The Iran Crisis: Second Look

Respect for human rights is a concern which the entire world must share, for the mutual improvement of respect among nations. A situation has now arisen in the relations between the governments of Iran and the United States of America, in which both parties protest that their rights have been flagrantly violated. The one cites the right of immunity for its diplomats abroad' the other its rights to try an exiled tyrant. To clarify this situation, we believe it of crucial importance to refer to history:

President Carter claimed at the recent AFLCIO convention (11/15/79) that "We have done nothing for which any administration need apologize." Does President Carter fail to recall that in 1953, the popular government of Dr. Mossadegh was overthrown in a bloody coup d'etat orchestrated by the American administration through the Central Intelligence Agency? Has he forgotten that on June 5th, 1962, more than 10,000 innocent people were shot to death by the American-advised Iranian army? Does he not remember congratulating the Shah on the morning after Black Friday, September 8th, 1977, when the Shah's army shot down 5,000 unarmed demonstrators?

The 1953 U.S. sponsored coup meant for the Iranian nation 25 years of unparalleled brutality and suffering. Regrettably the complicity of the American government was a major factor in the maintenance of the Shah's regime. American advisors supported Savak, the dreaded secret police responsible for the torture and brutal deaths of untold numbers of Iranian citizens. The army was transformed into a brutal instrument of internal repression and a guardian of foreign interests in Iran and the Persian Gulf. What was called "economic development" in Iran during those 25 years was in reality the development of consumerism, quick profits for American and European companies, and the further exploitation and impoverishment of the bulk of the population.

In those dark 25 years, the American Embassy developed into an active policymaking center for deciding the fate of the Iranian people, and was indispensable for the survival of the Shah's regime. It is well-known in Iran that American Ambassadors were close advisors to the Shah and that the Enbassy was involved in the assignment of the top-level civilian and military posts. In short, despite President Carter's failing memory, the American government has been directly responsible for the the events in Iran during the Shah's regime. And this is in the name of you, the American people.

The admission of the ex-Shah to the U.S. is interpreted by Iranians as a politically motivated action, indicative of continued U.S. support for the deposed Shah and the forces of reaction for which he stands. It is regarded as a provocation reflecting a lack of respect for the will of the Iranian people. It comes as no surprise that it was orchestrated by characters such as Rockefeller and Kissinger, representatives of the power centers who had supported and benefitted from the Shah's regime.

The resulting reaction by Iranians should not be looked at as an isolated act, but in the context of American involvment in Iranian politics. Resorting to international law to protest such reaction seems unbecoming of a power who in retrospect has broken international law so often in overthrowing popularly-elected governments abroad.

It is ironic that humanitarianism has been used to justify the admission of a criminal, while the law is being used to extradite those here in search of an education. An administrative decree has been issued requiring all Iranian students in the U.S. to report to Immigration and Naturalization Service offices.

1) Since the action of singling out Iranian students, comprising only 20 percent of the foreign student population in the U.S., for selective harassment by Immigration constitutes what is known as suspect classification" (the casting of blanket suspicion of wrongdoing on a group classified only by race, religion, or national origin);

2) Since the administrative decree issued by President Carter sanctioning these moves reflects a willingness to establish a dangerous legal precedent os using individuals pursuing higher education as pawns for achieving political purposes;

3) Since the imminent deportation proceedings are meant expressly as a means of exerting political pressure on a foreign government and hence are unrelated to any permanent concern over the proper enforcement of the immigration laws, they represent a classic case of bending the legal system to suit the prevailing political mood of the day;

Therefore, we concerned Iranian students attending the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University as a matter of principle, express our opposition to the aforementioned administrative decree. We will not report to the Immigration and Naturalization Services until the legulity of the order has been established. Class action suits regarding this decree have already been presented to the courts by the ACLU and others.

We ask you, the American people, to oppose the admission and protection of a criminal, and the victimization of Iranian students here.