Iran's opposition must unite in order to become an effective force for change

The West has returned to its default setting of pressurizing Iran with bellicose rhetoric and threats over its nuclear plans. In Iran, however, positive change may still be in the hands of the country’s opposition.

By Nick Amies for DW – In the summer of 2009, the international press was full of headlines about the opposition movement in Iran and its attempts to take control of the Islamic Republic and steer it back into the international fold.

The world watched as millions of Iranians risked imprisonment, beatings and even death to support the reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi and challenge the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the leadership of the Mullahs.

As demonstrations and protests continued beyond the disputed June election which saw Ahmadinejad secure another term, hopes – however slim – remained among those who saw the opposition’s challenge to the government as an opportunity for positive change in Iran.

Gradually, however, the Green Revolution was suppressed and hopes of immediate change extinguished. The West returned to its preoccupation with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the quest to secure new sanctions against Ahmadinejad’s regime.

West abandons hope of change for bellicose rhetoric 

Now the West’s rhetoric is once again less about positive political change in Iran and more about tightening and expanding the existing sanctions on Tehran in an attempt to force the Islamic Republic to abandon its nuclear plans.

If anything, the failure of the Iranian opposition to take charge of Iran and begin its rehabilitation has made the West’s approach even more bellicose, with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner saying there was “no other choice” but to impose fresh sanctions, and the Middle East Quartet’s peace envoy Tony Blair going further by saying the world will do “whatever it takes” to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.

It appears that the West has abandoned hope of internal reform in Iran in favor of returning to the strong-arm tactics of the pre-Green Revolution era. But has this hope been cast aside too soon? Is the Iranian opposition movement truly dead? And if the opposition is still alive in the backrooms and alleyways of Tehran how can it help bring Iran back from the brink and in from the cold?

Iranian opposition working to bring rival sides together

“The Iranian opposition is alive and continues, though its recent public activities have been mainly successfully prevented by the security forces,” Konstantin Kosten, an Iran expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations, told Deutsche Welle.

“The key question for the opposition’s future remains the political strategy, and how the different fractions of the opposition – which might be summed up as ‘regime change’ versus ‘political change within the system’ – remain united.”

Kosten believes that the opposition has been regrouping and refocusing behind closed doors, and that Ahmadinejad’s regime has not seen the last of public protest.

“There will definitely be more public uprisings in future,” he said. “The next date might be April 1, the Day of the Islamic Republic. The opposition movement has to deal with questions of how to integrate the different ethnic groups in Iran, how to reach possible agreements within the current system and how to remain united.”

“A major success for the opposition movement would definitely be earning the support of the ‘Bazaaris’ (the small shopkeeper/merchant sector of the traditional middle class of Iran). If large parts of the Bazar and the working class in Iran would support the opposition this would be a major challenge for the regime.”

Meddling by the West will do more harm than good

While it is obvious that the opposition needs more powerful friends to increase its pressure on the government, most experts believe that the opposition stands a better chance of securing change and reform if its efforts are strictly supported by Iranian sources only.

“I think, the West should not directly interfere in Iranian domestic affairs,” said Kosten.

“There has to be rhetorical support and a strict and direct condemnation of all violence against peaceful protests and any breach of international law by parts of the regime in Iran. Also, measures like support for free internet use and technical support should be considered. But direct support, through direct financial aid for example, would be danger for the opposition since they would be immediately charged and outlawed in Iran.”

Meir Javedanfar, a Middle East analyst and the director for the Middle East Economic and Political Analysis (MEEPAS) think-tank, agreed that the West should refrain from any direct involvement with the opposition.

“If the West were to continue to pressure the Iranian regime over human rights and the treatment of protestors, that would be acceptable involvement,” he said. 

“If the sanctions were to concentrate on the assets of the regime, government-backed companies and manufacturers of armoured vehicles which have been involved in the suppression of the opposition, this would also be acceptable. But funding and agitation by the West would be counterproductive and would lead to the opposition being labelled as puppets of the West and would justify the hard-line crackdown.”

Experts believe that the possibility of regime change – peaceful or not – is still within the opposition’s reach. But even if future events result in a moderate leadership taking power in Iran, the West’s problems regarding Tehran’s nuclear ambitions won’t just go away. In fact, while a moderate leadership would be more inclined to engage in talks, the West’s ultimate goal – to prevent Iran from having nuclear technology – would still be non-negotiable.

“The rhetoric would change and maybe broader negotiations would be more likely,” Kosten said. “However, there is no way to prevent Iran from pursuing its civil right to develop nuclear energy. The Islamic Republic of Iran would not give up this technology, be it Ahmadinejad or Mousavi as president.”

“The pursuit of nuclear technology would continue regardless,” Javedanfar added. “Maybe the West would have more success in negotiating with a moderate regime, maybe deals such as third-party enrichment would be agreed to under Mousavi or another reformist leader but even regime change won’t stop Iran pursuing nuclear technology – or the option to make a bomb. This is something even the Shah was pursuing. This is not new and it will not change.”