null
VZCZCXRO3981
PP RUEHBC RUEHDE RUEHKUK
DE RUEHDIR #0019/01 3471352
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
P 131352Z DEC 06
FM IRAN RPO DUBAI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0032
INFO RUCNIRA/IRAN COLLECTIVE
RUEHAD/AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI 0017
RUEHDIR/IRAN RPO DUBAI 0025
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 03 IRAN RPO DUBAI 000019 
 
SIPDIS 
 
NOFORN 
SIPDIS 
 
LONDON FOR GAYLE; BERLIN FOR PAETZOLD; BAKU FOR HAUGEN; PARIS 
FOR WALLER 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL:  12/13/2016 
TAGS: PGOV PREL IR
SUBJECT: REFORMISTS STRIKE DISSONANT CHORD 
 
REF: A. RPO DUBAI 18 
 ¶B. RPO DUBAI 8 
 
RPO DUBAI 00000019  001.2 OF 003 
 
 
CLASSIFIED BY: Jillian L. Burns, Director, Iran Regional 
Presence Office, Dubai, UAE. 
REASON: 1.4 (b), (d) 
 
 
 
1.(S/NF) Summary:  Two recent conversations with active Iranian 
reformers yielded diametrically opposed views on what the US 
should do about Iran.  An Iranian political activist and former 
MP recently told IRPOffs that US military intervention was the 
only way to guarantee positive change in Iran, explaining his 
views why the Iranian people would welcome such a step.  He said 
the reform movement was dead and that elections would bring no 
substantive change.  By contrast, a current reformist MP said 
that coordination between reformist groups on the Tehran 
municipal election list demonstrates that reformers can regroup 
and regain support when President Ahmadinejad's policies drive 
the country into the ground.  He acknowledged, however, that 
change will come a millimeter at a time.  With the ongoing 
violence in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, West Bank, and Gaza, he 
opposed aggressive action against Iran at this time, 
particularly in light of Iranian involvement in all those 
conflicts.  On the other hand, he advised against dialogue with 
Iran at this time, given the current conviction among some 
officials that Iran has gained the upper hand.   Both Iranians 
laid out their cases logically and without hyperbole.  The call 
for military intervention and the advice against dialogue both 
represent minority views among our interlocutors.  End summary 
 
2.(S/NF) In recent, separate conversations, two Iranian 
pro-democracy intellectuals presented starkly different views of 
next steps on Iran.  The first is a law professor, a former MP, 
and an outspoken activist who was arrested, reportedly tortured, 
and given a suspended sentence for insulting the Supreme Leader 
and propagandizing against the regime.  He is appealing his 
sentence.  The second interlocutor is a current reformist MP who 
is outspoken in the Majles with his criticism of government 
policy. 
 
Reform movement - dead or alive? 
-------------------------------- 
 
3.(S/NF) During the Khatami presidency, the professor said, the 
conversation used to be about reform, but people grew 
disappointed by the cowardice of Khatami and in the reform 
movement he led.  The source claimed people have now given up 
hope on reform and think regime change is the only option.  He 
was previously a supporter of a referendum for Iran but thought 
the time for that initiative had passed.  In his view, 
evolutionary reform is possible in Iran, but it would take at 
least 10-20 years.  If in the meantime, however, Iran acquires a 
nuclear bomb, the government will consolidate its power, ending 
the possibility of reform.  He is convinced that Iran aims to 
build a nuclear bomb and says -- without claiming any insider 
information -- that he agrees more with Israeli than US 
estimates, putting the timeframe at six months to three years. 
In his view, the US should act within this short window. 
 
4.(S/NF) In contrast, the MP said reformers were gaining ground 
in Iran, albeit one millimeter at a time.  As proof, he cited 
the success of 18 reformist parties agreeing on a common list 
for the Tehran municipal elections, in contrast to the 
conservatives, who have multiple competing lists.  He noted, 
however, the possibility of fraud distorting the results of the 
election.  The MP thought the December 11 student demonstration 
against Ahmadinejad at Amir Kabir University was particularly 
significant, occurring during election week.  He saw little 
significance, however, in the Assembly of Experts election.  In 
the long-term, he thought that Ahmadinejad's policies were so 
ill-conceived they would eventually lead to the country to a 
dead-end, to the advantage of reformers.  He said that while it 
was true the Iranian people were disappointed in Khatami, they 
now see that it can get a lot worse, noting that Khatami's 
presidency gave people a standard for comparison to conservative 
presidents. 
 
