Jun 20, 2014

Iranian Kurdistan: New Approach To Solving The ISIS Crisis Needed


Loghman H. Ahmedi of the PDKI, as well as others from the Congress of Nationalities for a Federal Iran (CNFI), believe that there is a third option in dealing with ISIS without the help of Iran. In his opinion piece, Ahmedi states that if the US were to accept the help of Iran in dealing with ISIS, “it would be a mistake of historic proportions”. He considers, that instead of supporting a theocratic regime and increasing their hold in an already unstable region, the US should focus on empowering democratic groups within Iran and neighboring countries. By doing so, he states that these groups can defeat, “terrorism in the region and pave the way for meaningful and long-term stability”. He has lobbied and talked to several members of congress in Washington DC about the best approach to dealing with the current situation.

Below is an opinion article published by Rudaw:

As head of foreign relations for the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI), during the past week I have had meetings with several members of the United States House of Representatives, the Senate and government officials to garner support for Kurdish and other oppositions organizations striving for democracy in Iran. In these meetings, we also discussed how to best approach the Islamic Republic of Iran’s role in the region.

There seems to exist a fallacious assumption that the international community and the United States have only two options when it comes to Iran: either military confrontation -- which no one really wants -- or engagement, with the theocratic regime over its nuclear program.

We, both as the PDKI and as the Congress of Nationalities for a Federal Iran (CNFI), believe that there is a third option for dealing with Iran, one that will serve the interests of all the nations in Iran, the neighboring countries and the international community.

That option is to support and empower the democratic opposition with the aim of changing the current theocratic regime in Iran and replace it with a democratic, secular and federal system of government.

We have, in our meetings, argued that even if the United States and the Islamic Republic reach a deal over the nuclear program, the current regime in Tehran will still pose a threat to regional security and stability. It will continue to support terrorism and attempt to expand its power in the Middle East. Also, the Iranian regime will continue to oppress both the non-Persian nations and democratic Persian dissidents inside Iran.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, with or without nuclear weapons, is the main source of instability and conflict in the region. More often than not, conflict and instability in the region have served Iran, making it possible for the theocratic regime in Tehran to further its interests in the region.

 

During the past week the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has taken over parts of Iraq. Iran has in turn offered to cooperate with the United States to push back the ISIS. If the United States were to accept this offer, it would be a mistake of historic proportions: cooperation of such nature would give Iran the opportunity to increase its influence and power, and in effect turn it into a regional hegemon.

In such a scenario, regional countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf states will not stand by and accept Iranian hegemony. Contrary to what Iranian lobbyists in Washington claim, Iranian hegemony will not usher in a new security architecture in the Middle East. Instead, any US policy in favor of such an outcome will create more tensions, which will in turn lead to further instability and constitute a slippery slope toward regional war.

If the unintended consequences of the removal of the Taliban and Baathist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq were power vacuums that served Iranian hegemonic ambitions, the current idea of cooperating with Iran in pursuit of “regional security” would, if realized, constitute a catastrophic mistake by design.

The international community, and the United States in particular, should instead support the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq and other countries in the region to push back ISIS. Regional actors that have a democratic agenda can defeat terrorism and pave the way for meaningful and long-term stability. The sectarian conflict in Iraq is in part the result of Iranian meddling, which in turn reflects Tehran’s strategy of promoting sectarianism in the region at large.

Pragmatic and prudent foreign policy notwithstanding, it goes without saying that from a historical perspective meaningful security and all enduring alliances in international politics have been based on shared values rather than a convergence of short-term interests. The Western alliance with the Soviet Union during World War II to defeat Nazism, and the ensuing hegemonic competition with Moscow, is a case in point. Another is the post-war strategy of democracy-promotion in Western Europe and Japan. In fact, there is not even a convergence of short-term interests between the West and the Islamic Republic of Iran in the contemporary Middle East. Cooperation with Iran based on pragmatic considerations will only serve Iranian opportunism and appetite for hegemony.

Furthermore, a viable regional security strategy should also include a realistic assessment of the domestic regime in Tehran and the realities in the country. Support for the democratic opposition to end the theocratic rule in Tehran is imperative if the goal is meaningful and long-term stability. Iran’s regional strategy, which is fundamentally opposed to Western interests and democracy, reflects the Islamic regime’s nature. Only regime change in Iran can change this reality.

It is high time to consider the potential of the multitude of forces inside Iran that struggle for democracy in crafting a new strategy that will avoid engagement with a regime that is the root cause of the major problems in the Middle East.