The Iranian opposition in exile can be characterized as being of two types. The first type supports cultural and linguistic hegemony by the Persians, the largest ethnic minority in the country comprising 45% of the population of Iran. The majority of the population is compromised by the other ethnolinguistic minorities in Iran, large and small. The second type of opposition is derived from the majority but is fractured into many different ethnolinguistic organizations. The ethnolinguistically Persian minority opposition pretends to represent "the majority" which is reinforced by the common misperception among non-Iranians that Persians constitute a majority rather than the largest ethnic minority in Iran.
The Iranian opposition in exile however must unite around a common formula for the future. A post-Islamist Iran needs to be constituted on a confederal model of the EU, India and Ethiopia. Keeping the non-Persian majority in the union cannot be based on linguistic, ethnic and national coercion. Initially should the states (large and small) of the union be based on linguistic demographic boundaries but regional and local populations should be permitted to change the internal confederal borders by regional/local democratic consent as they please.
Let us now look at the strengths and flaws of the three models for the future Iran; the EU, India and Ethiopia. India created both linguistic states as federal subjects and democratic borders. Most federal subjects of India were created by democratic mass movements. Initially, those were mostly linguistic states, but with time have other federal subjects come into being. Ethiopia was initially in the 1990s entirely based on linguistic states but this has also changed with time. The European Union as de facto mostly based on linguistic states has no mechanism for allowing border changes and the creation of new states. However, the EU is a confederation which permits secession of member states which India and Ethiopia do not.
Secular Persian hegemonists imagine that Persian hegemony will continue after the fall of the Mullah regime. But what will instead ensue in Iran once the regime falls is with full certainty civil war. There is no way that Persian hegemonism will survive the fall of the regime. What is instead needed is a voluntary union of "We the Peoples".
We need to learn from how George W. Bush's push for democracy in the Arab world led to regional instability rather than sustained democratization and liberalization. There is need for wide-ranging diplomacy to convince the Persian opposition that there is no way that Persian hegemonism will survive the fall of the regime. The notion sold by Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi about a Jeffersonian unitary Iranian republic following the fall of the Mullahs is at best a naive fairy tale; rather Iran will come to resemble the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. Instead of fearing secession should Iran invite accession of non-member states to the future union.
The US government should discreetly make a proposition to the Iranian opposition. If you unite behind the concept of a confederal, liberal-democratic, secularist union and form a unified, multiethnic government in exile, the US government will reciprocate and 1) recognize the government in exile as Iran's legitimate government, 2) officially support regime change in Iran and 3) fund and train an army in exile.
Iran poses the most severe threat to homeland security of any US adversary considering the threat of Iranian biological weapons terrorist attacks against major American cities. It is furthermore a US national interest that there is a peaceful process of democratization and liberalization in Iran rather than civil war following the fall of the Mullah regime, particularly as China and/or Russia could and most certainly would take advantage of the situation to reach the Indian Ocean.
No comments:
Post a Comment