Danger in Iran

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Over the past year the world has become more and more aware of the problems in Iran. When it became apparent that there was a real possibility that the Shah would be replaced, Iran gained headlines. Indeed, the Shah was deposed and Iran has kept the headlines.

I have never questioned the necessity of change in Iran. This opinion is not simply based on a conviction in human rights and democratic procedure. There is a more tangible base for my opinion--my parents and my relatives are Iranian citizens. I know how they have been deprived of the rights I experience so freely in this country. Sensing this, I cannot help but support a movement for change in Iran.

However, though I am an Iranian (according to Iranian law), I am also Jewish and very worried about the fate of the Jewish community in Iran. In the previous months I have been very concerned about the possible dangers to the Jewish community, and I tried to ignore these concerns in view of the necessity for change in that country. Mostly, I was hoping that for once the situation for the Jews would be different. This morning's news release describing Irans' alliance with the PLO confirmed my doubts.

There is certainly reason to worry; Iran's Jewish community is not well integrated into the rest of the community. As in other countries, anti-semetism is rampant. The situation is almost identical to that in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq (let me remind you of the public hangings of Jews in Iraq a few years ago). I am not simply speculating! There are going to be massacres in Iran--unless something is done and done quickly.

At the moment exit from Iran is almost impossible. Perhaps the United States could help people who wish to leave Iran to do so. Admittedly, there are implications of "intervention" here, and in view of the United States' poor experience in countries where it has intervened, it is questionable whether such a policy should be pursued even in this case. But intervention has many facets and a Vietnam-type or Chile-type intervention is not being proposed here. Furthermore, the success of such a policy depends on how one chooses to define success: if success means avoiding possible setbacks in relations with the Khomeini government, then the policy will be a failure. But if aiding a community of approximately 80,000 people spells success, then the policy will be worthwhile. I hope that when priorities are set, in view of our committment to human life, the scales will tip towards this type of intervention.

Possibilities of intervention do not simply include airlifting a population, but also trying to convince the government to put in an effort to open borders. In any case, the possibilities are there once the U.S. government decides to get involved. If the United States still hesitates to stand alone on this issue, attempts should be made to include other committed countries in the endeavor.

Atrocities can be avoided if steps are taken early enough. There are many who doubt that massacres really threaten the Jewish Iranian population. I don't think I have exxagerated in view of the terrible experience of the Jewish populations in Moslem countries in the past few years. Let it also be said that Iran itself has historically experienced pogroms--anti-Jewish race riots. The way in which the Israeli consulate in Iran was ransacked recently adds to my concern. When all this evidence is added up, what other conclusion can one come to? Are we willing to wait? What are the alternative measures of action? Most importantly, does anybody really care? Name withheld by request