BV:
What is the UN right to “humanitarian intervention” and what is “the responsibility to protect?” Shirzad: A 1996 UN Security Council Resolution (Article 19) authorizes military intervention by the international community to address humanitarian crises in member states. Examples are the intervention in Mali by France and in Serbia and Libya by a US-led NATO force. Due to lack of intervention, 800,000 people lost their lives in Rwanda in just 80 days; two million were massacred by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia; 300,000 were slaughtered by Omar al-Bashir’s forces in Sudan; 180,000 were killed in Iraq; and 8,000 in Srebrenica. Intervention by the international community would have prevented these massacres.

Fani:
Humanitarian Intervention—or the responsibility to protect—is not a binding law; it is a 2005 UN initiative according to which a member state may request UN authorization to intervene in another country in response to genocide, war, or ethnic cleansing. The decision to intervene at times reflects a state’s self-interest. For instance, the US advocates military intervention in Syria today but keeps silent about Bahrain even as Saudi Arabia supports the Bahrain government’s crackdown by providing extra ground forces.

BV:
Contrary to the U.S. and other Western powers, Britain and Russia are against intervention in Syria. What is your view on that?

Shirzad:
Bahrain and Syria are very different cases and should be considered separately. The number of victims in Bahrain does not compare with Syria where more than 100,000 people have been killed and where the state has used chemical weapons against its own citizens. In the past, Saddam Hossein’s chemical weapons exterminated more than 180,000 Iranian and Iraqi Kurds over a period of seven months, an atrocity that other countries chose to ignore.

Fani:
A thousand people were killed in the small island of Bahrain that has a population of two million; that is a very high percentage, therefore the number of people killed should not be the main criterion for judgment here.
Humanitarian intervention is a legitimate principle and I consider it an achievement of human society. But in the case of Syria, we should recognize that the US does not represent the international community; Mr. Obama has, however, taken the case to the US Congress instead of to the UN Security Council.

BV:
In Syria both Bashar Assad and the opposition are murdering people. Will toppling Assad put a stop to these crimes against humanity?

Shirzad:
None of the members of the Security Council requested intervention in Bahrain; nor did they do so in the case of Iran in 1988. But three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council requested military humanitarian intervention in the case of Syria.
I’m in favor of humanitarian intervention in Syria but given the complex situation, I believe the process should start by issuing an ultimatum to Assad to step down and placing a more legitimate system in power; the Jihadi forces should also be tackled in the process so that democratic powers can take initiative. If the US discloses its evidence for the use of chemical weapons public opinion will consider intervention more legitimate. The evidence should then be submitted to the UN Security Council to bring about consensus.

BV:
What is the best way to stop the killings in Syria?

Fani:
Both the Syrian government and the rebel forces—Al Qaeda and the Saudi-supported opposition—are engaged in a dirty war that has killed more than 100,000 people; both also have access to chemical weapons. Both the Syrian government and numerous Assad opponents have declared their willingness to negotiate. Assad’s supporters who represent a large portion of the population are fearful of being massacred should Jihadis come to power.
The first step is to stop the delivery of weapons to Jihadi forces that do not represent Syrians. Next, give Assad the opportunity to step down and create the conditions for negotiations—perhaps for eventual regime change. Such a goal cannot be achieved by means of military strikes and bombing.

BV:
Can diplomacy and political negotiations stop the killings or is humanitarian intervention necessary?

Shirzad:
Military intervention without a follow-up plan is useless. At the same time, the current crisis cannot be resolved through peaceful diplomacy, which has been on the table since the beginning of the crisis. The UN Security Council has issued more than fifty related resolutions. Unfortunately, Russia has vetoed all of them and consequently thwarted any action. I believe diplomacy alone will not be effective and Bashar Assad will not negotiate unless he is threatened.

BV:
Military intervention in Libya plus a no-fly zone limited deaths in the country to 10,000 where Qadafi had been willing to sacrifice 500,000. Unilateral intervention by the US in 1996 prevented Saddam from carrying out his threats to massacre Kurds. How long should one wait before intervening in Syria?

Fani:
Military intervention once a war has already started kills more people; it defies the purpose and punishes the population as a whole. When the crisis in Syria started two years ago, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia suggested Bashar Assad step down. European countries and some in the US agreed. This amounted to other countries deciding for Syrians and undermining a sovereign state. Two years ago it was possible to negotiate with Assad; Russia and Iran would have agreed to negotiations just like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, due to their respective regional interests and entitlements. But today, given the rise of Jihadi forces, a power vacuum in Syria [following a military intervention] will lead to disaster.

BV:
What guarantee is there that military intervention will put a stop to the killings in Syria and prevent the Alawites who constitute 16% of the population from being massacred?

Shirzad:
First of all, I disagree with Mr. Fani’s analysis about a number of nations having prevented intervention in Syria. Russia has always added to its allies’ problems by naively defending their position, including defending Iran’s nuclear program and vetoing UN resolutions that in the end trapped Iranians in economic sanctions. Russia’s defense of the Assad government led to the death of 110,000 in Syria. Iran and Russia fueled the conflict by delivering weapons to Assad.
The US has not requested humanitarian intervention as an excuse for it to attack Syria. Had the US intervened in Rwanda or in Cambodia where the Khmer Rouge slaughtered a quarter of the population, it would have been accused of the same.
Unfortunately, delayed intervention has complicated the situation in Syria. One cannot expect a democratic regime to replace Assad but look forward to a progression from worse conditions to bad conditions.

