Angelika Beer
MdEP

Rede von Akbar Ganji im Europ”ischen Parlament

Akbar Ganji's Talk for European Parliament
Strasbourg, October 24, 2006

(1)
It is, for me, a special privilege to be here amongst the representatives of the European people. The age-old effort of Europeans to defend democracy, freedom and human rights has always been for the intellectuals and the educated elite of other countries of the world, a source of inspiration and awe. It has been a great source of honor for Europeans that Freedom, human rights, and great achievements of the Enlightenment were first flourished in Europe. Iranian intellectuals and advocates of liberty have also, in the course of their history, from the time of the constitutional revolution until today, learned a great deal from the European peopleís historical experience in fighting for their political and social freedoms, and in developing an understanding of the concept of human rights, and of the ways of organizing democratic political policies.

In the last few years, also, European cultural, political and social circles have defended the Iranian democratic movement. Particularly, they have come to support the rights of political prisoners and other members of other social groups that have been denied their basic human rights by the rulers of the Islamic Republic. And this moral and spiritual support has been very effective and it is a good indication of sympathy and solidarity amongst all freedom-loving and peace-loving peoples of the world.

(2)
This solidarity and unity of purpose clearly shows that in the beginning of the third millennium, we are living in a world in which the fate of humanity is more than ever interconnected. Any change or instability in one corner of the world immediately leaves its social and political impact in other countries of the globe. Today, the security of European countries and the entire industrialized north is to a great extent dependent on the securities of countries like Afghanistan, countries of the Middle East and North Africa. The extensive presence of immigrants who have moved from the countries of the periphery to Europe can bring the signs of instability from those parts of the world to the heart of the European union. That is why one can easily claim that stability and peace in Europe is today, to a great extent, dependent on the peace and security in the Middle East, the northern Mediterranean, Northern Africa and south of the Mediterranean.

In those parts of the world, the continuation of insecurity, poverty, underdevelopment, extensive economic and social inequalities, waves of war, defeat and the sense of inferiority that arises from it, invariably leads to religious and ethic extremism. This has created the context for the growth of the kind of fundamentalism that is becoming evermore violent, evermore aggressive and evermore inhuman. The extreme forms of fundamentalism have their roots in the wars of the second half of the 20th Century, in the Indian subcontinent and in the larger Middle East: The Six-Day War of 1967, the Lebanese War of 1982, the continued occupation of Palestinian territories and the extensive breach of the rights of the Palestinian people, the Twenty-Seven-Year War in Afghanistan, the war and the failure of the state in Somalia and the wars of the decade of the 90s in Tetania, amongst the Chetans and other parts of Central Asia have been the most important source of nourishment for the fundamentalists and violent ideas in this region.

Amongst these countries and regions, the Middle East is of particular importance. Aside from the aforementioned problems, two other causes have helped the growth of fundamentalism in this area:

The first cause is the problem of Palestine. The Muslims in the region feel that in the struggle between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Western powers have been one-sidedly supportive of Israel, and do not recognize the basic human rights of the Palestinian people. These double standards in the realm of human rights only help fundamentalists and allow them to immobilize public opinion in the Islamic world towards themselves and against the west.

The second factor, less important when compared to the issue of Palestine, is that after the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, Muslims in the region feel that they have been assaulted by the countries of the west. In this context, Muslim, Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have helped create the notion that what is going on is a war between the Judeo-Christian west, on the one hand, and Muslim Middle East on the other hand. In other words, local conflicts all too quickly take on the flavor of vindictive religious wars. It is in the context of this tense condition, all too prone to misunderstandings, that on occasions some people and some media in western countries, as if intentionally, ridicule the sacred beliefs of the Muslims, insult their prophets and offer radical and sometimes unwarranted interpretations against these peopleís beloved faith.

