In der Debatte um einen möglichen Krieg gegen den Iran fehlen allzu oft Stimmen aus dem Iran selbst, Stimmen von Oppositionellen. Die NGO International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran hat einen Bericht veröffentlicht, in dem 35 führenden Menschenrechtsaktivisten, Intellektuelle und Künstler zu einen militärischen Intervention befragt haben. Die Meinungen sind ziemlich einhellig:
„… Overwhelmingly, from the perspective of those interviewed for this report, military action against Iran by the
United States or Israel would be futile, counterproductive and irrational. Accordingly, while achieving none of the goals used to justify such action, a strike would lead to further political regression and repression, deeper enmity between the Iranian people and the United States, and severe humanitarian problems.
Much of the analysis and insight offered by Iranian civil society actors surveyed in this report thus bolsters existing arguments against military action made by the American and other international commentators.
An attack would further militarize the state, exacerbate the human rights crisis in Iran, and undermine Iranian civil society and the pro-democracy movement. Iranians interviewed by the Campaign said a military strike would lead to full militarization of the Iranian state and serve as a pretext for increased civil and political repression. A leading journalist said that given the Islamic Republic’s ongoing repression against alleged “soft war” tactics, a “real war” would lead to the complete elimination of the freedom of expression. A military strike would likely lead to an upsurge of political violence, threatening all those considered enemies of the government. Given the mass executions of numerous political prisoners during the Iran-Iraq War, strong fears were expressed about the fate of hundreds of current political prisoners in the event of a conflict with the United States.
A war with Iran would strengthen the current regime by stoking nationalism and dividing the opposition, and undercut the Iranian public’s goodwill toward the United States. While some proponents of a conflict with Iran have suggested that Iranians would turn on their own government in the event of an attack, the report’s interviewees argued that, given the extent and power of Iranian nationalism, a military strike would, on the contrary, strengthen the regime by bringing even some dissenters to its side. This tendency would be reinforced by memories of the US role in the fall of the Mossadeq government in 1953; a screenwriter said that in the event of a war against Iran, “the United States’ image will be more tarnished than ever for Iranians.”
Interlocutors rejected any possible use of the assault on human rights in Iran and democracy as a pretext for a US attack. Iranian experts referred to events in Iraq and Afghanistan, which they said showed the impossibility of successfully importing human rights and democracy after a military attack. They said an attack would undermine Iran’s long trajectory of internal political development.
Finally, some interviewees expressed serious concerns that a US military strike would have ruinous humanitarian, economic and environmental consequences. Iranians referenced their memories of the destructiveness of the Iran-Iraq War in expressing their fears that, in addition to leading to the loss of innocent civilian lives, a military strike would be a major setback to Iran’s economic development for many years, given its likely toll on the country’s economy and infrastructure.
Others argued that military action against Iran would likely be illegal under international law, and that a strike on Iran would lead to regional instability and encourage the regime to build nuclear weapons…“
Wichtig erscheint mir die Tatsache, dass diese Interviews zwei Jahre NACH der gewaltsamen Unterdrückung der Oppositionsbewegung im Jahr 2009 geführt worden sind. Eine Intervention, so glauben alle, würde die Repression des Regimes nicht schwächen sondern noch verstärken.