BV:
Wherever humanitarian intervention has occurred the rate of carnage has either stopped or slowed down. Why do you believe killings will increase in Syria?

Fani:
Contrary to what Mr. Shirzad said, Russia has voted in favor of all UN Security Council resolutions against Iran and Libya as well. Mr. Putin stated he would support a UN resolution against Assad if it is proven that he used chemical weapons. The US declined to intervene in Cambodia and Rwanda because it did not serve its national interests.
US unilateral interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan were not for humanitarian reasons. While 1,000 people were killed in Iraq on average every year under Saddam, one million have lost their lives in the past ten years. Tens of thousands have been killed in Afghanistan; the country has been destroyed and is currently negotiating with the Taliban—which is likely to regain power. The US has also opted for unilateral intervention in the case of Syria. Note that the no-fly zone in Libya was set up through the UN and led to the fall of Qadafi.
I’m not against humanitarian intervention provided it stops the killings. Some advocate intervention because their goal is to topple Assad. Opponents of Assad—Al Qaeda, al-Nasr, and Islamic fundamentalists—will slaughter Shi’ites and Christians the moment they come to power. A humanitarian intervention should plan to place international ground forces [in Syria], disarm Al Qaeda, stop the killing, and create the conditions for the democratic camp to negotiate.

BV:
The Syrian government and Iran are allies. What will Iran lose if Assad’s opponents come to power?

Shirzad:
One must separate Iran’s national interests from those of the population. Iran’s long-term national interests lie in leaving the Syrians alone to deal with their crisis. Unfortunately, the Iranian population has been a victim of the Islamic Republic’s venturesome policies that are focused on exporting the Revolution and establishing a Shi’ite belt. Since the crisis, alliance with Syria has cost Iran $17 billion and high inflation.
The Jihadis should be brought to the negotiating table just like the Taliban in Afghanistan today, because after all they are part of the Afghani population.
Assad should be punished for using chemical weapons otherwise other countries, including Iran, will be encouraged to follow suit when the time comes.

BV:
The IRI condemned peaceful demonstrations against the Assad regime even before the onset of the war and before Al Qaeda entered the fray in Syria. Is hostility against Shi’ites related to Iran’s interference in the conflict?

Fani:
The IRI uses Assad’s regime and the Shi’ite movement to advance its own interests and its position against Israel; Assad’s survival strengthens the IRI. But I don’t believe that eliminating Assad will harm the IRI and benefit the Iranian people. The rise to power of fundamentalists in Syria such as Al Qaeda, al-Nasr, Taliban, or in the best case scenario, the Muslim Brotherhood, will damage democratic movements in the region. The fundamentalists are backed by reactionary regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar and the chauvinistic policies of Turkey whose goal, contrary to its democratic front, is to revive an Islamic empire in the region.
We should aim for peace and try to curb Shi’i and Sunni extremism. Sunni extremism is very strong and is propagated through schools in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Egypt. Shi’ite fundamentalism is much weaker by comparison. Even in Iran where Shi’ites are in complete control, moderates and reformists enjoy considerable power. In sum, Bashar Assad’s fall will hurt the democratic movement in Iran.

BV:
What position should the democratic movement in Iran take vis-à-vis Syria?

Shirzad:
The democratic movement in Iran should stay out of this conflict. Iranians are increasingly drawn to non-violent solutions as a result of the conflict in Syria, a trend that played a minor role in electing Rouhani. Even the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij were restrained in this regard. Iran will gain a lot if it does not get involved in the war in Syria.

Fani:
Right wing, extremist sentiments that are reflected in the Iranian military such as the Revolutionary Guard Corps gained the upper hand following foreign interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and gained even more power under Ahmadinejad. Rouhani’s election demonstrated that the general public and the reformists are on the alert and weary of a similar fate as has befallen Syria. Democratic movements generally retreat from conflict because they are non-violent and comprise the middle class; they do, however, condemn the Assad regime’s crackdown against Syrian people and wish he would step down and be replaced by democratic forces.

BV:
Please share your concluding remarks.

Shirzad:
The Syrian crisis does not offer a quick solution. We all hope that [fundamentalist] Sunnis will not take over but we cannot subscribe to the Iran-Syria agenda either. The UN Security Council—except for Russia and China—wants to establish a democratic regime in Syria. In spite of all the challenges, I am in favor of humanitarian intervention in Syria and believe that Iran and Russia should be engaged in the process to help resolve the conflict.

Fani:
Humanitarian intervention with its focus on toppling Assad will engender a power vacuum in Syria; it will strengthen fundamentalism and be harmful to the region and Iran. The US decision on Syria is connected to its relations with Iran. Obama is weighing the option of pursuing Iran’s show of interest in improving US-Iran relations. Our position should be against military intervention.