The Islamic Republic of Iran is at an important crossroads. It has been nearly six months since the country was rocked by violence and demonstrations following the June 12 presidential elections.
To the dismay of many in the West, this was not another revolution; this was a civil rights movement.
The definition of freedom, itself, has evolved since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, according to Iranian sociologist Asef Bayat. Thirty years later, that definition has grown to include concepts of individual civil liberties, leading to a far more mature civil society that seeks change in increments — not through an explosive revolution.
By the time the spring semester starts here at Cal State Long Beach, time may have already run out for Iran to avoid sanctions over its nuclear program.
According to White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, this is in regards to an Iranian response to a preliminary agreement that was reached in Geneva in October. “The deadline is the end of the year,” Gibbs warned last week.
Mir Hossein Musavi, considered by Western media as the “darling” leader of the Green Movement, has stated, “If the Geneva agreement is implemented by Iran, it will destroy the work and achievements of thousands of Iranian scientists. And if it is not, it will create consensus for imposing very broad sanctions on Iran.”
Unknowingly, the man the West was rooting for this summer has the same nuclear stance as the supreme leader of Iran.
Sanctions never work, and are a product of a shallow thought process, as well as a blunt and showy instrument of vindictive politics.
Iranian officials have long accused the West of playing politics with peoples’ lives by imposing sanctions that prevent upgrades to the country’s aging aircraft fleet. Iran’s civilian air industry has an abysmal safety record.
The Islamic Republic has been sanctioned for the past 30 years. The country has adapted to it and currently is a major power in the region, partly due to the help of the U.S. for disposing of Iran’s two mortal enemies; the Taliban and Sadaam Hussein.
Pressure on Iran has also been applied here in the U.S. because federal prosecutors have recently taken steps to seize Iranian properties on American soil, including mosques, which has implications on the constitutional right to freedom of religion.
On a local level, California’s insurance commissioner Steve Poizner recently announced that he will push insurance companies in California to divest up to $12 billion in indirect investments in Iran.
This is pathetically self-serving for Poizner, who clearly wants the media attention that comes attached to Iranian affairs, which benefits his fundraising to become the Republican nominee in next year’s election for governor.
In the wake of a November U.N. vote to censure Iran over its nuclear activities, the speaker of Iran’s Parliament, Ali Larijani, has urged moderation, saying that the government should not be “pushed into hasty reactions.”
The Islam in North America news agency quoted Larijani as saying, “You should demand that authorities use all possible ways to serve national interests.”
The Iranian government has consistently stated in the past that talks should be without preconditions and based on “mutual respect.” Deadlines, divestment and sanctions are not conducive to rapprochement with the Islamic Republic.
President Obama should give himself a degree of flexibility and not be married to any artificial deadlines. Pressing the discussion simply because of pre-established benchmarks undermines the chances for diplomacy to succeed.
Hanif Zarrabi is a Middle Eastern history graduate student and a columnist for the Daily 49er.