In between, the Despotic and Sultanian regime of Iran fuels these crises. The Despotic regime sees its own survival dependent on local suppression at home and creating crisis in the region and in the world. The fundamentalists who rule Iran are forced, if they want to sustain themselves in power, to keep the country constantly in a state of war so that they can, through this state, arouse the nationalists and religious sentiments of the people, creating some kind of a national consensus around the issue of fighting the foreign enemy. That is why the Islamic Republic is a regime that creates crisis and begets enmities. The political cognizance can clearly see the role that the Islamic Republic has played in many of the regional crises. The government of Iran is supporter of some of the most radical groups including Hamas, Isbula and Islamic Jihad. (For example, the leader of Isbula in Lebanon has declared openly that this group was created by the Islamic Republic and has been financially and materially supported by Iran.) The government of Iran is also present in Iraq through its active support of the Shiites. (For example, we must remember that the current head of the Iranian judiciary was for many years the leader of the Supreme Islamic Counsel of Iraq.) Even in Afghanistan, the presence and influence of the Iranian regime is extensive. After the elimination of Taliban and Saddam Hussein, the Iranian regime was rid of its two main enemies, and as a result of that, it has now become a regional power. The fundamentalist leaders of Iran are bent on also gaining the support of public sentiment in the entire Islamic world. They want to take the place of fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda. Of course, radicalism is not the dominant spirit of the Muslims in the region. Poverty and extensive illiteracy in the Middle East, as well as the oppression of the ruling Despotic regimes in the region, and the unjust international relations have created a condition of crisis and war, affording radical anti-western forces to easily arouse the sentiments of the people and mobilize in them in their favor. Anti-western groups like Al Qaeda are trying to ride this wave by offering radical slogans, and thus become the leader of this aroused public sentiment in the region. It is in this context that the Islamic Republic tries to offer even more radical slogans and thus take the leadership away from its competitors. In order to achieve this goal, it must offer more radical slogans against the Americas and against Israel, and also provide material and military support for radical groups in the region. The Hegemonic designs of Iranís regime in the atomic realm must also be understood in this context. Of course, we must not take Iranís regimeís nuclear ambitions to be synonymous with the confrontation between Islam and the west. Fear of Islam, or Islam phobia, has no legitimate excuse. What should be, and is, the cause of concern is not Islam, but a fascistic, totalitarian and fundamentalist reading of Islam. Sadly, the development of fundamentalism, whether in its Islamic, or Jewish or Christian guises is, in the final analysis, detrimental to peace and stability in the region and around the world. Advocates of peace and freedom around the world must condemn fundamentalism in all of its forms. Christian and Jewish fundamentalism is as dangerous, and as prone to create crisis, as Islamic fundamentalism. The destructive consequences of the birth and spread of fundamentalist ideas, the ideas that provoke violence, can easily be seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, and also in the terrorist events in America and Europe.

The domestic attitude of the fundamentalist's ruling in Iran is also an attitude of despotism and violence. The most important characteristics of the fundamentalistís ruling in Iran, inside the country, is the trampling upon civil rights and the human rights of the people. For example, the Iranian regime has denied the Iranian people of one of the most basic human rights, i.e., the right to participate in political decision-making about their society. All the institutions, all the civic and political institutions that genuinely represent the wishes and views of the people, have either been totally closed down or have come completely under state control: The institution of elections is directly controlled by the state and institutions whose memberships is appointed. And because of that, the institution of elections has simply become formal body, bereft of power. The regime has all but completely clamped down and closed almost every independent newspaper or magazine in the country. Cultural creation, particularly in the realms of book publishing, is now facing serious new obstacles. Intellectuals and artists are under constant and severe pressure and censorship. Political prisoners die in prison or are constantly harassed or tortured. There is not in Iran today a single independent, free voice of the media. Every site that has substantive information has been closed or filtered out of existence. The regime has taken control of every avenue of communication in society and has enforced strict censorship on these media. The regime considers nongovernmental institutions to be a fifth column of the enemy. It considers the participation of university professors, thinkers and journalists in international conference to be something worse than espionage. Through pressure groups and through overt and direct interference by the state, the independence of the universities has been seriously compromised and damaged. Some of the most outstanding independent professors at the university, particularly those who have secular and liberal inclinations, have been forced into retirement. Student institutions that were independent have been violently suppressed. Student activists, and those critical of the state, have come under serious pressure. The regime publicly has stopped them from pursuing their education. Today, they are even trying to completely take over the content of curriculum at the university and make it fit their ideology. The regime, forcefully prevents the formation of labor unions. It brutally and violently suppresses the labor movement. In other words, to put it simply, the Despotic and Sultanic regime in Iran is bent on destroying completely all independent civil institutions autonomous from the state. They hope to leave no constraining or moderating force in society. Iranís civil laws are also clearly founded on religious and gender prejudice. A womanís basic human rights have been systematically and extensively trampled upon. Although women now compose a high percentage of college graduates, nevertheless, they are still denied some of their most social and political rights. Amongst the rights denied to them is the right to occupy some of the most important political and social posts in the government. Religious and ethnic minorities are also deprived of their social and political rights. Unfortunately, the pattern of trampling upon the civil and human rights of the Iranian people, particularly after the assent of the military and intelligent forces in the political structure of the country has taken on a more rapid rate. All these difficult conditions have led to a quickening of the brain drain in Iran, and as a result, the country is being today deprived of some of its most important human capital.

