A Group of Critics of the Agreement: Human Rights and Freedom Should Not Be Sacrificed

Opponents and critics of the nuclear agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and global powers are not only the hardliners and conservatives. There are other critics as well. Those who say they are concerned about human rights and Iran's national interests believe that the hands of opponents of political development in Iran will be further loosened to restrict the social and political space. In this article, we take a look at the views of several critics or opponents of the nuclear agreement who say that the space for civil society will become more constricted after this agreement. Abolfazl Islami, a former advisor at the Iranian Foreign Ministry who emigrated to Japan in 2006, is against the nuclear agreement. He says that a group of experts at the Foreign Ministry opposed the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions from the beginning. "I myself, along with several experts, wrote reports that it would be better to stop this project because ultimately, if it is to be handed over in a few years with billions in losses and after many sanctions, this is not in the national interests of Iran. But Mr. Zarif, who was then the head of the expert team, told the experts that no, we are merely executors of the regime's foreign policy. Therefore, since the regime wants to continue its nuclear programs, we must continue and only negotiate. The reason the Tehran government has kept 5,000 centrifuges is that if those who today talk about human rights in Iran are suppressed tomorrow, the European Union will again ask why they are being suppressed. They have kept these 5,000 centrifuges for trade or threat. You saw that when the nuclear discussion started a decade ago, the Islamic Republic removed the human rights issue from the foreign negotiations and put the nuclear issue on the table. Why? My question is this. Because Mr. Ali Akbar Velayati, the current advisor to the Leader, explicitly said at that time that if we allow non-affiliated parties to be active in Iran, the regime will definitely undergo transformation, the likelihood of a velvet revolution will increase, and this means the fall of the Islamic regime. Therefore, I oppose such an agreement that ignores human rights. Heshamatollah Tabarzadi, a political activist residing in Iran and editor of the banned publications 'Payam Daneshju', 'Hoviyat Khoy', and 'Ghazareh Rooz', who has spent years in Evin and Rajai Shahr prisons on security and political charges, is a serious critic of the nuclear agreement and says his main concern is the neglect of human rights. "In this agreement or deal, the issue of human rights has no place, and the issue we have is that with this deal that the Westerners have made with an undemocratic, illegal regime, pressure on the Iranian people will increase. Because they will use the money they give to the Islamic Republic to dope it. Of course, there is another theory that the Islamic Republic is forced to act within the global framework with this agreement and will act more cautiously on human rights issues and suppress less. Well, this is also mentioned. But in the essence of the agreement that was made, the issue of human rights was not specified, and I, as a critic of this deal, have repeatedly said that we do not know at all, because the Islamic regime is not accountable to the Iranian people. The Iranian people have no news. The only thing that has reached us from this issue is sanctions and economic pressure and the unnecessary costs that the Islamic Republic has incurred and suppression. But the issue is that in its consequences, one speculation is made, and I also like to think this way that yes, the Islamic regime will be forced to act within a framework or better than before, and suppressions will decrease. But when no specific mechanism has been presented that the Islamic Republic, for example, has committed to execute fewer people and torture less, release prisoners, allow journalists to be free, and have freedom of parties, assembly, expression, belief, and religion, when none of these exist. Therefore, when none of these exist, what guarantee is there? These reformists two years ago told the people to participate in the elections, political prisoners would be released, prosperity would come, security would be established, well, it didn't happen. When it didn't happen, now when you ask why it didn't happen, they say Khamenei and the IRGC didn't allow it. That answer didn't work! Mohammad Nourizad's name has been heard in recent years as a civil activist, even more than when he was a writer and director of cinema and television in Iran and collaborated with the Kayhan newspaper. He, who lives in Iran, is against the nuclear agreement. "The agreement is nothing; if all the people come together, what will ultimately take shape is what aligns with the leadership's thinking. The agreement has nothing to do with the future of our society. While it may cause some rubble to fall on us in an uncertain future. The reality is that although some events may occur in the appearance of society with this agreement, the essence of the matter is the strings that the leadership twists and a culture that responds to the demands of the clergy. Therefore, neither the people nor human rights absolutely have any role in this agreement. My view is that the nuclear agreement