Israel Matzav

Taheri: Forget stopping the nukes and change the regime

Amir Taheri argues that the world should take its collective eye off the nuclear clock and try to promote regime change in Iran. On the other hand, he makes it sound like regime change is inevitable anyway.

While it is difficult to predict the behaviour of a regime drunk on its own apocalyptic rhetoric, the “Chinese solution” is unlikely to work in Iran. Mr Khamenei and Mr Ahmadinejad are incapable of uniting the ruling establishment in the same way as Deng Xiaoping was in 1989. Nor could they rely on political machinery such as the Chinese Communist Party.

More importantly, they cannot be certain about the loyalty of the regular Army, which has suffered immensely under the Khomeinist regime, while the Revolutionary Guard could split into several factions. At the same time, the regime is also facing mounting opposition from the Shia clergy that could sap the basis of its claim to legitimacy. During the past few weeks, more than a dozen top ayatollahs, including some close to the regime, have publicly broken with it, warning against any bloody repression.

The history of Shia-ism is full of schism provoked by political disputes disguised as religious differences. Today Khomeinism faces the risk of becoming yet another isolated fanatical sect such as the Akhbaris, the Heydaris, the Nematis and scores of other long-forgotten factions.

The regime has already executed two pro-democracy activists and sentenced nine others to death. These actions, designed to terrorise the people, appear to have had no effect as all opposition groups are vowing to continue the struggle for an Iranian republic.

For the first time in 30 years, a substantial segment of Iranian society, perhaps even a majority, is prepared for a democratic experience. Today the mood in Iran is very much like the one that made possible the Constitutional Revolution of 1906, and the creation of the first democratic parliament in the Muslim world. Rather than chasing the illusion of stopping the nuclear clock in Iran, the outside world should take greater notice of the clock of regime change.

I have two problems with Taheri's scenario. First, while I'm happy to see regime change happen (could a new regime really be worse than the current one?), I'm not sure it can happen in time to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Second, while a democratic Iran might be more reasonable, I have seen no indication that it will abandon Ahmadinejad's dual quests for nuclear weapons and to destroy Israel. Many analysts have argued that no Iranian will give up the pursuit of nuclear power as a matter of national pride and many other analysts have argued - with no concrete basis - that a replacement regime would be less inclined to act as a nuclear threat. But we have heard very little about this from the revolution's leaders or from the Iranian people. In fact, if anything, Moussavi is even more gung ho on becoming a nuclear power than is Ahmadinejad, and I have heard no indications from the 'street' that they are disavowing his position.

From that perspective, I'm indifferent to whether there ought to be regime change. We have to stop them from going nuclear regardless.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:37 AM