Is Seeking Foreign Assistance for Domestic Changes Justifiable?

Seeking help from foreign governments and global powers in the political changes in Iran: can it be legitimate and ethical? Is the process of making the power structure in Iran more democratic an internal process that should solely rely on domestic capacities, elections, and gradual reforms, or are political changes fundamentally impossible without the support and, as some political activists say, the intervention and guidance of foreign forces? Reza Taghizadeh, a political analyst based in Britain, and Alireza Namvar Haghighi, a political analyst in Canada, discuss these questions in this week's taboo. Mr. Taghizadeh, do you believe that change in Iran should happen internally, relying on domestic capacities, or should it be supported or even guided by foreign powers? Reza Taghizadeh: If we deny the possibility of foreign intervention, then internal changes in Iran will be much more difficult. We need to have a correct definition of foreign intervention throughout the program. In our country, in the region, really no major event can happen unless it is related to regional events and issues that larger countries are also interested in. The regime that is currently in power did it come to power without foreign intervention? If there was no American intervention to neutralize the Iranian army, would this have happened? If the Islamic Republic did not hear the voices of its supporters before the revolution every day from the BBC, and if the government agencies were not paralyzed, would this have happened? If Mr. Khomeini was not hosted in Neauphle-le-Château and his speeches were not broadcast all over Iran, would this have happened? We see that we cannot examine the issue of foreign intervention in isolation and we cannot completely ignore the necessity of foreign presence in the internal changes and developments of a country like Iran. Very well, Mr. Namvar Haghighi, Mr. Taghizadeh has clearly expressed his opinion. The example he brings is related to the 1979 revolution; what is your response? Do you think that if any change in the government structure in Iran is to happen, it must be internal or is it dependent on foreign powers? Namvar Haghighi: Look, the key discussion is what goals these interventions lead to. Have we been able to achieve changes in favor of economic and security development indicators for those societies from these interventions? It seems the answer is negative. Even American officials consider it negative. Mr. Trump considers the intervention in Iraq a disaster. In England, the issue of Iraq is the same... It is clear that these interventions have either been aimed at gaining financial interests, like in the case of Libya where Americans froze 250 billion dollars of Libyan money and have not returned it yet, or they have been cases like Iraq and Afghanistan with much larger projects for the region and have left more disasters than positive changes in the region. It should not be forgotten that Iran, according to all political science experts, has had the largest revolution in history in terms of political participation. It should not be forgotten that in the 1990s, the issue of supporting such movements was on the agenda in Western universities. But this does not mean that the West intended the Iranian revolution and created it. No! Such a thing is wrong. The 21st century has certainly shown that direct foreign intervention in the Middle East, in countries like Iran, has a very high cost and will not lead to any of the changes that are promised. The second point is that in these countries, without mobilizing an internal force from domestic resources, using foreign support will definitely not lead anywhere, and nationalism in these regions, countries like Iran, does not support this view and this type of support very much. Mr. Taghizadeh, since you mentioned that in our region, you mean the Middle East, perhaps no change is possible without the intervention of global powers, in opposition to your view, Mr. Namvar Haghighi believes that interventions have been exploitative and have not necessarily left good results. What is your response to his point? Taghizadeh: First of all, a government that agrees with intervention is inherently an authoritarian government. In practice, it is also interventionist in other countries under the pretext of Islam and attributes itself to God; it cannot be a supporter of, for example, drawing borders or non-intervention. Given the situation that the people of Iran are in, for example, regarding human rights, it is naturally impossible for them to raise their voices to other societies or to be able to raise their voices or to confront the government without foreign help and intervention. Because what we refer to as national sovereignty, which belongs to the people, has been confiscated by the government. Therefore, to regain this right, they need help. But Ms. Heydari, I believe that the Persian language may not be very clear for what we refer to as intervention. In international law, there is a term called 'Intervention', but there is another term called 'Interfere' which is a bit more interventionist. This is what the Islamic Republic is doing today in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. To this extent, Mr. Haghighi is right. The costs must be compared to what is considered the benefit for the people. For example, I do not believe, I do not agree, and I am also against the idea that a neighboring country like Saudi Arabia should intervene in Iran's internal affairs. But I agree that, for example, the President of the United States, whether it is Obama or Trump or anyone else, should have an ear to hear the protests of the people of Iran; this cannot be considered intervention, it can be called defending human rights. We witnessed when unilateral sanctions were imposed against the Islamic Republic, the economic situation of the government collapsed. The government weakened. The weakening of the government in that situation was a kind of advantage that was gained by the people. In 2009, when people went to the streets, kicked images of Ali Khamenei, and expressed their protests against the government, their voices echoed in the world's media, the balance of power naturally changed significantly in favor of the people. The intervention and assistance of great powers to facilitate the connection to the voices of the people is certainly an effective help. Very well. Mr. Namvar Haghighi, the sanctions that Mr. Taghizadeh mentioned and said were effective and caused the voices of the people to be heard, were they in many cases more against the nation than against the government? Do you have anything to add on this matter? Namvar Haghighi: Yes. Look, the discussion of foreign intervention has conditions and situations. For example, when you are at war with a country, at least in the public opinion of Iran, receiving help