will not benefit the people and will not have much impact on the choke points that the Leader's household has firmly grasped unless the people vigorously bring their demands to the public sphere." Ahmad Batebi, a human rights activist and journalist residing in the United States, who spent most of his youth in prison due to participating in protests after the events of July 9, 1999, is now one of the serious critics of the nuclear agreement and says that pressure on the Iranian government due to its repressive behavior should not be halted under the pretext of the nuclear agreement. "I am not against the agreement, but I am a serious critic of this agreement. Because the nuclear agreement was made with Ayatollah Khamenei, not the people. The Iranian people have not received a single report from the government in the past 12 years to know how much of the country's wealth was spent on this nuclear adventure. Ultimately, it was Ayatollah Khamenei who decided for the agreement. If we remain silent about human rights now, we are sacrificing human rights and the future of human rights in Iran with our own hands. Because the agreement has been made, it is over and done. Obama was clever and sent it to the United Nations before this plan was sent to Congress according to the law, and the UN approved it. Therefore, this agreement will not be harmed at all if we talk about human rights. Legally, my argument is that we must seek a solution that increases political pressure and global community oversight on the Iranian government. Not to impose a sanction that breaks the people's back and forces them to comply with a bad situation and cooperate with a dictatorship. The second point is that we are not in a reform period because the elements of change do not exist. We still have the IRGC, which has become more powerful and its power has increased several times. We still have the judiciary that suppresses with greater audacity and the leadership that has entered the fray with the same previous views. I am not saying this; statistics say so. Look at the first half of this year, we had more than 700 executions in Iran. We are still the second-largest jailer of journalists in the world. Therefore, we do not have elements of change. Overall, based on the experience gained during the reform period, the scourge of this situation for a society seeking change towards civilization is conservatism. It is a deterrent to have political considerations. Some say don't say this now because it may provoke conservatives in Iran. Don't say this because the leadership may be upset. Don't say this because the IRGC may react. This conservatism creates a scourge. Rest assured that the IRGC now has economic interests and during the sanctions was able to create an economic band. Do you think that in this system, with our inaction, any change will occur? No. This is a network. It has an interest, and whether you react or not, it will carry out the same treatment it must do with the people. Not speaking about what needs to be said will eliminate the motivation and hope that exists." Salman Sima, a member of the Central Council of Liberal Students and Graduates in Iran and a former political prisoner, now residing in Canada, says that opposing the current nuclear agreement does not mean that there is no solution other than war. "A good agreement, from my perspective as someone who seeks Iran's national interests, must have at least three characteristics. One, I never know what benefit the rotation of 6,000 centrifuges in the hands of the Islamic Republic can have. According to the diplomats of the Islamic Republic themselves, this program has no economic justification and has sent billions of Iranian rials into Russia's pockets. Second, a good agreement must include human rights and the citizens' rights of the Iranian people. Consider that in the first six months of the year, over 270 internet cafes were closed. Consider that the morality patrols are still confronting people in the streets. Consider that in the upcoming parliamentary elections in Esfand, those who participated in the suppression groups and incited the Basij to suppress people in the Green Movement have said they want to submit lists for parliament. Just recently, a political prisoner and labor activist, Mr. Shahrokh Zamani, lost his life in prison. We see that Ms. Bahareh Hedayat has been given an unjust two-year prison sentence. Saeed Mortazavi is acquitted. Third, a good agreement must be one that includes peace. What is currently happening in Syria, this flood of refugees and migrants that breaks every human's heart. Refer to the UN statistics; Bashar al-Assad has killed four to five times more people than ISIS, and this money of the Iranian people is spent on killing people in Syria. Even Mr. Rouhani immediately announced after the agreement that today the people of Gaza, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen are happy. This means they are explicitly stating where this money will be spent. Therefore, this agreement is not one that includes peace. We have tried to convey the views of a group of critics of the recent nuclear agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and global powers, especially the powerful Western countries. Those critics who say that in this agreement human rights and national interests have been overlooked and that the space for civil society in Iran may become more constricted.