5.(S/NF) The professor maintained that elections in Iran have no 
legitimacy or import.  It makes no difference who wins the 
Assembly of Experts election or municipal elections; there will 
be no change.  He dismissed talk of rivalry between 
arch-conservative Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi and the Supreme Leader 
or between Ahmadinejad and former presidential candidate, now 
mayor of Tehran, Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf.  He didn't dispute the 
rivalries but said one in office meant no qualitative difference 
 
RPO DUBAI 00000019  002.2 OF 003 
 
 
over the other.  When asked whether the goal of the IRGC was to 
support the clerical government or draw power from the clerics 
to themselves, again he saw little difference between the two 
groups.  In fact, he said some non-clerics were worse than the 
clerics, such as Minister of Culture Saffar Harandi. 
 
Regime change or change from within? 
------------------------------------ 
 
6.(S/NF) The professor maintained that the only option that the 
Iranian government fears and the only one that would likely be 
effective is outside military intervention.  Iran, he said, has 
braced itself to endure any form of economic sanctions for at 
least a decade.  Furthermore, Iran has allies, such as China, 
Japan, Russia, and Europe to help mitigate the impact of 
sanctions.  In any case, he argued, sanctions are an ineffective 
diplomatic tool that take at least 10 years to be effective, if 
ever.  In his view, the US has no option on Iran but military 
action.  Unlike North Korea, Iran wants to be a regional and 
international power, and it would use its perceived 
invulnerability once armed with a nuclear bomb to assert its 
influence. 
 
7.(S/NF) When asked if outside military intervention would 
provoke a nationalistic backlash, the professor said no.  He 
said the Iranian government was so unrepresentative of Iranian 
culture that Iranians would not rally around it.  Later in the 
conversation, he estimated that currently only 10 percent of the 
Iranian population support the government.  He claimed to be 
well-placed to take the pulse of the population, through his law 
clients, his students, and his contact with the agricultural 
sector (he owns a farm).  (Note: Many IRPO interlocuters have 
given similar estimates -- 10-15 percent -- for the percentage 
of the Iranian population that supports the government. 
Endnote.) 
 
8.(S/NF) The professor also maintained that US aggressive action 
against Iran would not be viewed as neo-imperialism, noting that 
the only legitimate elections in the region have been held in 
Afghanistan and Iraq following US invasions.  These elections, 
he said, belie the accusation of imperialism.  At the same time, 
the professor maintained that the US push for democratization 
across the region is flawed as it will only allow greater public 
support for Islamists, citing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. 
The majority of Iranians are pro-American -- he said certainly 
60 percent, perhaps as high as 70 percent -- largely because the 
government is against America, unlike in Saudi Arabia or Egypt 
where the reverse was true.  (Note:  An Amcit journalist 
recently in Iran told IRPOff that in his view, Iranians are 
pro-Americans but not necessarily pro-US policy, comparing 
current Iranian public opinion to Saudi views six years ago. 
The professor mentioned that support for the Palestinians and 
the establishment of a Palestinian state was prevalent in Iran 
but noted the Iranians don't like paying for it.  Endnote) 
 
9.(S/NF) The professor was dismissive of the ability of 
expatriate Iranians to effectively spearhead change in Iran, 
although he indicated that coordination among expatriate groups 
was better than before.  At one point he suggested a type of 
government in exile, along the lines of the Iraqi National 
Congress.  He claimed his own intention was to continue to work 
for change from inside Iran. 
 
