Human rights should matter in Iran nuclear deal

In 1992, Sadeqh Sharafkandi, the head of Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran, and three of his colleagues were assassinated by the Iranian regime in Berlin in what became known as Mykonos Restaurant Assassinations.

The Mykonos trial, one of the lengthiest and costliest in German history, concluded that the Iranian regime was behind the assassinations.

Besides sentencing the actual perpetrators, the court issued an international arrest warrant for then-Iranian minister of intelligence Hojjat al-Islam Ali Fallahian, declaring that he ordered the terror attack with knowledge of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and then-president Hashmi Rafsanjani.

No wonder Germany is the “plus” country in addition to the five UN permanent members that make up the P5+1 group taking part in the Iranian nuclear negations. It is a key trading partner that keeps a keen eye on Iran’s economy.

Human rights, it seems, is not an issue: not for Germany, and certainly not other Western countries involved.

Three years before Sharafkandi’s assassination, the Iranian authorities also assassinated Abdul Rahman Qasmlo, head of KDP-Iran with absolute impunity in Vienna. If justice is not served in Western countries—bringing perpetrators to justice—one should be naïve to expect otherwise in Iranian courts.

In Iran, news related to the recent protests in the Kurdish-populated city of Mahabad could only be found buried inside newspapers, like it was on page 18 in the reformist Sahrq newspaper - let alone the religiously conservative media.

Iran is the country where the press is not allowed to publish any photos, news related to, or even the name of the former president Mohammad Khatami for being accused of complicity in the 2009 bloody protests challenging the presidential election which led to Ahmadi Najaz’s second-term in office.

One newspaper interestingly referred to Mr Khatami as the president after president Hashmi Rafsanjani and before Ahmadi Najad, all this headache to avoid mentioning his name.

Iran was ranked the eighth-worst country in the world on the World Press Freedom Index in 2014 as released by Reporters Without Borders. The state has tight control over publications, and outlets easily get suspended for running news and articles not favored by the authorities.

The state media also is the only TV broadcaster. Satellite dishes are illegal, though quite popular. The Iranian authorities enjoy a powerful Great Firewall of their own, sometimes compared to China’s. Social network sites like Facebook and Twitter are still banned.

Since the rise of reformist President Hasan Rouhani to power in 2013, progressives and conservatives started a debate over the country’s new approach to its nuclear program with the P5+1. One advance was the mention of the United States, the long-demonized enemy of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, taking a firm seat at the negotiation table.

For the last 35 years, Iranian authorities spared no effort to define US as the Great Satan: burning US flags along with Israel’s has become routine.  Shouting “death to the US” has become a common slogan and the sentiment defines – almost - any deal or interaction with the US administration as treason.

Thanks to the paralyzing US-designed sanctions affecting the country’s economy, Iran faces an unprecedented challenge from within. A sizable percentage of Iranian people, especially the younger generation who bear the brunt of the economic damage, continue to question whether the nuclear program is in the best interest of the country, as the conservatives claim.

The ruling ayatollahs have cautiously felt the amount of anger and dissatisfaction of the people. Frightened by the popular protests that plagued the country in 2009, ignoring or suppressing the people’s aspiration for greater rights is no longer an option.

The Iranian regime, it seems, finds it easier to change the mind of those against an expected nuclear deal. Although easier, by no means it is an easy task: no media can reverse 35-years of demonization in a two-year time, particularly when religion plays a big role—that the West allegedly against Iran because of its state religion of Islam.

One reformist-minded Western-educated name stands out in the Iranian media, Sadeqh Zibakalam. His opponents at times describe him as an Israeli spokesman, or US ambassador to Iran.

He is not only challenging the nuclear program, which he says has cost the country beyond imagination, but he also calls for the normalization of ties with US and Israel, statements unimaginable to be made in public prior to imposing the sanctions.

Most importantly though, as he mentioned in one of his debates in East Kurdistan—or Iranian Kurdistan—the reason behind nearly all problems is lack of democracy in the country. The same party that denies the Kurds their national rights, Zibakalam said, is the same party that denies the Farsi-speaking majority for democracy and people rule.

Zibalam questions the credibility of decisions made without the consent of the public. He asks who allowed the Iranian government to “wipe out Israel off the earth” or to help Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine in their fight against Israel.

These are the type of questions that challenge the religious legitimacy of the ayatollahs without which the public cannot swallow yet another “cup of poison,” as the founder of the Islamic republic Ayatollah Khomeini famously said about the truce with the Iraqi regime ending eight-year Iran-Iraq war.

The survival of the Iranian regime is very much dependent on a successful nuclear deal with P5+1.

The public, for the sake of greater civil rights at home and to end Iran’s isolation, would like to move past the Ahmadi Najad era, an era marked by a police state, naïve defiance in the face of world leaders and anti-Semite statements.

A successful nuclear deal would no doubt be a major achievement for the reformists, an achievement blessed by the consent of the Supreme Leader, whose survival is linked to how much he compromises for the sake of his people.

Conservative media, for its part, has played the same tune since 1979: that the US can’t be trusted, that the West wants a backwards, weak Iran, and that it was the revolution’s goal to wage war on Israel.

This media is well afraid of the possibility that a nuclear deal might lead agreements on other issues resulting in long-term friendship between the two countries, breaking the magic spell that lasted well over three decades.

Israel rightfully has expressed concerns over Iran’s nuclear negotiations, as Prime Minister BenyaminNetanyahu expressed anger at a “bad deal.” However, even if the West is able to force Iran to stop its military nuclear capabilities—if ever—the mind that calls for the destruction of Israel is still there intact.

“Death for Israel” is still a loud and clear cry when ayatollahs lead prayers and marches.

Iran’s role in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and elsewhere is now under question by the Iranians themselves, though with caution and perhaps less direct.

Without the call for democracy and greater civil rights, this trend might lose out to the radical trend that Ahmadi Najad represents—Iran can still pose an existential threat to Israel, even without nuclear weapon.

After all, Iran is not one nation. Kurds, Arabs and Azeris form a significant minority, many of whom have suffered tremendously on ethnic-religious grounds.

The Shiite Farsi-speaking Iran claims to represent all, but indeed it has failed to do so. All other groups feel increasingly less represented in state institutions.

If Western nations push harder for democracy, it is the Iranian people who will bring an end to Iran’s threat to the peace and security of the region and the world.

After the 9/11 attacks, there was a candle light vigil in Iran in solidarity with the victims. If democracy prevails in Iran, I will expect the same if Israel attacked.

 - The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.