The international community should consider
multilateral military action to remove the
Iranian regime, say Ahwazi Arab opposition
groups in a survey of opinion conducted by the
Ahwazi Arab Solidarity Network (AASN).
The survey of leading Ahwazi parties and
activists found unanimous opposition to an
Israeli strike on facilities related to the
Iranian nuclear programme, but warned that
sanctions will not be enough to encourage the
regime to abide by its obligations under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and in accordance
with UN resolutions. Only multilateral military
intervention aimed at overthrowing the
oppressive, terrorist-sponsoring regime will
prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons, say
the respondents who urged Western governments to
work with them towards democratisation.
The Ahwazi opposition is comprised of a number
of disparate groups. Among those surveyed are
the Ahwazi Democratic Popular Front (ADPF, a
secessionist, secular socialist party), the
Democratic Solidarity Party of Al-Ahwaz (DSPA, a
federalist secular liberal party), the National
Liberation Movement of Al-Ahwaz (NLMA, a
secessionist party that advocates moderate Islam
against what it sees as an extremist regime),
the British Ahwazi Friendship Society (BAFS)
advocacy group and leading intellectuals and
opinion-formers within the Ahwazi Diaspora.
These groups have different ideas about the
future of Al-Ahwaz or Arabistan, an autonomous
Arab region until 1925. The central differences
within the Ahwazi movement are whether to seek
an independent state or greater autonomy within
Iran and whether or not to wage an armed
struggle.
The report remarks: "On the issue of the
response to Iran’s nuclear programme, there are
areas of consensus that the international
community should heed. Living in an oil-rich
region, the five-million strong impoverished and
persecuted Ahwazi Arab minority will play a
crucial role in regime change and they deserve
to be heard."
SANCTIONS
There is broad support among Ahwazi groups for
the toughest possible sanctions regime against
the Iran government, including sanctions that
would effectively shut down the Iranian economy
to foreign trade. Ahwazi groups are unanimous in
their opinion that sanctions have no negative
impact on the welfare of Ahwazi Arabs, who are
already suffering long-standing economic and
social marginalisaton.
There is overwhelming support for the EU’s oil
embargo, but also a belief that the
international community should go further in
using sanctions to penalize human rights abuse
and facilitate democratic change.
The DSPA states that the current sanctions
regime has had a “serious impact on the
development of Iran’s nuclear programme” and
says “we are pretty sure that the majority of
political activists in Al-Ahwaz support
sanctions against Tehran.” It adds that “the
Ahwazis suffer deprivation rarely seen in the
world and for decades have suffered economic
sanctions imposed by the regime on their
cultural, political, social and economic life.”
The ADPF is more sceptical about the effects of
sanctions, stating that they “believe that
sanctions won't work with this regime”. The
party further adds that “we do not support any
negotiation with this regime, which will prolong
its life and make it stronger.”
The NLMA calls for a toughening of the sanctions
regime, including a naval blockade to prevent
all oil exports in order to bankrupt the Iranian
government and destroy its ability to oppress
its own people, particularly non-Persian ethnic
groups. Such sanctions would wreck Iran’s
nuclear programme and undermine its support for
international terrorism, says the group.
In its list of demands, the NLMA effectively
calls for a complete trade embargo with
sanctions against any state trading with Iran.
These sanctions should be backed up by military
force, including a naval blockade of Iran’s sea
ports and closure of all banking operations.
The NLMA acknowledges that “undoubtedly there
are negative effects on the lives of the people
of Ahwaz Arab due to these international
sanctions, but our people will welcome them so
long as they lead to the legitimate demand for
an independent Ahwazi state including their
national rights, working in accordance with
international law […] and in the interest of
international peace and security.”
Prominent Ahwazi journalist and commentator
Hamed al-Kanani remarks that Ahwazi Arabs are
unaffected in material terms by the sanctions
due to their marginal status. While he supports
the current sanctions, he says it has not been
effective in preventing the development of the
Iranian nuclear programme and on their own will
not topple the regime just as sanctions failed
to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. He
adds that “the previous Iraqi regime was not
overthrown by the Iraqis themselves. If the US
and other Western countries were not
[militarily] engaged, the regime would still be
in power.”
BAFS criticizes the overwhelming emphasis on
nuclear proliferation at the expense of human
rights and good governance. It called for
Western “investment” in Ahwazi Arab NGOs to
build a stronger civil society that is better
able to bring the regime to account.
MILITARY ACTION
The prospect of unilateral Israeli military
action or strikes aimed at the nuclear sites is
regarded with deep scepticism by Ahwazi groups.
There is a consensus that unilateral action
would be ineffective and that attacks by Israel
tend to make its enemies stronger. Hamed
al-Kannani points to the 2006 Lebanon War, which
“made the terrorist group [Hezbollah] stronger
than before.”
The NLMA believes any Israeli strike would be
limited and would not lead to the toppling of
the regime and therefore would have no positive
impact on the liberation of Al-Ahwaz or other
non-Persian peoples. It makes a parallel with
the Israeli strike on Iraq’s Tammuz nuclear
reactor in 1981, which had no impact on the
regime itself. It also points out that an
Israeli strike would simply escalate the
security threats to Israel in the form of
Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the
Palestinian territories while Israel has no
leverage to threaten the territorial sovereignty
of Iran. Moreover, Israeli military action would
“lead to a large public outcry in the Muslim
world and Iran would be perceived as a hero,
which would act in its favour.”
The DSPA shares this sentiment and states that
an “Israeli strike would strengthen the regime
politically as many Muslim countries in the area
will find a religious motive to stand with the
Iranian regime.” It believes that “if a military
strike is the only solution to get rid of the
Iranian regime then it would be better if it
were carried out by NATO without Israeli
involvement.”
The DSPA states that it would support a full
invasion of Iran aimed at regime change in order
to overthrow the oppressor of Ahwazi Arabs. The
NLMA emphasizes that a decisive and quick war
against the regime would be achievable simply by
usurping Iranian control of Al-Ahwaz, which
contains most of its oil production and
therefore its main source of revenue. It
believes that independence for Al-Ahwaz would
establish peace in the Middle East and
worldwide.
BAFS warns that military action comes with
significant risks that should be thoroughly
assessed along with careful planning of post-war
scenarios. It points to the years of chaos
following the invasion of Iraq due to an overly
optimistic belief that a stable democratic
system could be created from nothing and would
be immune from corruption, terrorism and foreign
intrigue.
Says BAFS: “Any risk assessment needs to be
conducted with the involvement of a diversity of
civil society groups in Iran. As they live in
the most oil-rich and geopolitically sensitive
area of Iran, Ahwazi Arabs should be central to
any consultation over strategic military
planning, particularly if action is aimed at
regime change.
"Military action may be initially intended to
take out sites involved in the nuclear programme
and perhaps some command and control centres.
However, any initial strike of any scale carries
with it the potential to escalate into an
all-out war that will include the unconventional
methods Iran and its Hezbollah ally have
mastered, including the use of terror cells in
Arab and European states and elsewhere. As such,
we urge Western military commanders to engage in
consultation with Ahwazi human rights and
opposition groups to tap their knowledge and
support well ahead of any assault.”
Ahwazi Arabs and International Action on Iran
|