Therefore, Iranians inside the country suppressed by fundamentalistís regime and its Sultanic structure, that denies them systematically and extensively the human rights. Outside the country, they live at the heart of a region beset with the crisis, war and violence, wherein religious fundamentalism is rapidly on the rise. And also the Iranian people see that they face a world wherein some of the most important countries, like the United States and a few of the European countries, have political discourse shaped and founded on militarist and intelligence consideration, and this discourse is becoming every day, more and more, the prominent discourse of the day.

(3)
What is to be done in the face of this crisis?
To encounter with this crisis, we might take two distinctly different approaches: The first approach is to look at the situation from an ideal moral perspective; and the second one is to analyze it in the context of the realities of international relations.

From an ideal moral perspective, all human beings, regardless of their religious, political, regional or racial characteristics are morally required to defend the universal values of freedom, democracy and human rights. In this context, a breach of human rights is never the internal domestic problem of any one nation. Everyone, everywhere, is required to react responsibly to these breaches of human rights and work towards reducing the pain and sufferings of the people whose basic human rights have been violated. From a moral perspective, so far as the life and the basic rights of real human beings are concerned, the geographical borders that separate different countries has absolutely no value. Thus, we can see that from this perspective, every country on the globe is morally bound to defend the human rights and the legitimate basic rights of the people who are suffering under the yoke of Despotic regimes.

On the other hand, in the context of the realities existing in international relations, the basis for decisions, policy making and actions of governments is usually the political, economic, ideological and security concerns rather than moral values. The fact that international problems are simply judged from the prism of national interests of each country is not a morally defendable position. Thatís why here I will try to offer a way of resolving the problems of Iran and the Middle East from both of these different perspectives.

The reality is that the interdependence of the security and peace at the international level has rendered the problems and crises of the Middle East region far more important and expansive than a simple regional issue. The United States and Europe, in union, must both, and can both offer constructive and effective aid in solving these problems. Establishment of a just peace and achievement of security in the Middle East region, not only can bring security and peace to the countries of the west, but it can also afford more robust opportunities for capital investments in this region. Investment of capital requires security, and if there is security in the region, new markets will be opened to global capital.

The greatest challenge facing us in the Middle East is the challenge of fighting the daily increase in the power of fundamentalism. Of course, there is a big difference between Arab fundamentalists and the fundamentalists that rule Iran. Arab fundamentalists usually engage in suicide bombings. In other words, in order to achieve their goals they are willing to kill and be killed. But, the defenders of fundamentalism in the Iranian regime are, willing to kill for the purpose of achieving the regimeís interest, but they are never ready to be killed. The defenders of the regime in Iran are willing and ready to kill their opponents of the regime and kill the dissidents inside and outside the country. They are willing to torture them to death, but they are not willing to die for that regime themselves. There has yet never been a single suicide bombing by an Iranian, and by all likelihood there shall never be one in the future, either.

In order to stop the rising tide of fundamentalism, all the peace-lovers in the world, and all the moderate and peace-loving forces around the region, must unite to fight fundamentalism. In order to make this possible, several important steps must be taken:

