| |
US finds a communist ally against
Iran
By B Raman
The United
States, which used Islamic fundamentalists against
communism in Afghanistan in the 1980s, has embarked on
an operation to use communists to bring about the end of
the Islamic regime in Iran.
The dozens of
anti-cleric and secular Iranian exile groups operating
from the West against the Islamic regime in Tehran
broadly fall into the following categories:
The left-oriented Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK - People's
Mujahideen) and elements allied with it in the National
Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). They mainly
operate from West Europe, with headquarters in France.
The monarchists, mainly operating from the US, with
the help of neo-conservative and Jewish lobby groups.
The remnants and new adherents of the old pro-Moscow
Communist Party of Iran, called the Tudeh Party, and
other communist factions, mainly operating from the
United Kingdom.
The MEK, which has in the past
indulged in acts of terrorism inside Iran from
sanctuaries provided by the Saddam Hussein regime in
Iraq, has been designated as a Foreign Terrorist
Organization (FTO) under a 1996 US law. Until recently,
this precluded any Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
assistance to or even contacts with it. However, it
would seem that after the occupation of Iraq by the US
forces, the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency
(DIA) have been allowed to establish contact with MEK
elements in Iraq and West Europe for using them against
the Teheran regime. This decision was reportedly taken
to preempt any Iranian meddling in Iraq.
The MEK
has had the ability in the past to organize acts of
terrorism in Iranian territory, mainly because of the
operational assistance provided by the Iraqi
intelligence. As of now, the CIA does not have a similar
operational capability inside Iran. Moreover, the Bush
administration would not like to be seen by the
international community as sponsoring terrorism in Iran.
Its present cultivation of the MEK is meant more to
exercise psychological pressure on the Teheran regime
and to keep before it the specter of a US-backed
operation one day for a regime change, with the MEK
spearheading the operation with US assistance. The
French action earlier this week to round up the leaders
and activists of the MEK and the NCRI in France was
meant to preempt the CIA's covertly using its territory
and the large number of Iranian exiles there for a
destabilization operation in Iran.
The US-based
monarchists, who have been financially the most
well-endowed and the most articulate against the Tehran
regime, have the least following inside Iran. Till
recently, they were reportedly the recipients of maximum
funds and patronage from the US intelligence community.
The post-1999 student unrest in Iran made the
CIA realize that while the MEK and the monarchists were
making loud, but often unprovable claims about their
following and successes inside Iran, it was the remnants
and the new adherents of the Communist Party/factions
who had been operating silently and effectively inside
Iran and built up a number of anti-cleric, secular and
progressive secret cells. It is these cells which have
been largely responsible for the growing student unrest
in Iran since 1999 and for the current wave of student
demonstrations, which have rocked not only Tehran, but
also other cities for nearly 10 days now.
The
demonstrations initially started as a protest against a
move to privatize certain universities. Students
belonging to middle and lower middle class families
feared that this could make university education costly
and deny them its benefit. They have since assumed a
much larger agenda, calling for the end of the clerical
rule and for the introduction of secularism and genuine
democracy in Iran.
The number of students
involved in these demonstrations is not very large - an
average of about 3,000 per affected town, but what is
remarkable is the clandestine networking, tenacity of
purpose and the ability to evade detection of their
cells by the Iranian intelligence agencies displayed by
the organizers. Neither the MEK nor the monarchists have
exhibited such capabilities in the past. Though the
monarchists have been trying to claim credit for what
has been happening, the evidence available suggests that
the credit for the anti-cleric movement should largely
go to the communists and other leftists.
After
the Islamic revolutionaries seized power in Iran in
1979, Iranian intelligence promoted the formation of a
number of Student Islamic Associations and Offices for
Consolidation of Islamic Unity in the universities and
other educational institutions to keep a watch on
student activities and to prevent any movement against
the clerics. Iranian students, many of them members of
the Tudeh Party, had played an active role against the
dictatorial regime of the Shah of Iran and in making the
success of the Ayatollah Khomeni-led Islamic revolution
possible. They were also in the forefront of the anti-US
campaign, with many of them playing an active role in
the raid on the US embassy in Teheran and the taking of
US diplomats as hostages soon after the clerics came to
power. The clerics, therefore, knew and feared the
potential power of the students in Iran, particularly
the fierce motivation of the communists and other
leftist supporters among them. After seizing power with
the help of the communist students, the clerics
ruthlessly suppressed the communists, arresting and
executing many of them. Those who escaped arrest and
death at the hands of the clerics managed to flee to
West Europe and started organizing their activities from
there. The lead in this was taken by the London-based
Worker-Communist Party of Iran (WCPI).
