United Front Against Islamic Regime.
Following up from the 2009 disputed presidential election in Iran, we had the biggest street protests since the 1979 Revolution. Among protesters, we could recognise three different categories of people who commonly challenge the rigged election by taking to the streets:
– The first category belongs to a Muslim population who voted for Mousavi or Karoubi by conviction; they still capitalise their hope on reforms within the Islamic Republic of Iran. As outlined in their behavioural protests, they form a rainbow from Islamists to secular Muslims. They show dissatisfaction toward Hardliners, but not the whole regime.
– The second category belongs to those who voted for one of the “reformists” as a “catalyst” in a hope that the elected President will ease the way for a transformation of secular and democratic regime in future. They voted for them as the lesser evils, hoping to have one of them as president to listen to aspirations of the nation. This category is highly frustrated with the whole regime, but still capitalises hope on a peaceful transformation.
– The third category belongs to those who boycotted the presidential election because do not see any compromise working within the regime. They want an immediate regime change, a new regime on the ruins of the actual one.
For them, hoping reforms within the Islamic regime, without bringing up the 31-year-permanent violation of human rights and trampling the very basic democratic rights of citizens, is a utopia. This utopia, mostly sowed by regime’s supporters of the first category, is to prolong the regime’s decadent life. For the third category, reforms within the regime seem rather a hollow bubble which disappears facing the factual background and genuine nature of this regime.
According to the ongoing anti-regime protests in and out the country, the second category is gradually approaching the third one, to the point that a regime change is now the predominant aspiration of most Iranian people. The Iranian protesters are still a lot to stand in front of regime’s thugs and get beaten, detained, tortured, and raped, but there is a trend among most people that they do not want to risk their lives for the survival of such a regime under any leadership and colour. They start casting doubt on the legitimacy of the whole regime, no matter who is the puppet President. Even if they still consider different pending perspectives, they have one common solution to the problem; they conclude a regime change as the only solution.
By asserting that the first category, reforms within the regime, is not hostile to regime’s survival, the regime will try to find compromises with them. The hardliners of regime like the Supreme Leader, khamenei or the President, Ahmadinejad, prefer to have Mousavi or Karoubi in their “Islamic” bastion to dam a regime change through “unbelievers”. After all, to safeguard their common “God’s state” is their common goal. It would be better off some personnel change within the regime than losing the roof over one’s head. Apart from their inner power skirmishes, all factions, lobbyists, and old collaborators of the regime want to halt the jeopradised and uncontrolled development of the movement. This is also an option which is desired by Mullahs’ international partners and brokers — the Islamic state mafia deals with western Oil Companies and military investors through their common lobbying brokers.
The regime is highly prudent; while reinforcing its troops on the streets, tries to separate “reformists” from the “agents of foreign enemies”: in another words the second and third categories who are rapidly increasing despite deadly threats. What concerns all secular and democratic intellectuals, we should avoid any mistrust and confusion which may result in an unnecessary rupture of grassroots among all these three different categories. It will be vital to focus on the unity of our people in their fair struggles against the plague of the Islamic regime.
Nevertheless, we should expose the Islamist and criminal backgrounds of some self-appointed leaders of “Green Movement”. Only with right tactics, we will attract the first category or the followers of Mousavi / Karrubi. Apart from the former leaders of the regime like Mousavi, Karrubi and their little number of bearded men and clad women; most followers of this category are the inexperienced people who have not yet found the right front. So, we have to get closer and closer to them and lead them to join the right front, among the people who want an immediate regime change.
Another advantage of our unity will serve to better detach military dissidents from the atrocious regime. Only thanks to the unity among people, a possible desertion of state troops and their solidarity with their oppressed people can be expected. It would not matter to which category these militaries belong, the point is to encourage them to join to their people’s open arms.
The current movement is condemned to improve and like any improving process needs tactics and strategy. We need a united front against the Islamic regime as a primordial strategy to topple the regime and adequate tactics to improve the movement.