First, the western world must open constructive direct negotiations with voices of moderation, tolerance and democracy in the Islamic world. They must make every effort to abort the effort by some media and political forces to create an unrealistic image of Islam and Islamic teachings as an enemy of modernity and democracy. We must pay attention to this important point that the source of the problems in the Middle East are not the conflict of Islam and the West. It is the efforts of the fundamentalists of Islam, on the one hand, and Jewish and Christian fundamentalists on the other, to reduce Islam to only the fascistic and fundamentalist reading of it, and through this process show to the world that Islam is incompatible with the exigencies of our modern world, including democracy and human rights. This is a false equation and ultimately it will damage the movements for freedom and democracy in the region. It will also undermine peace and security internationally. Today, unfortunately, the western media only reflects the voice of Islamic fundamentalism. They render an image of the Middle East as a bastion of only terrorists and radical fundamentalists, whereas moderate movements, movements for freedom, movements against violence, movements in favor of democracy and human rights also abound in the Middle East region. Entering into a dialogue with these forces, and offering support to these moderate forces, and ensuring that the voice of secular Muslims is heard around the world, will have an important role in consolidating peace in the region. For example, giving the Noble Prize for Peace to Shirin Ebadi was amongst the valuable efforts that helped the voices of moderation and peace and tolerance in the Middle East.

Secondly, European states should begin to think of security in a much wider concept. They must consider that the security and peace of the people and of the civil society in the region of the Middle East is as important as the military security of the strategically important waterways, and the strategic importance of continued export of oil, and they must include these considerations in the critical decision-making about the foreign policy in relationship to the Middle East.

Third, the United States and European countries can play the role of a peace mediator and an impartial judge in the ongoing major problem in the Middle East, i.e., the tension between Israel and Palestine. These countries must find a solution for the question of Palestine, based on the recognition of the right to life and to existence of two independent Israeli and Palestinian states within internationally recognizable borders that have been in the past supported by resolutions of the United States. If this problem is resolved in this just manner, one of the most important tools in the hands of fundamentalists for appealing to the public opinions of the Muslims in the region will be denied them. Of course, here I would like to emphasize that the position of the Iranian people towards the Palestinian problem is different than the position of the Arabs. The Arabs are themselves a part of the conflict, but Iran has never been directly involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The concerns that Iranians have for the fate of the Palestinians is more from the humanitarian perspective.

We must never forget that the shadow of war always helps Despotic regimes and adventurist political and social movement. This fact is evident in the history of Europe as well. The majority of historical and sociological research has shown that the rise of military bureaucracies and totalitarianism in Europe since the 15th Century has been the direct result of war or the threat of war in a prolonged period. In the Islamic world, too, danger of war, the danger of foreign invasion, or civil war resulting from ethnic or regional tensions, has led to the growth of totalitarian regimes and radical forms of fundamentalism. In countries like Somalia, Afghanistan and in recent years in Iraq, war has become something normal and a part of peopleís daily lives. Real war, or the threat of war, allows regimes to limit peopleís legitimate political and social rights and gradually usurp more and more parts of civil society. The basis of legitimacy for most of the countries in these regions of crisis has been the defense of the nation and the people against foreign aggression or against the threat of war.
Here, I would like to add a few points about the problem of Iran:

Today, it seems that the most oppressing concern for the European countries regarding Iran is the issue of nuclear energy. This concern is understandable. Totalitarian regimes are invariably secretive, irresponsible and undependable. In the current circumstances, the military ambitions of Iran are not compatible with the national interests of the Iranian people. It seems like the Islamic regime has taken the national interest of Iran hostage in order to ensure its own security and longevity. In other words, the overt and covert message of the Islamic Republic is that either western powers, particularly the United States, will guarantee the security of the Islamic Republic or the Islamic Republic is willing to bring the violence and destruction of war even within the borders of Iran. The Islamic Republic tries to make it the case that the survival and development of Iran is dependent on the survival of the regime itself.

But what must we do to counter the nuclear ambitions of the Islamic Republic?
The most important method for confronting the Islamic Republics adventurism is to democratize Iranís political system. Democracy and human rights are the most important solutions to the international anxieties that exist about that program. This is also the best way to achieve the national interest of the Iranian people.

(1) The western world must decide whether it wants to pursue its relations with Iran only for the short run, or it has also in mind its long-term interests. If the west is interested only in short-term interests, of course, the question of oil, commercial trade and nuclear energy will top the list of its anxieties. In other words, European governments that are negotiating with Iranian government, might reach the conclusion that the best way to achieve their economic interests is to offer the regime the security guarantees that it demands, and in return the regime in Iran will commit itself to give up its secret projects and the nuclear energy realm. In other words, western powers might try to achieve the economic interests and assuage their security concerns by overlooking the systematic and widespread breaches of human rights in Iran.