Until
1998, the Student Islamic Associations and Offices for
Consolidation of Islamic Unity held sway in the
universities and the communist cells were unable to make
any headway. The situation started changing in favor of
the communists from 1999 due to growing dissatisfaction
among the students over the repressive rule of the
regime. The communist cells organized their activities
around demands for freedom of expression, respect for
the human rights of political prisoners, end of the
execution of political prisoners, restoration of genuine
democracy, secularism, right to employment etc.
The communists issued calls for the unity of all
progressive students under the banner of socialism and
worker-communism and clandestinely circulated the
writings of Mansoor Hekmat, an ideologue of the
communist students, who had written, "'In a religious
capitalist tyranny, a misogynist, anti-life,
anti-intellect and uncivilized regime, the university is
a natural ground for the growth of communism." One of
the articles circulated by them in the university
campuses said, "The more lucid, clear and radical the
slogans and demands of the progressive movement for the
overthrow of the Islamic Republic, the more the masses
of the workers, teachers, women and progressive people
will support these demands. The communist students must
recognize these circumstances and be aware of its
profound potential."
Among the various
pro-communist organizations that started operating in
the universities, one could mention the Union of Islamic
University Associations, headed by Heshmatollah
Tabarzadi, which started a journal called "Payam-e
Daneshju", since banned by the conservative judicial
authorities. It reflects the views of Iranian dissident
scholar Abdul Karim Sorush, who argued that Islam and
democracy are compatible and called for an end to the
clergy's near monopoly on political power. Another
nationwide university organization is the Daftar-e
Tahkim-e Vahdat (Office for Strengthening of Unity)
which, while calling for greater political freedom,
distanced itself from the call for removing the clergy
from the corridors of political power. The pro-communist
organizations supported President Mohammad Khatami
during his election campaigns, but have since become
disillusioned over his reluctance to assert himself
against the clerics and Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Khamenei.
There was a fresh outbreak of student
unrest in Tehran and other places in November, 2002,
which was indicative of the organizing capability of the
secret cells and of the anti-cleric and even
anti-Khatami turn it was taking. On November 18, about
5,000 students of the Sharif University held a protest
rally, which was joined by some workers from the Iran
National Car Factory and Iran Sypa Motor Manufacturing .
About 1,500 students of the Esfahan University also held
a demonstration and shouted, "Down with dictatorship";
"Iran is not Chile" and "Both in Kabul and Tehran, down
with the Taliban!"
There is as yet no evidence
to corroborate the allegations of the Iranian
authorities that the US intelligence has been behind the
current wave of student unrest. However, it appears to
be true that, after repeatedly seeing the potential and
clandestine operational capability of the pro-communist
students of the universities, the CIA has started
shifting its bets to them rather than placing them on
the monarchists and the MEK for destabilizing the Tehran
regime.
Certain Western-based students'
organizations, such as the Students' Movement
Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, which do
not appear to be directly associated with the
communists, have already been in receipt of financial
assistance and guidance in agitprop methods from the CIA
in the past. Now, an increasing part of this assistance
is being diverted to those directly associated with the
communists.
The CIA's assistance to the
anti-cleric elements in Iran started even under the
Clinton administration. This largely consisted of the
supply of funds for propaganda through radio stations
and the Internet. Even now, the CIA's assistance is
confined to these fields. There is as yet no evidence of
para-military training being imparted to these elements
anywhere.
On May 19, Kansas Senator Sam
Brownback announced at a press conference that he would
introduce a bill to be called the Iran Democracy Act,
asking for US$50 million to promote democracy in Iran
and to fund Iranian opposition groups. There is a debate
among Iranian dissident groups, particularly the
leftist-oriented, about the advisability of accepting
financial or other assistance from the US. Many argue
that acceptance of US assistance would give them the
kiss of death and damage their credibility in the eyes
of the Iranian people. They say that open statements of
support to the protesting students by President George W
Bush and other US leaders and officials has already done
harm to their movement.
The US views the
students' protests as an "Allahsend". It has presently
no plans for any military action in Iran. Hopefully, it
has learnt the right lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq
about the counter-productive and backlash effect of
overt military interventions, particularly in Islamic
countries, to achieve national security objectives.
Moreover, the need to avoid more body bags in the months
preceding next year's presidential elections should rule
out an American military foray into Iran.
