in an article published by the la times on 3/9/2010 entitled "US Changing Focus of Iran Policy" (link) reporting on the administration's recent decision to more precisely target international sanctions against iran's revolutionary guard rather than the iranian population as a whole, correspondent Paul Richter underscored the risks involved by quoting secretary of state clinton, an independent expert on iran and several representatives of iran's reformist movement.
1. clinton, whom richter characterized as having repeatedly accused iran's current government as a 'military dictatorship stated "They (the iranian opposition) don't want to see sanctions. They don't want to see the end to their democracy. They don't want to see the rise of an unelected body or a non-clerical body, namely the Revolutionary Guard, assuming all of this power."
2. carnegie endowment for international peace's iranian specialist karim sadjadpour--referring to us efforts to put in place international rather than unilateral sanctions (an approach to which even russian seems supportive)--observed: "Sanctions are increasingly being looked at by the administration in the context of how these measures could be potentially helpful to the cause of political reform in Iran. Depriving the Revolutionary Guard of the ability to sign billion-dollar contracts and turning them into an international pariah would be welcomed by many democratic activists in Iran."
3. reformist and tehran university law professor, yyousef mollai (potential victim of our best intentions) seems to have a whole differnt take on the need--or desirability--of express us support for their movement: "It puts reformist and civic activists in danger, The Islamic Republic is waiting for any document showing covert or overt help of the U.S. to the Iranian opposition to claim, 'Hey, look, the reformists are the paid lackeys of the U.S. administration.' And then there will be more pretexts for arrests."
4. morad saghafi--social scientist, magazine editor and supporter of opposition leader mehdi karroubi is even more stark in stating there are "no common values shared between the Iranian opposition and the U.S. administration. Their foreign policy in the U.S. is prioritized according to their own set of values, which are not shared here."
in light of the above, rooz' condemnation seems more than a little bit imprudent, short-signted and self-serving.
btw in this same article richter reports the administration is encouraging private communications firms to "do what they can to enable opposition access to the Internet and other forms of communication." why aren't palin and her teabaggers applauding?