I want to say here, with absolute confidence, that the Iranian people, and specially Iranian intellectuals and the educated elite, are carefully following negotiations between the Islamic Republic and western powers over the issue of nuclear power. Any kind of a compromise, which would be achieved at the price of overlooking the question of human rights in Iran, will be considered by the Iranian people as unacceptable and will be an unforgettable act. Sooner or later, the Iranian people will reach the ideal of democracy. At that moment, they will certainly take into account the history of western states and their relationship with Iran and the degree to which each state offered the democratic movement and the human rightís movement support. We hope that in these negotiations with Iran, Europe is not seeking a Libyan solution. In other words, agreement on the nuclear issue must not be at the price of overlooking the breaches of human rights. The precondition for any agreement with the Iranian regime must be the recognition of the human rights of the Iranian people including the inalienable right to participate in the political process and determine their own future.

 
(2) On the other hand, military solutions, like the Afghani and the Iraqi model are absolutely not helpful in this arena. The heavy human and financial costs of the war will be carried by the innocent people of Iran. The infrastructure that has been created by the expenditures of billions of dollars of the countries national revenue will be completely destroyed. On the other hand, the military invasion will afford the regime a freer hand in its internal oppression. It will give the regime yet another excuse to completely obliterate the nascent civil society in Iran. When a peopleís immediate problem is to ensure their own security and safety, the problem of democracy and civil rights and political rights will become marginalized and less important. Furthermore, a military invasion of Iran will certainly give more food for the fundamentalists in the region to use further propaganda. They will further marginalize ideas about further toleration and also moderate forces who have been champions of civil and political rights in the country and have stood up to dictatorship and the oppressive measures of the regime and the region. European governments have been the most important trading partners of Iran. From year 2001 to 2005, the volume of trade between Iran and the European Union almost doubled. The volume of trade between Germany and Italy with Iran, is particularly prominent. If European countries want to show the democratic and freedom-loving people of Iran that, in their relationship with the country, they are not simply after their own economic interests and after simply guarantying the export of oil, they must then make economic relations, investments, transfer technology to Iran, all predicated on the regimeís respect for human rights and respect for the rules of a democratic political competition and respect for the rule of law in the country. The breach of human rights within the political borders of the country can no longer be simply considered an internal affair of that country alone. Human rights are now a universal value. Every country and every nation in the world must openly and transparently defend these rights. The history of Europe is a testimony to how the breach of human rights by Nazis in Germany led to enormous calamities and how the fire that began within the German borders eventually consumed the entire world.

The international community must speak with one voice and one strategy on the issue of human rights in Iran. If Europe can play an effective role in the realm of human rights in Iran, it will not only force the Islamic Republic to respect human rights more, but it will also force the radical groups within American foreign policy establishment who advocate military confrontation with Iran to rethink their positions.

Of course, support for human rights in Iran by Western powers will become more effective when these countries, themselves, become more sensitive and more serious about the issues of human rights. Unfortunately, the United States and England, in their fight against terrorism and in their military attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan, have on many occasions breached human rights. They have even tried to legitimize their inhuman actions by showing doubts about some of the undeniable elements of human rights. Of course, breaching human rights in the United States, Europe, or Israel absolutely cannot condone the breach of human rights in Iran, but those who breach human rights in Iran can easily use these breaches in Europe and America as an excuse for their own oppressive behavior.

(3) We must, at the same time, pay attention to the point that when some countries in the region have access to nuclear power, other countries in the region will overtly or covertly compete to get their hands on the nuclear power as well. If having nuclear weapons is considered legitimate for one country, then the same right must be recognized for other countries as well. As a result, it seems clear that the best way to fight an arms struggle for nuclear weapons in the larger Middle East is to declare the entire region a nuclear weaponry zone. Nuclear weapons are never a guarantor of security and peace. The Soviet Union, in spite of having the biggest military in the world, and in spite of being considered one of the greatest nuclear powers, collapsed. Peace and security in the region can only be maintained through regional security agreements, collective security regimes, the signing of collective nonaggression agreements and accepting other nonviolent ways of solving problems.

(4) The international community can help the Iranian democratic movement in another way as well. Unfortunately, the regime in Iran has access to the technology used for oppression all too easily through western companies. For example, today, the regime has access to the most developed technologies for wire tapping, filtering and creating disruptions in satellite waves. Using these developed technologies, the regime can easily bring under its control forces active in the struggle for democracy and human rights. It can also disrupt every avenue for communication within the civil society. Western powers must not transfer these kinds of technologies to authoritarian and oppressive regimes.

