You seem to need to know, in great detail, the exact form of government that will replace the Islamic Regime if the popular movement inside of Iran is successful, before you can give your support.
OK... You are entitled to your position.
You and I probably share many of the same concerns and preferences in what should replace their current government. But I am sure you would agree that at some point the people of Iran will have to make up their own minds and choose the form of government they want to live under. In the meantime, we can engage them now, encourage them and educate them as to why we believe one system is superior to another.
There are many Iranian groups that are willing to state their preferences in detail.
SMCCDI is an umbrella organization and represents a broad spectrum of thought inside of Iran. It is trying to provide a unifying voice that western governments and the US government seems to want. They also need this unity to push for a national referendum on the type of government the people want. Some want a constitutional monarchy, some a secular democracy and others want an Islamic Republic, to name a few. Without this unity they do not stand a chance at having a vote on such a referendum.
You claim…”They have made clear not what government they want…”
But below are a few examples of the kind of the government they did speak about …
http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_446.shtml
“The Separation of Religion and State:
History has shown the mixture of religion and politics is a deadly combination, regardless of epoch, society or the religion involved. We are not blaming Islam as some of us are devout Muslims, but rather simply the mixture of religion and politics.
We seek the separation of religion and state and the establishment of a secular government.
“ The Separation of Powers:
The Islamic republic has clearly demonstrated the undesirability of unrestricted, unaccountable power. Power centralized in the hands of one or a few and without accountability or checks and balances is a recipe for dictatorship.
As such, the executive, judiciary and legislative branches of the government need to be independent of each
“A Decentralized Government:
The overbearing hand of the central government needs to be strictly regulated. More political and economic authority needs to reside with the local, city and regional provinces. Without compromising Iran’s territorial integrity, the elected local authorities should be given more rights to settle their own affairs.
A decentralized system is best suited for our country, as the Iranian people have been living together as one people for almost 3 thousand years. They are not newly formed states trying to form a federation or a union.
The central government in Tehran has the exclusive authority to maintain a standing army, conduct foreign policy, regulate the nation’s financial markets, and to ensure the proper functioning of the welfare system.
“Free Markets & WTO:
Why have we failed to become a rich, industrialized country, despite our abundant natural resources? Maybe the answer is self-evident. As a nation, we have focused too much on tapping what lays underneath the ground, rather than in the minds and hearts of our people. The quest for oil has led to foreign manipulation and interference. Even worse, oil has functioned as an easy and independent source of income for the governmental authorities, making them indifferent and insensitive to the economic plight of the people.
Creation of wealth from natural resources relies on political connections and, hence, is far more likely to lead to corruption than when a society has no other option but to organize the creative resources of its people. The latter requires an appropriate legal framework and institutions, whereas the former mostly relies on who one knows.
That is why other countries rich in natural resources have also fallen into the same trap. Not one member of OPEC has a viable non-petroleum based economy. In much the same way, Argentina, boasting so many natural resources, today has almost the same income per capita as it did 100 years ago. Conversely, countries that prospered such as Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong did so without being "blessed" with abundant natural resources.
Realizing that they had nothing to offer the world but the skills of their people, these countries focused on loosened, labor-intensive industries for exports to create jobs for their people (since they had no domestic market per say to sell to). They, subsequently, moved up the food chain and increasingly engaged in more sophisticated industries. Jobs were their first and foremost priority. Similarly, creating jobs should be our country’s number one economic policy. We have much to learn form the dynamic economies of these three countries.
The foundation of their economic miracle was based on an appropriate legal framework. With the theocracy’s arbitrary decision making, compounded by its corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy, no wonder entrepreneurs have no incentives to take risks and create jobs for the people. Its so-called foundations have a monopoly on a number of vital industries and are not accountable to public in any form. There is no transparency. To encourage private investment in the economy, we must first protect the rights of both the investors and workers against the overbearing hand of the government.
Private property must be protected to provide the right set of incentives for risk taking in order to create jobs for the people. Central to this objective is international trade. We need to engage the world economy and join the World Trade Organization.”
In my opinion, whatever form of government they ultimately chose would be greatly superior to what they currently endure.
I support them because I believe they simply want what we have (and all too often take for granted). We can try to help them build it or sit on the sidelines and criticize their efforts.
There are many Iranians who read our posts here and if you want to engage them in this debate I would encourage you to do so. This will take time and energy. They won’t necessarily be satisfied with your criticisms any more than you are of some of their “public position statements.” But if you are willing to spend the time and energy necessary, please join in.
Oh, and one last comment. You said…I fear you are desiring to send the people of Iran from the hell of a state run theocracy to the hell of a state run socialist meatgrinder…
What do you base that on???? I am a believer in free markets; I am a student of Hayek, Von Mises, and Friedman myself. Why would you accuse me of that? Lets not start making wild accusations of one another.
I fear it because I see the imprint of socialism on the articles presented, because I see them flirting with the TRP, and because neither of these things seem to bother you.
The people of Iran will need to decide. But after a revolution there is a vaccuum, and we need to know who is going to step into that vaccuum. The leaders of a revolution will be part of that. Knowing their goals and their political inclination beyond just wanting change is a must.
Let me share with you some interesting words.
Mass-popular organisations and trade unions, should by their very nature remain above ideology. They unite people on basis of their immediate and direct democratic demands. They should combine over what unites them - trade, profession, gender, ethnicity, sexuality - rather than what divides them - ideology. Political groupings need to operate within these structures, formulating demands and arguing for changes in policy and direction, all within the framework of the raison d'etre of the mass organisation. Ideological issues, whether political, religious or cultural, must be kept out unless it has direct bearing on the purpose of the association.
What does that mean? Does that seem to fit what you see? What the modus operandi here is?
It is from a Marxist critique of the failure of the Iranian Revolution of the late 1970s. From the same critique:
The struggle for a non-ideological state is inseparable from that for socialism.
I can't speak for anyone else here. But until I see the SMCCDI explicitly denounce socialism as incompatible with freedom, and while I continue to see in their declared goals many of the goals of the international socialists, and while I see them making join declarations and presentations with the TRP, I not only will not be supporting them, I will be actively spreading the word that they deserve ambivalence at best from American conservatives.