from that faction that is, after all, at war with Iran has an undesirable impact. Like the help that, for example, the Mojahedin-e Khalq received from Iraq when Saddam was at war with Iran. But regarding the issue of human rights, great powers have human rights at the bottom of their list. During Mr. George Bush's time, the United States in Iraq, according to reports from Amnesty International, was one of the serious violators of human rights in the world. The Americans had 16,000 prisoners without charges. The sanctions being discussed; in most cases, in 90% of cases, have weakened civil society more and empowered hidden governments. More than targeting the power, it targets society, and over time, if you have noticed, gradually democratic demands go into a coma, and social groups of the poor expand, which, according to the estimates of the National Security Council of the United States, these poor groups can become prey to radical currents and extreme thoughts. Taghizadeh: Those who consider the current situation in Iran to be desirable want to avoid any pressure against the government. This is the nature and policy of the Islamic Republic, reformists, and those who like the current situation in Iran. It is true that if the sanctions are not targeted, the people also suffer as a result, but if you listen to the words of the candidates of the government who have passed through the sieve of the system, you will see that these so-called filtered factors declare that as a result of lifting the sanctions, the people have gained nothing. It has been the government that has taken the resources and because there has been no international and national oversight over the performance of the system, this money has been spent in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere. Sanctions, of course, also lead to the weakening of the government. This is why the government submits to relinquishing part of its resources to be able to survive. One point I want to explain here is that we should not define foreign hands and foreign intervention as if the whole world outside is a big monster and those who govern us inside Iran are an angel. No! It is true that in the direction of their national interests, some countries or all countries act, but there are places where their interests align with the general interests of the people inside Iran; for this reason, they create radio stations, television stations, and communication networks to amplify the voices of the people of Iran, for example, in confrontation with the government. Mr. Taghizadeh, but opponents of this view may ask you and say, can democracy essentially be transferred from one place to another? Can it be brought from outside to inside? I mean, the existence of social, cultural, and civic constructs in the middle class in any country is crucial for achieving democracy. Now, the discussion is not that foreign forces are necessarily monsters, but is this democracy and this change something that can be done from outside? Taghizadeh: Naturally, it can and must be done from within. You see, the wave of the Cold War led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and countries like the Czech Republic, where your radio center is located, or Poland or Hungary became free. They started democracy from a small step and were able to grow this sapling. Democracy must be brought to the place as a sapling and planted. Do you think so too, Mr. Namvar Haghighi? Should this sapling be brought from abroad? Namvar Haghighi: No! When you say change, and you want to create change in a country like Iran, which has had more Islamic movements than any country in the region, revolutionary transformations, Iran's democratic indicators are currently better than all its surrounding countries. In political systems, the issue of democracy is not the main issue. The first issue in all societies is the issue of security, maintaining the territorial integrity of countries. You see how much the American or British system changed after the September 11 attacks. In any case, for any reason, right or wrong, the Iranian people have had an independence-seeking movement in them, which led to the 1979 revolution. This means that Iranian society has felt that it is a society that must stand on its own feet, solve its own issues, and now... Mr. Namvar Haghighi, in the points you raised, you bring up the issue of security, and some may say to you, what kind of security will be provided at the cost of internal repression? Namvar Haghighi: Look, when you write security and territorial integrity, the situation that Syria is in; the situation that Iraq is in; the situation that Afghanistan is in; many ordinary people who do not care about political freedom! They want security; that they are not taken hostage on the street, that they are not stolen, that they are not assassinated in broad daylight; it is the same everywhere. Ordinary people prefer a government that is strong, which may also be repressive, but they prefer it to a situation where there is no government and complete insecurity prevails. In all these countries where intervention has taken place in the 21st century, all of them have led to a state of statelessness. Mr. Taghizadeh, in any case, the project of change can be pursued in various ways; one of those forms, as I asked at the beginning of this program, is that changes should come from within Iran, even from within the government; for example, in comparison with the cost and benefit, or cost and result, do you think that the electoral box and gradual reforms of the existing structure can be a more effective choice, or do you still believe that the option of intervention by global powers is a more effective one? Taghizadeh: Absolutely, changes from within the Iranian government are not possible. This is not in the nature of the Islamic government of Iran. The Islamic government of Iran is an authoritarian government, and the very concept of reformism as a philosophical thought within the Islamic Republic is in contradiction with its nature, and we cannot move towards it. Therefore, the only option left is to exert pressure against the government, to change the nature of the government. In this framework, holding elections like those whose candidates are selected by the government and imposed on the people makes no difference from elections in the former Soviet republics. The communist governments that filter a number of candidates from the Communist Party and offer them to the people. Naturally, some people are forced to go vote, and these are the agents of the government, people who earn their living from this way, meaning they receive salaries from the Islamic Republic. Some have been following this party for a few years, trying to choose a bad option between bad and worse so that we do not go towards worse, and some have been indifferent. This electoral situation does not help the people and move towards democracy.