(5) But this must not be construed as approving the economic embargo against Iran. The experience of more than a decade of embargo against Iraq and Libya has shown that such embargoes create no disruptions for the kernels of power in these oppressive. The only result of these actions is the misery and the death of thousands of innocent women and children, as well as men, in these countries. The victims of an economic embargo against Iran will be the Iranian people, not the Islamic Republic regime. These kinds of embargoes are, from a political perspective, even under the best of circumstances, useless, and from a humanitarian perspective, catastrophic. Thatís why Iranian democrats and advocates of freedom are against any economic embargoes on Iran that their consequences affect Iranian people.

(6) On the other hand, the Islamic Republic in Iran, like other Despotic and oppressive regimes in the world, is attempting to turn Iranian society into a monolithic, monophonic society. It is thus working hard to exercise its hegemony on the countryís media. Under these circumstances, the greatest help that can be given to the Iranian people is breaking the media hegemony of the Iranian regime. This hegemony must be broken so that the Iranian people cannot be denied their innate and inalienable right to learn so that, at the same time, they can freely access accurate and reliable information. Breaking the media hegemony of the Islamic Republic will mean that the voices of advocates of peace and democracy will be heard by the Iranian people and the voice of the Iranian people will be heard around the globe.

(7) Finally, the west must actively support Iranís entry into the WTO. Countries who are members of the WTO are forced to change many of their laws and become subject to international laws of commerce. In this process, the access of Iranians to other parts of the world will be facilitated and the closed society that is the ideal of Despots will become an impossibility. Most important of all, membership in the WTO will lead to the creation of a free market and a stronger private sector in Iran. As a result of this strengthening, independent civil institutions, which are autonomous from the state, will gradually take shape and survive. This process, itself, will in the long run help the growth and the development of stable and powerful civil society in Iran. Democracy requires a powerful and extensive civil society.

Of course, there is no doubt that creating democracy and bringing freedom is the task and responsibility of Iranian people themselves. The Iranian people well aware of this mission, and they can well perform this historical responsibility. Democracy is not a commodity that can be exported. The Iranians must, through valor and democratic civil disobedience create a democracy in Iran. Talking of "regime change" by the western powers, or encouraging separatist movements, is surely detrimental to the democratic forces in Iran and only benefits the ruling regime. When Iran is faced with a military invasion or the threat of separatism, or the interference of foreigners, even the most radical foes of the regime will prefer security and protection of territorial integrity over democracy and freedom, and they will go as far as to join forces with the fundamentalists who are breaching human rights to fight the military invasion of a foreign force.

As an Iranian, I stand before you to bring you the voice of the Iranian democratic and peace movement. It is possible that this message will be lost in the cacophony of propaganda by western media, by the angry violent voices of fundamentalist groups and by the oppressive and violent actions of Despotic and Sultanist regime in Iran. There is always the danger that the reality of the existence of this movement will be overlooked. This movement is against violence and it is not founded in the hope of Iran being once again the hanging gallows in eliminating opponents and competitors from the social domain. The goal of this movement is creating a system in which, in the context of healthy democratic competition, there is room for peaceful coexistence of every political and intellectual persuasion. The principle of forgive, but to not forget, is the precondition for democracy. Unfortunately, under the current circumstances, the Iranian regime tolerates no civil and peaceful struggle. It considers the creation of every civil institution and the legal struggles of the people as attempts to implement the soft overthrow, or the color revolution or even espionage for the west, and in the guise of these labeled attacks, it oppresses and destroys every civil movement. Under these circumstances, peaceful struggle cannot mean legal struggle. Under these circumstances, peaceful struggle means civil disobedience. It means struggle through the conscious breach of laws that are unjust, unlawful and against our conscience.

I hope that the freedom-loving people of Europe and those who are sensitive to issues of human rights will hear the message of our movement and encourage their governments to put the issue of human rights on the top of their negotiations with Iran and avoid any policy that is detrimental to the national interest of Iran. The Iranians want freedom, democracy and dignified living befitting every living human being. Hear the voice of Iranian people, and do not deny them your moral and spiritual support.

 

 

---