10.(S/NF) By contrast, the reformist MP said that, despite his 
dislike for the government ("Ahmadinejad is crazy"), now is not 
the time for US aggression against Iran or a regime change 
policy.  With the ongoing conflicts in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, 
West Bank, and Gaza, a new conflict would be too dangerous, 
particularly in light of Iran's hand in all of these places.  He 
argued that democracy should be allowed to evolve internally in 
Iran.  He accused the government of trying to close off 
information to the Iranian people, in order to make them 
ignorant and impose "Islamic-Fascism," but predicted they would 
fail  For instance, he said the Majles was reducing press 
coverage of its deliberations.  According to the MP's math, 
two-thirds of the population fall into the educated class -- 
implying they were immune from such efforts -- and one-third 
into the "poor" class.  Of that "poor" class, some support the 
government for its religious ideology, some for its populist 
economic promises.  When those promises don't pan out, that 
support would dissipate.  He also claimed that only 10 percent 
of the population were hard-core supporters of the government. 
 
Both agree US correct to depose Saddam Hussein 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
RPO DUBAI 00000019  003.2 OF 003 
 
 
 
11.(S/NF) Both the professor and the MP were supportive of US 
decisions to invade Iraq.  The professor, however, thought the 
US had made mistakes in Iraq after the invasion, particularly 
disbanding the Iraqi army.  In any case, he added, the situation 
in Iraq is very different from what the situation in Iran would 
be after an attack.  He claimed the majority of the violence in 
Iraq is not directed at the US but is the result of an internal 
power struggle.  Unlike in Afghanistan (or Iran), the aim of the 
Iraq invasion was not just regime change but also a power 
redistribution away from the minority Arab Sunnis, towards the 
majority Arab Shia and the minority Kurdish Sunnis, implying 
there was no issue of  redivision of power in Iran.  This shift 
away from minority rule is the root of the violence in Iraq, he 
said, and he criticized the US for not making this clearer in 
its public rhetoric. 
 
12.(S/NF) The MP declared his happiness that Saddam was gone, 
having lost 12 members of his family in the war.  He criticized 
the Iraq Study Group report, because he believed it implied that 
getting rid of Saddam had been a wrong decision.  In fact, he 
lamented that the ISG's conclusions bolstered the Iranian 
government's self-confidence for the central role it proscribed 
for Iran in regional matters.  He believed the ongoing violence 
in Iraq was the unavoidable aftermath of ending a dictatorship. 
He also felt that Iran does not have the same kind of ethnic 
problems as Iraq.  He opposed the notion of US dialogue with 
Iran at this time, when some Iranian officials feel they have 
gained an upper-hand in the region.  Instead, the US should 
continue to put pressure on the government and to engage the 
Iranian people, making clear to them the US will not trade human 
rights to make a deal with the government. 
 
13.(S/NF) Comment:  Both interlocutors are serious political 
actors from the reformist camp, with the difference that the 
former MP broke with the system (although he is still allowed to 
teach and practice law), and the current MP continues to walk a 
fine line, although he doubts he will be allowed to run again. 
On the subject of US military intervention, we occasionally meet 
Iranians living inside Iran who support it.  An ongoing contact, 
a Tehran businessman, recently repeated the same plea to IRPO 
director.  An Iranian-American who recently traveled to Iran 
said a friend of his, a businessman with large government 
construction contracts, had told him a US invasion was the only 
path to change in Iran.  This sub-source predicted 20,000 US 
soldiers would die in the conflict, but "there was no other 
choice."  The professor, however, did not offer a clear 
description of what he envisions happening post-conflict. 
Separately, the MP did not substantially engage on the nuclear 
issue or its impact on evolutionary trends.  He appears to be 
counting on Ahmadinejad's flawed policies to lead to the 
downfall of conservatives.  Overall, the majority of our 
interlocutors warn against foreign intervention, saying it would 
drive Iranians closer to their government, allowing it to 
further consolidate its power.  The majority of our 
interlocutors also see merit in dialogue between the two 
countries, but there is a prevalent nervousness that we will 
"sell out" democracy activists to get a deal on the nuclear 
issue and regional conflicts.  There also remains the sense that 
no group wants another to get the credit for breaking the thaw 
between the US and Iran. 
BURNS