Iran. I punti di vista. L'evoluzione della questione iraniana sotto la lente degli esperti. Frontpage Magazine riunisce un ex ministro dell'informazione (Homayoun), il direttore di un quotidiano iraniano (Ehsani), un analista delle vicende politiche del paese (Bayegan), un professore alla Georgetown University (Brumberg) e un giornalista del Los Angeles Times (Heilbrunn). Ne scaturisce un dibattito che sarebbe bene seguire. Per chi non avesse la pazienza di leggerselo per intero pubblichiamo di seguito alcuni estratti che ci sembrano illustrare abbastanza bene le diverse posizioni.

E' in atto una rivoluzione?

The success of the freedom movement in Iran will not only serve to save the Iranian nation from a repressive regime, but needs full international support to put an end to a major menace facing the whole world and endangering the cause of freedom and democracy. (Bayegan) 

All of us who want to see democracy proceed and succeed in Iran need to keep our head, and avoid emotionalism, and analyze the political situation for what it is. The adoption of disciplined and appropriate tactics by the democratic movement are vital now. (Ehsani)
If the slogans are more radicalized it is because the situation has become increasingly desperate and radicalized. Ayatollah Khamenei has been more clearly identified as the enemy of freedom and democracy and President Khatami has demonstrated that when the chips are down he will side with the supreme leader rather than stick his neck out for the political aspirations of those who have elected him to office. (Bayegan)
Part of the problem that we now face is that these regimes--by that, I mean Iran, China, and so forth--have an object lesson in what not to do, that is, they've seen what happened in 1989 in Eastern Europe. And they have no intention of going down that road. (Heilbrunn)

What we should keep in mind is the importance of outside pressure and the will of the international community to take the regime to task for its terrible human rights record, its shady nuclear program and its support for global terrorism. Every time any world power decides to close its eyes to these and do business with the mullahs, the regime feels confirmed in its behavior and the opposition suffers a setback. The message the international community sends to the Iranian people is of major importance. If the population feels it is left on its own, of course it will lose heart and will find it more difficult to challenge the regime. (Bayegan)
But what on earth prompts Mr. Bayegan to believe that, given the manifest tensions roiling Iranian society, it's going to become a flourishing democracy overnight? (Heilbrunn) 

A Tiananmen square is the last thing the ruling clerics want. They simply do not have the guns. Iran today has no resemblance to the China of 15 years ago. It has no leadership comparable to Deng Shiao Peng and his group and can show not a single achievement in any respect. And China was not so vulnerable to American pressure. The situation in Iran seems beyond control in the sense that even if the government can contain this wave of demonstrations, it could not prevent its re-emergence. (Homayoun)
The notion that the Islamic Republic is on the verge of collapse is erroneous. There is a cottage industry of intellectuals, political activists and Iranian monarchists in Washington and Tehran that seizes upon every protest movement to argue that there is some kind of popular rebellion under way. Some even argue, quite erroneously, that the recent protests are on a par with those that brought down the Shah in 1978/79. This is a deliberate distortion of the facts, an unfortunate confusion of policy advocacy with political analysis. (Brumberg)

Come dovrebbero agire gli Stati Uniti?

What better way of copping out from providing support to the freedom movement in Iran, than fatalistically sitting down and saying: nothing doing. I think the mullahs would just love to hear that their regime is immovable and that they can count on 'years if not decades' of delaying political change. But they are far from being that optimistic. (Bayegan) 

The U.S. is supporting a process of change in Arab mixed autocracies, a process that may in some cases yield positive results, but rushing the process would be dangerous. In the long run the Islamic Republic of Iran has mechanisms and institutions that are vulnerable from decay and redefinition. This will happen, but it simply won't happen on Washington's time scale. (Brumberg) 

The condescending view that democracy is not for a people like Iranians and the most permissible for them is a more liberal Islamic regime perhaps under the former president, a previous idol of the progressive establishment, ignores the fact that Iranian society under the mullahs is already the most secular in the Islamic world and whatever form of "liberal autocracy" is prescribed for the middle eastern countries, the Iranian people are fast distancing themselves from Islamic, middle eastern and third worlds. (Homayoun) 

If the monarchists are willing to follow this South African inspired formula of truth and national reconciliation, and do not actively advocate violence and radical regime overthrow as the only viable political solution, they can contribute to the democratic process. But I am afraid thus far their words and deeds have only contributed to heightening the danger of a bloody crackdown and wholesale repression in Iran. (Ehsani)

Minacce alla sicurezza e regime change

At the moment the clerics do not pose a vital threat to our security. Iran is a nuisance in many ways, but not a vital threat. In the wake of the Iraq situation, and in particular, given the clear efforts to shape intelligence to fit and legitimate a preconceived policy, one has to be careful about exaggerating "vital" dangers etc… Indeed, what is really reprehensible is the politicization of this issue, and in particular the incessant and constant effort to shape intelligence about Iran to legitimate the administration's burning desire to topple the regime in Tehran. The more we engage in this kind of activity, the more we do damage to our credibility, and credibility will, for example, play an important role in galvanizing international support on the Iran nuclear issue. (Brumberg) 

The priority of the US, and anyone committed to a stable and peaceful Middle East should be to support the growth and consolidation of democracy in Iran, not a half thought-out and reckless notion like 'regime change' through popular uprisings. (Ehsani) 

What the US administration should do to pursue its national interest is to balance it with the need to maintain the Iranian people’s goodwill. Iran's independence and integrity should be preserved in all circumstances. As for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the mullahs hopefully could be persuaded under intense and unified pressure from the US, Russia and Europe. In a word, you should advocate regime change through popular demonstrations, strikes and other forms of disobedience, and nuclear disarmament by diplomatic means backed by the threat of serious consequences. (Homayoun) 

President Bush should not let up the pressure on the Islamic Republic. So far his approach to the Iranian situation has displayed moral clarity and political acumen. President Bush has drawn a clear and distinct line between this incorrigible system which he has correctly identified as the enemy of peace and freedom, and the genuine aspirations of the Iranian people to bring about democratic change.
There is a consolidation of democratic forces around the idea of a referendum to determine the political future of the country which is rapidly gaining strength.
For its noncompliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty , its terrible human rights record and its support for international terrorism, further economic sanctions should be imposed against the Islamic Republic. Governments and international companies should be discouraged from doing business with the clerical regime. Bringing about a regime change in Iran should be done through ostracizing the whole system, supporting the democratic opposition and imposing further economic sanctions. (Bayegan) 

The Bush doctrine makes far more sense than the Reagan doctrine. Reagan did not attempt to pressure the mullahs; he coddled them to the extent of delivering a birthday cake. Bush is reserving the right to launch an air-strike if he deems it necessary to decapitate the Iranian nuclear program. But for now, he's managed to pull the European Union on board in threatening economic consequences should Iran continue to go full speed ahead. Bush has it right: with demonstrations inside Iran and increased pressure from abroad, time is on our side. (Heilbrunn)