The Dubious Dance of Diplomacy: Rafsanjani’s Shadow and the U.S. State Department

Erfan fard :

In a recent and controversial move, the U.S. State Department’s Persian Instagram account featured a post that highlighted Faezeh Hashemi Rafsanjani, casting her as an opponent of compulsory hijab and a defender of women’s rights in Iran. This act, seemingly innocent in its advocacy for human rights, belies a deeper, more complex narrative interwoven with the legacy of her father, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and the intricate dance of diplomacy and domestic politics.

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani’s name evokes a myriad of reactions within Iran and among its diaspora. To some, he was a pragmatic leader who steered Iran through tumultuous times; to others, he epitomizes the corruption and cronyism that has beset the Islamic Republic since its inception. Despite pro-regime media propagating the narrative that Rafsanjani’s presidency was characterized by efforts towards economic reform and a foreign policy aimed at reconciling with the West, the reality of his tenure and its enduring impact was marred by human rights abuses and involvement in extrajudicial killings.

The offensive post by the U.S. State Department, while ostensibly aimed at supporting women’s rights, inadvertently shines a light on the complex legacy of a criminal mullah whose family is now being positioned as advocates for reform within the very regime they helped solidify. This disgraceful depiction overlooks the wider context of the Rafsanjani family’s detrimental role in founding the Islamic Republic and the continuous battle for fundamental rights and freedoms in Iran, a struggle that leaves no space for reformists or hardliners.

Critics argue that highlighting Faezeh Hashemi as a symbol of reform whitewashes the broader issues of systemic corruption and repression that have characterized the regime, including during her father’s time in power. They see it as an attempt by certain factions within Iran, and possibly by external actors like the U.S., to promote a narrative of pro regime reformism that stops short of advocating for the more radical changes many Iranians yearn for, including regime change or the regime’s collapse.

This incident raises important questions about the role of international actors in Iran’s complex political landscape. On one hand, engaging with figures like Faezeh Hashemi could be seen as a pragmatic approach to fostering dialogue and encouraging moderate voices within the regime. On the other hand, it risks legitimizing a political establishment that many Iranians hold responsible for decades of oppression and mismanagement.

Furthermore, the outcry from the Iranian community on social media in response to the U.S. State Department’s post underscores the deep divisions and the sensitivity around the issues of reform and the future of the outlaw Islamic Republic. It also highlights the challenges faced by the U.S. and other Western nations in navigating the fine line between advocating for human rights and becoming entangled in Iran’s internal politics.

In conclusion, while the intentions behind the U.S. State Department’s post may have been to support the cause of women’s rights in Iran, it inadvertently touched on a raw nerve for many Iranians. It serves as a stark reminder of the complexities inherent in Iran’s political landscape and the need for a nuanced approach that recognizes the diverse aspirations of the Iranian people. As we move forward, it is imperative for international actors to consider the implications of their engagements and to strive for a deeper understanding of the dynamics at play within Iran and among its global diaspora.

In light of Faezeh Hashemi’s imprisonment and the subsequent promotion of her cause, it’s essential to recognize that this publicity does not absolve her or her associates from answering for their political and economic actions. Every individual must stand accountable for their role and contributions, or lack thereof, to Iran’s state and society. The Rafsanjanis, entwined with the regime’s malpractices, should not be misplaced in the public eye by foreign entities, including the U.S. State Department, which ought to refrain from inadvertently endorsing individuals whose positions and histories are contentious at best.

The dialogue around these notorious figures is complex, as they can articulate their stance regarding the Islamic Republic and its opposition. The binary of defending women’s and human rights while aligning with the Islamic Republic presents a paradox that cannot be ignored. The U.S. State Department, thus, should heed the feedback from the Iranian community, notably the critical comments under their posts. If these platforms are influenced by reformist elements, it marks a concerning direction for U.S. policy towards Iran, raising questions about whose interests are truly being served.

Do the actions of the U.S. State Department align with the aspirations of the Iranian people, or do they inadvertently support the continuity of a regime that many Iranians oppose? The silence on popular figures revered among Iranians, such as HRH Prince Reza Pahlavi, and the promotion of a controversial family like the Rafsanjanis, underscores a dissonance in U.S. policy. Such disgusting actions must be scrutinized: under what law does the U.S. promote a family with a history of allegations, including involvement in terrorist activities that have harmed Americans? The relevance and impact of these policies on the lives of Iranians and the broader goal of supporting human rights and democracy in Iran warrant a thoughtful, informed, and principled approach.

The unfolding narrative around the Rafsanjani family and the U.S. State Department’s engagement with them underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of Iran’s political landscape and a reevaluation of how the West engages with Iran’s complex fabric of reformists, conservatives, and the people caught in between. It is a reminder that diplomacy and international relations are not just about the messages conveyed but also about understanding the histories, sentiments, and aspirations of those to whom the messages are directed.

If the State Department ostensibly claims to stay out of the internal affairs of countries and has no desire to support regime change from the thugs and terrorists in Tehran, why should it involve itself in officially promoting one of the most notorious figures in Iranian politics? Why is there absolutely no attention or respect given to the Iranian nationalist movement? Remaining silent would be better, even though they have not stood on the right side of history.

Related Posts