranian Americans to determine the future of Iran. It is not our land.

7) Any pre-emptive strike is a potential repeat of Iraq, and is not appropriate, nor preferred – most assuredly because it would invite WWIII, which is the last thing that the global community needs in a dire economy anyway

8) Current legislation supporting democracy (attached brief) highlights US federal government funding opportunities to enable the Iranian people to engage their own movements towards a human rights driven, constitutional environment. This potential funding is tied to sanctions bills, is a potential gateway for military engagement, and maybe misused as such. The Iranian people may need resources in order to survive attacks against the regime inside the country. During the Bush Administration, they made many outlandish attempts that defeated the intended purpose of the original student movement, by exploiting the process, at minimum. The Iranian people are encouraged to present their views on democracy independently to Congress, regardless of any opposing positions or war mongering which may be dominating the Hill.

9) Lastly, minimal military engagement is considered a last resort, if and only if absolutely necessary. I have heard more conservative Iranian-Americans express gratitude for US military presence in the Gulf and around Iranian borders. But beyond that, they want the US to not be playing rhetorical games and to be serious about supporting the Iranian people. The current state of intelligence is that there is a grave disconnect between intel and the Iranian people. If this is a bridge that can be built, then military engagement can be deterred more expediently. 

In the midst of discussions with Iranian-American organizations, with whom I speak with 95%, and leadership 5%; the community is seeking to form a coalition of groups who oppose the current regime, in whatever form they take. Though these groups calling for a coalition are predominantly pro-secular democracy, pro-human rights, pro-America, and pro-Israel; collaboration is also open to reformists. Everyone has a shared goal of peace and protections for the Iranian people, but they want to merge resources in order to be successful above and beyond any government intervention.

Please see the facebook note for feedback from Iranians and American supporters. Please feel free to make a friends request, and refer to this blog in the request. 

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150188805230424