Friday, December 17, 2010

What now?

Well, more than a year ago, after experiencing over 30 years of dictatorship, a new generation of Iranians decided to take the helm of its destiny. They went to the polling booths to elect a new president. They did that on the backdrop of the irrelevancy of their participation; had the leader and his unelected buddies chosen their own candidate. However, the young Iranians were clever. They purposely decided to participate and by doing so put the ball into the dictator's court. It was done in a unique way as well--by close to 80% participation. They basically left the dictator and his associates with no choice but to have the result rigged. For the people, the timing was right too. It was after the US presidential election and the international community had focused on Iran and its presidential election. In that sense Iranians sent their message loud and clear to the outside world; we are sick of dictatorship. The world received the message and responded accordingly.

Not only president Obama has so far refused to talk to the leader-appointed president Ahmadi Nejad; but he has also utilized the toughest sanctions yet against the regime of Mullahs in Tehran. The so-called Supreme Leader and his associates had wrongly perceived president Obama's message, when he offered an olive branch to the would-be Iran's president before the election. There was a little technicality, I perceived, surrounding the president Obama's offer. He was ready to talk and shake hand with a freely elected president by the people of Iran; not just 'any president'. That was a mistake on part of the Iran's dictator. My perception, up against the dictator's one, is supported by all of harsh treatments of the appointed-president Ahmadi Nejad and his government. The toughest sanctions yet have been drawn against them both by the UN and individual states such as the US are the direct results of the dictator's misperception.

What now?

Both the Iranian people and the West are against this little group of the so-called leader and his appointed government; for different reasons however. There are some facts to be considered first. This group has turned Iran into a big prison and the Iranians into prisoners. At the same time, in order to ensure their security, the group is eagerly pursuing a nuclear device. Simultaneously it has also activated all their terrorist networks both regionally and internationally. They had recently shipped two cargoes of weapons concealed as building materials into Africa which have been sized by the respective African governments. They are worried of their position against the Iranian people and the outside world.

But an interesting development this week added to the excitement of the Iran-West game. A recently released Wikileaks document suggests Australia believed that the Islamic Republic's nuclear activities are of the deterrent nature only. What does that mean? It may be interpreted as "we can talk to these people." This is a dangerous proposition. While from a westerner view-point, who has been involved in two wars for too long, it may look an attractive proposition; it doesn't work. The price is unimaginable. This little group has no hesitation of killing its own people by any means just to hold to their position. They have been threatening Israel and the rest of the world by their long-range missile capabilities. They have been actively pursuing nuclear bomb. They have an army of terrorists based in Lebanon--Lebanese Hezbollah. They have their connections with Syria, Hamas, Al-Qaeda and all the terrorists organizations you can name. Whoever wrote and suggested that 'we can talk to these people'; must answer a simple question. Does he or she really think if it comes to this group political livelihood; they will hesitate for a second to use a nuclear bomb on Israel or any European targets Or hand a device to their terrorist associates?! These kind of political analysis are just gross miscalculations.

In a simple hostage taking scenario; you cannot and should not negotiate with hostage takers. If you do; you will put yourself in a very awkward and vulnerable position in future. Now imagine a terrorist is going to acquire a nuclear device and have the Middle East and Europe and the rest of the world as his hostage. Do you talk to him or just simply stop him attaining the bomb? It does not really mean, in Iran scenario, attacking the nuclear sites is the answer. A big NO. Because these people considers it as their best possible scenario; since they still stand on their feet and they then can easily massacre their political opponents in Iran. That would be a disaster for all parties concerned. The best option is to leave the task to the Iranian people. How? By implementing the already measured sanctions on their full capacities. Given tens of millions of Iranians denounced the regime and wanted it changed, the economic sanctions give them enough impetus to finish the job.

On the other hand this little group is controlling billions of dollars of oil and gas revenues from Iran. Their livelihood and their terrorists associates are depended on the revenues. Well, put as much pressure economically as possible on them to make them realise that they have to choose between two options only. Either submit to the people's will Or go to war with the prospect of paying the ultimate price!

Sending any other signal may cause you getting what you may have not planned for.


  1. Thank you Mr. Nikjoo for your timely insight into a matter of great international concern.

  2. Wow this is a great resource.. I’m enjoying it.. good article