The Premise
The current position of the Islamic Republic of Iran at the world stage does not require much introduction or description: international pressure against the hardline regime in Iran is reaching its limits.
Statements by senior officials of the most effective countries in the world and the publication of news reports and reflective analysis on the Islamic Republic of Iran in recent days have taken an extraordinary turn. It is safe to assume that the new report on Iran’s nuclear policy and that on its human rights record at international forums and agencies will certainly add fire to the already hot situation. And these are independent of the impact of the terror plot accusation to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US.
These events are taking place at a time when the Arab Spring and the waves of democracy have now reached the doors of Syria, putting the Islamic Republic of Iran not very far from total and remarkable isolation.
The First Observation
Independent of what is going on outside Iran and regardless of the degree and intensity of the threats confronting the Islamic Republic (including that of Iran and Iranians), there is also evidence that points to the seriousness of the foreign events, news and developments as they relate to the threat. One can point to the new (and unusual) wave of oppression and threats against political opponents in Iran.
In recent days, an upsurge (at unprecedented and unusual levels) of summons, threats and intimation of the opposition is taking over Iran. A significant number of members of the Freedom Movement of Iran, the Council on National-Religious Activists, the National Front, the Participation Front, and, the Organization for the Mujahedeen of the Islamic Revolution have been summoned by the security and intelligence apparatus of the Islamic Republic and have been threatened against taking any group political action or reaction or holding a gathering.
It appears that the senior security and policy making agencies of the Islamic Republic of Iran have come to the conclusion that under the current conditions facing the regime (including the unprecedented and serious threats), it is imperative that all “centers” of “commotion” and “threat” (from the perspective of the regime) be neutralized and silenced.
This new round of oppression and threatening of the opposition is a solid indicator of how seriously those striving for monopolistic power in the Islamic Republic take the threats and events that are taking place outside the country. But unfortunately, instead of responding and dealing with this dangerous situation through reason and wisdom, the rulers have chosen to pursue the terror-creating posture of the past.
In recent years, every time the Islamic Republic was confronted with a difficult position in its relations with the West, it took the direction of imposing oppressive measures against its opponents and dissidents. So this time too, it appears that those striving to monopolize political power again prefer to ensure that no critical or independent voices rise from society and that there are no irritating individuals on its path, whether it wants to open the door to talks or move in the direction of conflict to resolve its issues.
The Second Observation
If we agree with the premise of this writing (the serious nature of the current threats and their dangers) the regime can only chose one of two options to take. The first will be efforts to change the political and social situation inside the country, and thus increasing the level of national solidarity, consequently reducing the gap between the regime and the people. The other option would be efforts to impose a surreal calmness and to silence all unofficial and critical views.
The first option requires boldness, wisdom and thought on behalf of those in power. Its signs are those very issues that have been outlined in the public positions and statements of former president Mohammad Khatami, the letter signed by 143 political activists, the statement issued by political prisoners, and the statement of the coordinating council of the Green Movement. Specifically, this means the release of all political prisoners, ending all oppressive measures and the current security-driven policies and conditions, changing the current treatment of parties and the media, and, opening up the conditions for free, fair and healthy elections.
Such a response would shorten the gap between the nation and the government and it shall put the political-social situation at a new plane. It shall also seriously affect Iran’s relations with the world (i.e., the West) and shall reduce the threats.
The second option (i.e., the continuation of oppressive measures and threatening the opposition and expansion of the crackdown and silencing the dissidents means widening the nation-regime gap, which would translate into greater regime reliance on oil weapons and the royalty revenues; policies whose real strengths and durability have been shown by Saddam and Qaddafi.
Should the second option be chosen, the rulers shall turn Iran into a burned land, a country whose damage and harm, including to Iranians will be immeasurable.
The hardline regime does not have much time to make the rational, national and thoughtful decision and change the current course of events.
