Opponents of the Islamic Republic Oppose Nuclear Agreement

Dozens of opponents of the Islamic Republic, former political and ideological prisoners, families of the executed, and families of current political and ideological prisoners have expressed their opposition to the nuclear agreement and called for increased pressure on the Islamic Republic and a focus on human rights violations in Iran. The signatories of a statement published on Saturday, August 13, on the Daily Beast website emphasized that they seek a 'better future for the world' but believe that 'appeasement of the Islamic Republic will lead to a more dangerous world.' This statement was released as groups of supporters of the nuclear agreement between six world powers and Iran held rallies in various cities around the world on the following day. The statement warns the world about the 'danger' of the Islamic Republic's regime, 'regardless of how many centrifuges are spinning in Iran.' The signatories noted that according to the nuclear agreement, about '150 billion dollars of windfall wealth will be deposited into the bank accounts of the oppressors and clerics of Iran,' but this money 'will not be spent on the people of Iran but rather on strengthening a repressive regime.' They expressed regret that human rights violations in Iran were not taken into account in negotiations with the Islamic Republic. The signatories stated: 'Those who care about peace must help refocus on the issue of the brutal human rights violations by the Islamic Republic, its support for global terrorism, and its role in destabilizing the Middle East.' The statement asserts that to achieve these goals, 'more pressure must be applied to the Islamic Republic, not less,' and stated: 'The day the people of Iran finally achieve freedom, they will realize who stood with them and who stood with this regime.' The authors of this statement concluded that 'today in Iran, political prisoners are still being tortured, bloggers, teachers, and journalists are imprisoned, religious and sexual rights are trampled, and women are treated as second-class citizens,' and concluded: 'When the Islamic Republic no longer fears its people, the world will have no excuse to fear the Islamic Republic.' Mitra Pourshajari, Banafsha Pourzand, Borzomehr Talouei, Banu Saberi, Saeed Ghasemi Nejad, Saye Saidi Sirjani, Shiva Mahbubi, Nima Rashdan, Majid Mohammadi, Hassan Daei, Marina Nemat, Reza Taghizadeh, Behzad Mehrani, and Bijan Fathi are among the signatories of this statement. Nima Rashdan, a political activist and one of the signatories of this letter, in response to Radio Farda's question about what your alternative to the existing agreement is, said: 'A better agreement should be made. A better agreement was possible, but due to the insistence of both sides on their internal policies, the rights of the people of Iran were overlooked. The President of the United States and Mr. Khamenei negotiated in closed rooms and in a series of secret negotiations that were almost half during Mr. Ahmadinejad's era, and reached an agreement that could have been much better if the American side had insisted on the principles and values that have been the basis of U.S. foreign policy over the years, which we believe it did not.' He added: 'What we mean is that at least one word should have been written there to pay attention to the rights of the people of Iran in the future. Instead of removing Mr. Qassem Soleimani and Anis Naqash, who killed the people of Iran – regardless of the fact that half of the casualties that the United States and coalition soldiers had in Iraq were also somehow their doing – they killed the people of Iran; during the Green Movement, they murdered dozens of Iranians in the streets. Instead of removing these from the sanctions list, you could have at least asked them, as happened in other cases in Helsinki and Cambodia, to lift the house arrest of Mr. Mousavi. But on the other hand, both the U.S. government and Iranians who support the current agreement say that the alternative to this agreement is nothing but war, and its opponents are secretly seeking war. What is your response to this statement? At least the personal reason I supported this letter is that this approach you just mentioned, which says the alternative is war, and we are between black and white, with war being entirely bad and this agreement that has been signed being entirely good, I think we have suffered from this in the past years. On April 1, 1979, more than 98 percent of the people of Iran voted in favor of the Islamic Republic in any form. If 36 years have not been enough for these people and their elites to understand that the 0.8 percent who voted against should have been allowed to speak, perhaps many of these events would not have happened... This black-and-white depiction of good and evil, war and peace, if 36 years have not been enough for the elites of the country to understand this, is one of the main factors of the country's misfortunes, so now they do not listen to our words either. In the second of Khordad, some became reformists, and anyone who criticized reformism and said that you should not appease has been treated as an accomplice of conservatives. This black-and-white situation continues... But now the discussion is that if we assume the nuclear agreement is rejected in the U.S. Congress, many say, and Iran has also said, that it will continue its enrichment program and probably afterwards it can quickly produce the necessary materials for making an atomic bomb. At that point, sanctions will not be able to prevent such a thing; there will be no choice but military action. These are views and arguments that have been presented for domestic political consumption in the United States. My concern is the rule of law, human rights, the rights of the people, and the right of the people to choose in Iran. The fact that Mr. Khamenei has come and, as he himself said, has undergone a heroic flexibility is not the result of a change in his character and re-evaluation and foresight; it was the result of the sanctions hitting him. This was the achievement of the sanctions and nothing else. Anyone who does not understand this cannot be satisfied with any other argument. You came at a time when Mr. Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards were on the brink of complete economic bankruptcy, and you want to grant them 150 billion dollars. If someone thinks this money will be spent on investment, construction, industry, desalination, or reviving agriculture in Iran, that is one discussion. But if this money is going to be spent on solidifying the foundations of the IRGC, on compensating for the failures Mr. Khamenei had due to Mr. Ahmadinejad's housing plan and other quick-return projects, on restoring his image, his successor, and the commanders of the IRGC, in my opinion, Mr. Obama has done no good for democracy in Iran. Perhaps by transferring this money prematurely and signing an extremely bad deal for the national interests of Iranians, he has helped establish a stable form of military dictatorship for decades to come.