The Alternative in Iran

The growing uneasiness of the Carter Administration over the drama unfolding in Iran suggests that it may be losing its confidence in the Shah's ability to survive. President Carter may not have said so unequivocally. Yet George W. Ball has been hastily summoned out of retirement to help shape policy alternatives amid the uncertainties of Teheran. To illustrate the Admin­istration's unease, 1,200 wives and children of U.S. Embassy personnel, about one-third of the U.S. Gov­ernment dependents in Iran , have chosen to leave the country, all within hours of Washington 's offer of a free ride home. Their hasty departure set off a new flight wave among the dependents of the American busi­ness community. Over the past three months, more than 8,000 of the 45,000 Americans in Iran have left.
The continuing crisis in Iran poses a stark dilemma for the United States . At the moment, the only force holding the country back from sheer anarchy is the Ira­nian Army. For this reason, U.S. policy would appear to have no alternative except to support the Shah, at least until the agitation in the streets exhausts itself, in order to prevent the chaos almost certain to follow his abdication. Moreover, the crisis in Iran bears implica­tions that extend far beyond the country itself, for chaos in this key Persian Gulf state would in all probability signal the beginning of an unraveling process through­out the Middle East . The Western world and Japan can­not ignore the fact that 75 percent of their oil imports flows through the Persian Gulf . On balance, therefore, if order can be restored to the streets of Teheran, it prob­ably is preferable to allow a process of political evolu­tion to proceed under the Shah's leadership. Whether such peaceful evolution is possible remains in doubt.
The U.S. dilemma would be easily resolved if there were plausible alternatives to the regime of the Shah. As it is, however, the opposition is a mixed bag represent­ing every shade of the political spectrum from right to left. Nowhere does a figure stand out as a credible poli­tical leader. The Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the principal instigator of the riots and demonstrations, preaches religious revival from his 15-year exile in Paris . While he calls for the establishment of an Islamic repub­lic, which would be light years away from the Shah's vi­sion of a modernized Iran , the local, small-town mullahs, with radical populist voices, urge the people of Iran to "turn away from foreign ways." What the 
Ayatollah and the mullahs have in mind, one fears, is an Iran modeled on the Libya of Colonel Muammar el­-Qaddafi. If the Ayatollah has his way, the jeans-clad Iranian women photographed during the anti-Shah demonstrations in Teheran could expect, irony that it would be, to be banished to the village and the veil.
What is left for the traditional political opposition in Iran is the National Front, a political party that stands for a vapid socialism. It is a remnant of the days of Mossadegh and is today but a feeble facsimile of its once influential self. Nor is there any real alternative on the far left. The Communist Tudeh Party is well­-organized and is using the unrest for its own purposes. Yet its following is negligible, a fact recognized by the Soviet Union, which has thus far taken a surprisingly moderate stand on events in Iran; it, too, has reason to fear the chaotic consequences of the Shah's fall.
At the same time, it is impossible not to reach the con­clusion that the disaffection in Iran permeates all strata of Iranian society. The very fact alone that over a million people turned out for a public demonstration against the Shah on December 11 is, in itself, a forceful statement. To quote one British observer in Teheran, the spectacle had the unmistakable appearance of a "large national solidarity movement." Yet, as deter­mined as this opposition is to get rid of an autocracy so many Iranians have come to hate, its leaders have their own misgivings about the possible consequences. A law­yer active in the opposition admitted: "Khomeini is not harsh like the Shah, but he is just as convinced that he has all the answers. I hope we don't climb out of a ditch only to fall into a well."

Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:10:09 -0700
From: avaaz@avaaz.org
Subject: Urgent: Canada's Illegal Climate Plan
Dear fellow Canadian Avaaz members,

The Canadian government is breaking its own environmental laws, and could get away with it if we don't act within 24 hours. Last June, Parliament passed a law confirming our legal obligation to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, and gave a heel-dragging Harper government 60 days to show how they would do it. Harper's plan is out, and meets Kyoto's targets 13 years too late – it clearly breaks the law.

Canadians are irate over this, but somehow everyone failed to notice the official public consultation period on the law, which ends TOMORROW. The comments that Environment Canada receives in this period will be admissible in court, when the Harper government is brought before a judge on this. If there are no comments, the government will claim in court that the public supports its bogus plan. This argument has worked before, and we must not let it happen again. Please click below to send a quick message to Environment Minister Baird, and tell everyone you know to act right away:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/canadian_climate_crime/b.php/

Sincerely,

Ricken Patel and the rest of the Avaaz team