Capitulation - Negotiation The Fate of Fools

By Sara Pentz

The power of freedom is such that when a people rise up against dictators, tyrants and religious fanatics, nothing will stop them. Nothing, that is, except a cowardly lack of support by those who are free and able to help them—but refuse. It is therefore mandatory that those who live in freedom must support uprisings designed to eliminate the bonds of suppression. There will always be a resistance to oppression where there is restraint of freedom—because freedom is fundamental to mankind.

Such was the case in the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and East Berlin as brave people rose up against Communism, and such is the case in the country of Iran according to at least one geopolitical expert. Legitimate freedom fighters of this kind have changed the world throughout history—and changed it for the better, no doubt.

Writing for WorldTribune.com, Dr Assad Homayoun, a former senior diplomat in the Iranian Foreign Ministry, states that the dictator-clerics in Iran are ripe for a fall very much like what happened in the Soviet Union of the 1980s. He also warns that Iran will become a serious military nuclear power if the current Iranian clerics in charge are allowed to stay in power.

It is thus clear that the free nations of the world must come to the aid of those in Iran who are seriously waging a war for their individual rights, free from the dictates of these cleric tyrants. “The downfall of those in charge might not be as far off as one would think,” adds Dr. homayoun. But still the odds of Iran leaning one way or the other remains dependent upon the outside world. Do we allow Iran to keep racing toward nuclear power or do we morally and physically support those inside the country who are fighting against that direction?

Dr. Homayoun: “Today, the great majority of Iranians have indicated through a wide range of quiet and public protests that they are against the ruling clerics and are ready to rise to establish a secular democratic government.” “…they have shown on many occasions that, at the appropriate “tipping point”, they have the strength to act suddenly to change their situation, provided they understand that the outside world supports them.”

As Dr. Homayoun believes, “The most practical option for the United States is to assist the Iranian people, given the momentum of the anti-clerical sentiment in Iran.” According to his thesis, the clerical Administration of Iran has lost its political and religious legitimacy. “It is fragile and ready to be toppled,” he argues.

“The Armed Forces as a whole and a large body of the Revolutionary Guard Corps are dissatisfied with the leadership,” Dr. Homayoun writes. “They fully understand that the mullahs, with their mishandling of foreign and domestic affairs, are leading Iran to the verge of destruction and disintegration. More than 270,000, out of approximately 300,000 clerics, have turned against their own leaders,” he points out.

“While hardliners in a recent election forced out so-called reformists, the system is not as monolithic as it looks. A power struggle within the system, like the last days of the Soviet Union, is underway. The only thing the Iranians need is open U.S. moral and political support which will give them the psychological impetus to act.”

Recently Britain, France, Germany and the European Union—and not the United States—negotiated a deal which prohibits Iran from all uranium gas processing activities in return for being able to continue its sensitive fuel cycle work. Shortly after the agreement was announced Iran rushed to produce the components of nuclear weapon fuel before the deal went into effect—testimony to the fact that this country clearly does not intend to take the ban seriously. It’s called stockpiling.

So, instead of hard line talk, moral support and the threat of action and retaliation, the inevitable series of negotiations and capitulations begin. It is such with the bulk of European leaders, a tradition that has—for the most part—ruled for years. But, as Dr. Homayoun warns, will fail because to attempt negotiations with Iran’s clerics is impossible.

For aggressive warmongers like Iran, negotiating on a large scale is a sign of weakness by the other party. And when there is an appearance of weakness these kinds of people ‘sniff it out’ and responds with hostility. Therefore, the very act of negotiating can give the enemy a feeling of greater power and completely defeat the idea of a valid compromise. This, of course, is always true when principled people attempt to agree with people only interested in force as a resolution to their ideas. It won’t work.

History tells us this is exactly the case. One look at the appeasement policies of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain during the critical years of 1938-39, as he negotiated with Hitler, Daladier of France and Mussolini of Italy to stop the progress of war by the Germans, demonstrates the failure of negotiating with the enemy. Only six months later Hitler defied the agreement when he annexed Czechoslovakia and later invaded Poland—acts that launched WWII—a war that lasted six years with the slaughter of millions.

Negotiations cannot work in Iran either, or any other dictatorship, based on one fundamental concept: that there is nothing to negotiate or compromise when the issue is freedom versus the loss and restraint thereof.

Negotiation, by its very nature, implies a willingness to discuss grievances in a way that could or might lead to a compromising solution—a so-called win-win situation. But there cannot ever be a negotiation over the issue of freedom. On this issue there must be no compromise. You cannot be half free or 50% restricted. Negotiations can only take place, as in the case of a business deal, when both parties have something of value to exchange. But there is no value to exchange in negotiating with any country that imprisons people without their consent—or with any person who wields uncompromising power over another.

As Dr. Homayoun points out: “Negotiation, compromise or the offering incentives, such as is being advocated by various European leaders, will not change the intentions of the ruling clerics, but could bolster and contribute to consolidation of their shaky administration. Indeed, any signs of protection of the clerics by European leaders disappoint and antagonize the people of Iran. Perhaps more importantly, the European proposal—also advocated by failed U.S. Presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry—to offer the clerics non-military nuclear energy technology as an incentive for Iran to stop developing military nuclear capability, should be seen as being patently ludicrous, as it was for North Korea.”

It takes strength, determination and the adherence to the principles of freedom, to stay the course and stand up to dictators. It is often the case that single statements give a resounding ring to these principles: much like President Ronald Reagan’s brilliant command, “Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev.” That bold phrase turned the tide of Communism that was already headed for a philosophical collapse.

The lesson to be learned is that an uncompromising stand against evil is the only position to take when dealing with tyrants. There must be no negotiation of this point. The Iranian clerics should take note that President George Bush has made this stand, even though the countries of England, France, German and the European Union have not. And, by implication, he has sent a strong signal of support to those in Iran who are willing to struggle for their freedom.