Not
only the US leadership, Democrat or Republican, but also
large sections of the American public opinion have
serious concerns, which they consider legitimate, over
the perceived role of the clerical regime in Iran as the
spoiler of peace and stability in the region and over
its nuclear program. US public opinion would strongly
back any action taken by the administration to
neutralize the perceived threats from Iran without
getting militarily involved on the ground. In the US
view, a well-orchestrated and effective covert action,
even if it involves the resurgence of communism in Iran,
would be a better option for digging the grave of the
clerical regime.
Effective covert action demands
bases from which one could relay broadcasts and
telecasts, disseminate printed propaganda, interact with
dissident elements inside Iran without their having to
travel to the West for this purpose, and train the
surrogates in clandestine operations. The CIA was hoping
to use Iraqi and Pakistani territory for this purpose.
The deterioration in the internal security situation in
Iraq has ruled out the use of its territory for the
present.
As a result, the importance of Pakistan
has increased manyfold in the CIA's perception. That is
why the CIA strongly advised its government to tickle
the ego of President General Pervez Musharraf by
receiving him in Camp David instead of in Washington in
his upcoming visit and to shower him with the kind of
honors no other Pakistani leader has received before -
not even Zia ul-Haq during the Afghan war of the 1980s.
Since his last bilateral visit to the US in
February last year, Musharraf has already ordered his
Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to covertly
collaborate with the US intelligence agencies for the
collection of intelligence about Iran. It was
unhappiness over this, which led to the resignation of
Abdul Sattar, his Foreign Minister, ostensibly on health
grounds.
During the recent visit of
Lieutenant-General Ehsanul Haq, director-general of the
ISI, to Washington, the subject of expanding this
cooperation was reportedly further discussed. According
to unconfirmed reports, James Woolsey, former director
of the CIA under Clinton, who has been acting as adviser
to the Iranian monarchist groups, called on Haq. This
subject is expected to be on the top of the agenda for
Musharraf's talks with Bush. It is said that the CIA is
interested in re-activating the Sunni Balochis in Iran
against the Tehran regime and in shifting the MEK dregs
presently in Iraq to Pakistani Balochistan so that they
can operate from there without causing embarrassment to
the US occupation authority in Baghdad.
Pakistani sources claim that while Musharraf may
be inclined to allow the relaying of clandestine
broadcasts and telecasts from Pakistani territory, he is
against re-activating the Iranian Balochis, which could
boomerang on Pakistan's Balochistan.The Bush
administration is expected to dangle before him the
lollipop of another debt write-off and F-16 aircraft if
he goes the whole hog in becoming the US's covert
frontline ally against Iran.
The unhappiness
over Musharraf's perceived willingness to collaborate
with the US against Iran is not confined to Pakistan's
Foreign Office. Some army officers, such as General
Mohammad Aziz, a fundamentalist Kashmiri officer
belonging to the Sudan tribe of Pakistan-Occupied
Kashmir (POK), also reportedly expressed their
misgivings during discussions at general headquarters.
Aziz is presently chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee.
They have also referred to the dangers of the move
causing alienation amongst the Shi'ites in the armed
forces. The Pakistan air force, in particular, has a
large number of Shi'ites at the lower and middle levels
in the cadres of technicians.
It is reported
that Musharraf has reassured them by projecting that his
present intelligence collaboration with the US is
against the terrorists operating from Iranian territory
and not against the Iranian regime. He has described it
as part of the war against international terrorism by
the international coalition under the UN Security
Council Resolution No.1373. He has reportedly reiterated
that he would not agree to any other cooperation which
may be directed against the clerical regime. But their
concerns have not subsided. They have noted that since
the recent visit of Ehsanul Haq to the US, Musharraf's
enthusiasm for a gas pipeline from Iran to India via
Pakistan has decreased.
Musharraf wants to go
down in Pakistan's history as the leader who achieved
Pakistan's objective in Jammu and Kashmir. If he
calculates that by collaborating with the US to bring
down the Tehran regime, he might achieve this objective,
he may not hesitate to do so. New Delhi and Tehran
should be prepared for surprises.
B
Raman is Additional Secretary (ret), Cabinet
Secretariat, Government of India, and presently
director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai; former
member of the National Security Advisory Board of the
Government of India. E-Mail: corde@vsnl.com. He was also
head of the counter-terrorism division of the Research
& Analysis Wing, India's external intelligence
agency, from 1988 to August, 1994.
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
