Dialogue With Iran’s Tyrants? Pro-Appeasement “Realists” Need A Reality Check
By The US Alliance for Democratic Iran (07/30/04)
It is quite amazing that no matter how many Iranians the mullahs torture and murder, how many suicide bombers they dispatch abroad, how many lies they tell about their nuclear weapons program, how many Americans and foreign national they kill, how many agents they send into Iraq and elsewhere to foment fundamentalism, there are always some pro-appeasement “realists” at work to whitewash the mullahs’ crimes and deceptions. They put the blame for the mullahs’ behavior on everything but the mullahs themselves.
The most recent example is a report by the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) Task Force on Iran that came out last week. It recommends “direct dialogue” over “issues of mutual interest.” Appeasement is once again disguised under a fancy term.
Wait a minute! Have we not heard this before? Let’s say seven years ago? Messrs Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, and Richard Murphy wrote a joint commentary in the May/June 1997 issue of the Foreign Affairs, urging the United States to “consider the possibilities of creative trade-offs” and “diplomatic contacts” to improve relations with Tehran.
Then, it was the presidency of Mohammad Khatami, the “Ayatollah Gorbachev,” which justified engagement. To be sure, there was no shortage of overtures by the Clinton administration to Tehran, which included lifting sanctions on carpet, caviar, and pistachio imports, blacklisting Iran’s main opposition group, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), and turning a blind eye to Tehran’s direct role in the Khobar Towers bombing.
The Iranians, of course, did not reciprocate and rapprochement again failed. Even under the helm of “moderate” Khatami, Tehran rulers lacked ideological and political capacity to enter into any meaningful relationship with Washington.
While the champions of “engagement” have been calling for an “opening” with Tehran for more than two decades, all they have to show so far is the humiliation of successive U.S. administrations and the bolstering of a loathed regime in Iran.
And now with the “moderate” faction having been eliminated from power, the pro-appeasement “realists” still suggest engagement. In 1997, the ascendance of pro-reform currents in Iran was the primary justification and today the rise of most extreme faction, “authoritative interlocutors,” is the basis for engagement. We allow Iran’s ruling tyrants to brutally suppress dissidents and then claim we should be content with the status quo because there is no visible organized opposition.
In an unusual move for a reputable foreign policy establishment, the authors of the CFR report recommended to the United States to “disband the Iraq-based Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK)” and “ensure that its leaders are brought to justice.” Unless the authors are recommending to the United States to trample on the Forth Geneva Convention’s provisions, their suggestion is illegal, inhumane, and strategically counter-productive. Since according to a report by the Agence France Presse, the US-led coalition has officially agreed to “continued protection for the Mujahedeen at Camp Ashraf” and has accorded them “recognition as protected persons under the fourth Geneva Convention.”
In a rush to further appease the mullahs, the authors neglected to mention why their report did not call for the leaders of the religious dictatorship in Iran – the most active state sponsor of terrorism – to be “brought to justice” for countless acts of domestic and international terrorism including killing dozens of Iranian dissidents as well American servicemen in Beirut in 1983 and Saudi Arabia in 1996. Should not these henchmen be held to account for the well-documented 1988 massacre of thousands of Iranian political prisoners? What about stoning women and men to death in public?
As the CFR’s report was released Monday, the latest evidence in the bi-partisan 9/11 commission established links between Iran’s mullahs and Al-Qaeda network, which seriously brings into question the wisdom of considering Iran as party to any meaningful “dialogue”. Meanwhile, in an interview with the Washington Post, Hazim Shalan, Iraq's defense minister in the Interim government charged that “Iran has taken over Iraqi border positions, sent spies and saboteurs into the country and infiltrated the new government -- including his own ministry.” "Iran interferes in order to kill democracy," Shalan said.
Appeasement in dealing with ideologically-driven totalitarian regimes never works. It did not work with Nazi Germany in 1938 and it will not work in the case of Iran’s theocratic regime. If in doubt, just ask Neville Chamberlain.
To be sure, it is the lack of firmness in our policy and sending mixed signals to Iran - and not a lack of dialogue – that have hampered our approach to Tehran. As the voices of appeasement are busy reviving a repeatedly failed policy, they must remember the costly lessons of the September 11: Negotiating with terrorist regimes never works, it only emboldens them.
The US Alliance for Democratic Iran (www.usadiran.org), is a US-based, independent, non-profit policy advocacy organization, which aims to advance a US policy in support of Iranian people’s aspirations for a democratic, secular, and peaceful government. The USADI is not affiliated with any government agencies, political groups or parties.
(Printer friendly version) 
