To those who put their hope into foreign powers to replace the Islamic Republic regime for them, the meeting of some US officials such as Elliot Abrams (the director of Middle East affairs in the US National Security Council) and Nicholas Burns (the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs) with a number of the Islamic Republic’s dissidents referred to as “ethnic and religious minorities and human rights activists” has been interpreted as a sign of US seriousness in finding an alternative for the Islamic Republic. Yet, the fact of the matter is that these meetings are not and cannot be as serious as claimed.


Ever since the US administration turned September 11 into a pretext for expanding its worldwide domination and described the IR as one of the “axes of evil” not a day has passed without US media rhetoric against the ruling regime in Iran. However, in reality the US has maintained its close relation with the dictators ruling Iran and it does not even hide its indirect connection. It is clear that for those who put their hope into foreign powers and are counting the days to see the US end the IR and bring democracy to them on a silver platter but it is not easy to understand the complexity of the above relations. If we could understand the true relationship between the imperialist countries and imperialist-dominated ones, then these complex and contradictory relations would indeed become comprehensible as well as why the imperialists beat the drums of the “ethnic question” or speak of federalism while holding talks with this or that representative of the IR.


The truth is that concerning the relations between imperialism and imperialist-dependent regimes we must not forget the following points: a) superficial quarrels of these regimes against imperialism and even the intentions of the imperialists to change such regimes by no means give the regimes an independent identity- the historic examples of the Taliban and the Shah in Iran is indeed proof of this and shows that the imperialists never tie their destiny to that of their puppets. b) when a regime’s case is on the table, as they put it, all means and methods are considered and one or combination of a few means are used that guarantee their maximum interests.


The fact is that in order to expand its imperialist domination around the world and maintain its superior position to other rival imperialists, the US is trying to bring an even greater part of the world market under its control and to do so it has intensified its military presence across the globe and has shown it will not hesitate to overthrow even its own dependent regimes.


It is within this framework that we see the US trying to advance its policies in the Middle East under the catchwords like plan for the “Great Middle East” and its “democratization”, thus exposing its perceived necessity in gaining a greater control over Iran than before. This is the essence of the US’s conflict with the Islamic Republic. Again, it is clear that if deemed necessary in this process to bring the IR down, the US will not hesitate to do so despite the IR’s services to the imperialists.


What forms these policies take is another matter which depends on future developments. But no matter what direction this process takes it makes no difference in the fact that the US’s attempts are against the interests of Iranian people and indeed all of the US’s policies in the Middle East are towards tightening the chains of the masses’ enslavement in the region. Experience has shown that in order to reach its interests the US will unfold diverse plans and contact different groups. However, experience has also shown that although US has made contact with IR dissidents and has used this as a means to pressure the IR whenever the time comes, it will not hesitate to “burn” them too. Therefore, those who seemingly think they feel silk they should know, as the expression goes… “this aint a silk purse, it’s a sow’s ear”.