How Not to Foster Iranian Democracy

In his Oct. 19 op-ed, "A Lever of Change in Iran," Michael Rubin argued that pro-democracy groups in Iran benefit from U.S. government funding. This couldn't be further from the truth. Anyone who has visited Iran or been in contact with these groups knows that any serious Iranian grass-roots activists would avoid these funds like the plague. Taking such money would be like painting a target on their backs.

The Iran Freedom Support Act, which allocates funds to dissident groups in Iran to promote regime change, is the result of a flawed perception of the democracy movement there. Exile groups with little legitimacy have, unfortunately, influenced the sponsors of this legislation.

The National Iranian American Council (NIAC), on the other hand, represents U.S. citizens of Iranian descent and promotes their activities in U.S. civil society. Therefore, the funding for the NIAC is entirely appropriate.

ALI G. SCOTTEN

Washington

¿

Michael Rubin suggested that listening to Iranian activists who have criticized the U.S. government's efforts to fund civil society groups in Iran "is like filtering efforts to protect Darfur refugees through their Janjaweed oppressors." Among those who say this program is ineffective and counterproductive are Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, noted dissident Akbar Ganji, human rights defender Emad Baghi (currently in prison in Tehran) and Haleh Esfandiari, who only recently emerged from eight months of detention in Iran.

Iran's leading rights activists would be persecuted with or without the U.S. democracy program. But they still believe the program weakens their cause, by allowing the government to claim, falsely, that all government critics are agents of the West. To suggest that they are "the loyal opposition in a fascist state," as Mr. Rubin did, is an insult to their bravery and betrays a gross misunderstanding of the situation in Iran.

SAM ZARIFI

Washington Advocate

Human Rights Watch

Washington