Take Iranian Opposition to the Streets

MINDFUL of the danger of Iran's regime acquiring nuclear weapons, the international community has passed a new round of sanctions.

They aim to persuade Tehran that a negotiated deal is in its best interests. After the UN approved Resolution 1929 in June, Western nations – including the US, the European Union and Australia – enacted additional autonomous measures against the regime.

There is little doubt that these measures bite. Since their introduction, Iran has had to scrap two liquefied natural gas projects after Western companies withdrew as a result of sanctions. Iran's refining and petrochemical sectors are struggling and lack of foreign investment may have dire long-term consequences on Iran's economy. Only last week, the Dutch Lyondell Basell petrochemical company announced it was withdrawing from the Iranian market. Australia's Worley Parsons has taken similar moves, pledging only to complete already existing contracts, and, then again, only if they do not contradict sanctions legislation.

Sanctions then can work to isolate Tehran and cause severe damage to its regime. But as the history of sanctions indicates, their effect is cumulative, and can always be undermined, as the Russian decision to go ahead and help Iran start its Bushehr nuclear reactor indicates. As Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, frequently says, “sanctions are not a silver bullet, but silver shrapnel”. They will not slay the vampire, surely, but can cause him severe anaemia. With this in mind, what additional steps could governments take to tighten the screw on Iran's rulers?

There are three areas where more can be done. Firstly, Iran's elaborate networks of overseas procurement span the globe through joint ventures, shady front companies and middlemen. Western governments should go after these networks aggressively, shutting down any suspect entity operating on their territory. Secondly, Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard should be listed as a proliferating entity by all Western countries (the US Treasury has done so) and should designate more of its companies, given that the Guard, through its growing business empire and illegal economic activities, funds both the nuclear program and Iran's terrorist-sponsoring activities abroad. And thirdly, Western democracies should enact a number of measures designed to target the regime for its human rights record, bolster Iran's internal opposition, and speak directly to the Iranian people over the heads of their brutal regime.

How could this be done? For example, through highly symbolic public acts designed to highlight human rights violations and the regime's atrocities inside Iran. After the Islamic republic rigged its elections and crushed the ensuing protests in June last year, the veneer of order has returned to the country. But underneath, the embers of revolt still burn – and Western democratic institutions and civil society should stir them to keep the flame alive.

One way of doing so is to honour Neda Agha Sultan, the young Iranian woman who, on June 20 last year, was shot by a government goon as she protested peacefully against sham elections. Her death has become a symbol of the struggle for freedom.

Without waiting for national legislators to formulate grand strategies, local authorities could proceed to rename streets after Sultan to commemorate her sacrifice. In Canberra, for example, the ACT government could consider renaming the street where Iran's embassy is located. This may seem impractical and inconvenient for all other properties on the same street. Nevertheless, renaming the address of the embassy can be done without too much trouble. In the 1980s under Ronald Reagan, the US did just that: the former Soviet embassy in Washington DC was located on 16th Street, but lawmakers changed the name of the single block hosting the embassy to Sakharov Plaza, ensuring that every time they fetched their mail, the Soviets would know that the famed dissident had not been forgotten. Canberra could similarly ensure that the Islamic republic's embassy had a new address: “Neda Agha Sultan Plaza, Iranian martyr for freedom.”

To underscore the point, Western governments should use diplomatic encounters to voice their discomfort at Iran's human rights record – and not just in generic terms, but by raising specific cases of dissidents and imprisoned opposition figures and demanding their release. They could threaten to downgrade diplomatic relations by withdrawing ambassadors. They should not offer visiting Iranian dignitaries the same treatment reserved for Western counterparts. And they should raise human rights as the first item at any bilateral meeting.

Finally, as the weight of Western sanctions begins to crush Iran's economy, our governments should improve their outreach to ordinary Iranians. Strengthening free Farsi broadcasts inside Iran is one way to do it – radio stations such as the Prague-based Radio Farda could help better convey the reasons for sanctions and help turn the people against their regime even more. Asylum-seeking Iranians who are stuck in places like Turkey and Indonesia should be given a fair hearing. Offering asylum in Europe, the US and Australia to skilled and politically active Iranians could help Western governments strengthen the opposition by giving a safe haven and a platform to some of the regime's most formidable detractors.

Emanuele Ottolenghi is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies in Washington and the author of the forthcoming Iran: The Looming Crisis (Profile Books 2010)