Masih Alinejad: In Meeting with Pompeo, I Was the Voice of Iran’s Suppressed Civil Society

Masih Alinejad says that in her meeting with Pompeo, she represented that segment of the Iranian people whose credibility led to her invitation to this encounter. She asked Pompeo to recognize Iranian people’s protests the way he has recognized those in Venezuela.

Masih Alinejad, a civil activist and journalist, met with Mike Pompeo, the United States Secretary of State. She explained on her Instagram and Twitter pages that this meeting took place at Mike Pompeo’s invitation, and her purpose was to secure U.S. government support for the protests of the Iranian people.

Mohammad Jafar Montazeri, Iran’s Prosecutor General, reacted sharply to this meeting on Wednesday, February 5, using insulting language when addressing Masih Alinejad.

This meeting has also provoked many reactions on social networks. Some have supported such a meeting and considered it beneficial to the people and opponents of the Islamic Republic, while others have said that during Iran’s sanctions period and when America is advocating for sanctions, this meeting was inappropriate and even harmful.

We raised these very criticisms in a conversation with Masih Alinejad.

Deutsche Welle: Tell us more about the details of the meeting and the points discussed in your conversation with Pompeo. What was your objective in meeting with him?

Masih Alinejad: As I was told, this meeting was the first of its kind where the U.S. Secretary of State met with a civil activist and journalist in his office in this manner. By accepting this invitation, I wanted to use this opportunity to be the voice of that segment of the Iranian people whose credibility had led to my invitation to this meeting. The voice of people who are usually overlooked in political negotiations where powers’ interests are at stake. I wanted to convey this voice to high-ranking American officials.

In this meeting, I asked the U.S. Secretary of State to support holding free elections with international oversight in Iran. I asked Mr. Pompeo not to make women’s rights, minority rights, and human rights in Iran a reconciliation point with the Islamic Republic, and to work to convince European countries to always show sensitivity regarding violations of human rights and civil rights in Iran. I also wanted visa restrictions for Iranians to be lifted, and for these restrictions to apply to the suppressors of the Iranian people, not ordinary people and civil activists. I also warned about any military action, the occurrence of war, and the negative impact of comprehensive sanctions that cause further poverty for the Iranian people.

You asked Pompeo to recognize the voice of the opposition. What exactly do you mean, and how can America recognize the voice of the opposition? Some view this as interference in something that should only be achieved by the Iranian people themselves. What is your response to this criticism?

Recognizing the voice of the opposition is similar to what most Western governments did regarding Venezuela. In Iran, we have an apartheid and dictatorial regime that does not allow free elections and severely suppresses its opponents. Of course, a coherent coalition of opponents of the Islamic Republic has not yet been formed, but the international community should be prepared to support such a coalition if it is formed. The Islamic Republic does not represent the Iranian people, and this matter can easily be tested and verified through a free referendum.

To reduce the suppression of civil society and get the Islamic Republic to hold free elections, in addition to internal pressures and civil and popular movements, there is a need for international support as well. The Iranian regime is a repressive one, and international pressures alongside civil movements can facilitate and accelerate the process of transition to democracy in Iran.

You compared your meeting with Pompeo to the meeting between Zarif and John Kerry on Twitter, and said that those who cheered for that meeting cannot criticize your meeting with Pompeo. Critics of your meeting say the difference between you and Zarif is that he is a politician while you are a civil activist, and therefore such actions do not fall within the framework of a civil activist’s activities. What is your response to this criticism?

I understand that my position as a journalist and social activist is different from that of a politician. But those who were beside themselves over the loss of Zarif and John Kerry logically should not be upset about my meeting with Mr. Pompeo. Just as Zarif is the official representative of the undemocratic government of the Islamic Republic, I am a representative of a segment of Iran’s civil society; those who have no platform and have always been victims of politicians’ deals and compromises. Why should such a meeting be upsetting for some? The Islamic Republic’s policies regarding human rights, civil rights, and women’s rights have always been consistent, and I have had the chance to be the voice of the suppressed segment of Iran’s civil society in this meeting. All of this was because these voices were so loud and eloquent that they reached the ears of senior American policymakers. When a civil movement grows and expands, gradually the boundaries between it and politics fade away, and I am happy that today, as a civil activist, I am sitting across from one of the highest-ranking political officials of the United States. This means they can no longer ignore us, and this is a step before victory.

The Islamic Republic, through its official representatives, may be able to convince the world through heroic diplomatic maneuvers to turn a blind eye to human rights violations in Iran, but now I am in a position that I have obtained thanks to the trust of a segment of the Iranian people, from which I can keep these blind eyes open to the atrocities happening in the Islamic Republic. I hope I can. If someone dislikes and condemns this, you should ask them why.

Continuing the previous question, if you consider yourself a political activist, would you state your political line?

Politically, I am a republican and an advocate for transition and change of the system from the Islamic Republic to a democratic and secular government. At this historical juncture, I believe it is important to unite the opponents of the Islamic Republic because ultimately the majority of the people choose the type of government.

Given Trump and Pompeo’s recent positions, especially regarding Iran’s sanctions, a segment of the Iranian people considers him an anti-Iran figure, and for this reason they criticize you for accepting his invitation. What is your response to these criticisms?

My reason for accepting Pompeo’s request for a meeting and dialogue was to be the voice of a segment of the Iranian people and civil society and to convey their demands to American officials and to raise my criticisms and suggestions about their policies face to face.

Has your judgment about Pompeo and his policies changed before and after the meeting? Are you willing to continue such meetings and do you find them productive?

I do not have a particular judgment about him, and it will be his actions after this meeting that may lead me to reach a judgment about him. His positions in this meeting seemed very positive and sympathetic to me, and I hope this meeting will pave the way for beneficial changes in favor of the Iranian people and civil society. If I find the results of this meeting positive and beneficial for the Iranian people, I will certainly welcome future meetings as well; because like millions of other Iranians, I do not want this government whose hands are stained with the blood of protesters, and I think we should ask the international community to recognize the voice of opponents of a repressive government.

Source: DW