26ﺩﺳـﺎﻣـﺒﺮ 2011
ﺻﺪﻭﺭ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﺧﺮﻭﺝ ﺭﺳﻤﻰ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﻫﺎﻯ ﺭﺯﻣﻰ ﺍﺭﺗﺶ ﺍﻳﺎﻻﺕ ﻣﺘﺤﺪ ﺍﺯ ﻋﺮﺍﻕ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺑﺎﺯﺗﺎﺏ ﻳﺎﻓﺖ .ﮔﺮﻭﻫﻰ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻔﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻭﺑﺎﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺣﺎﻛﻤﻴﺖ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻘﺐﻧﺸﻴﻨﻰ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺗﻨﺪﺭﻭﻫﺎﻯ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﮕﺮﺍ ﻣﺘﻬﻢ ﻛﺮﺩﻧــﺪ ،ﻭ ﺑﺮﺧﻰ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ،ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻓــﺪﺍﺭﺍﻥ ﺭﺋﻴﺲﺟﻤﻬﻮﺭ ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺁﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﻣﻰﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺗﻠﻘﻰ ﺷــﻮﻧﺪ ،ﺩﺭ ﻣﺴــﻴﺮﻯ ﻛﺎﻣ ً ﻼ ﻣﺘﺨﺎﻟﻒ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺠﻴﺰﮔﻮﺋﻰ ﻭ
ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖﻫﺎﻯ »ﺿﺪﺟﻨﮓ« ﺍﻭﺑﺎﻣﺎ ﮔﺸﻮﺩﻧﺪ .ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ، ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄــﻮﺭ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺎﻩﻫﺎ ﭘﻴــﺶ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﻭﺑﻼگ ﺑــﻪ ﺗﻔﺼﻴﻞ ﮔﻔﺘﻴﻢ، ﺍﺯ ﻳﻜﺴــﻮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻘﺐﻧﺸــﻴﻨﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺳﻠﺐ ﻣﺴــﺌﻮﻟﻴﺖ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻰ ﻭ ﺩﻳﭙﻠﻤﺎﺗﻴﻚ ﺍﺯ ﻛﺎﺥﺳــﻔﻴﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻗﺒﺎﻝ ﺭﺧﺪﺍﺩﻫﺎﻯ ﻋﺮﺍﻕ ﺍﺳــﺖ .ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺳــﻮﻯ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ،ﺍﺭﺗﺶ ﺍﻳﺎﻻﺕ ﻣﺘﺤــﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻇﺎﻫﺮ ﺧﺎﻙ ﻋﺮﺍﻕ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺮﻙ ﮔﻔﺘــﻪ .ﺩﺭ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺑﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ 15ﻫﺰﺍﺭ ﺗﻔﻨﮓﭼﻰ ﻣﺴــﻠﺢ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ »ﺗﺄﻣﻴﻦ ﺍﻣﻨﻴﺖ« ﺩﻳﭙﻠﻤﺎﺕﻫﺎﻯ ﺁﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻰ ﻣﻰﺷــﻮﺩ،
ﺩﺭ ﻋــﺮﺍﻕ ﺑﺎﻗﻰ ﻣﺎﻧﺪﻩﺍﻧﺪ ،ﻭ ﻧﻤﻰﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺧــﺮﻭﺝ ﺍﺭﺗﺶ ﻳﺎﻧﻜﻰﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻳﻚ »ﺭﺧﺪﺍﺩ« ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻰ ﻭ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺒﻠﻴﻐﺎﺕ ﺭﺳــﺎﻧﻪﺍﻯ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺭﺩ ﺧﻠﻖﺍﷲ ﺩﺍﺩ. ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ 15ﻫﺰﺍﺭ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻰ ﺁﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎﺋﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻋﺮﺍﻕ ،ﻛﺸﻮﺭﻫﺎﻯ ﻛﻮﻳــﺖ ،ﻗﻄــﺮ ﻭ ﺑﺤﺮﻳﻦ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺍﺷــﻐﺎﻝ ﺍﺭﺗﺶﻫﺎﻯ ﺁﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﻭ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﺴﺘﺎﻥ ﻫﺴــﺘﻨﺪ ،ﻭ ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻛﺸــﻮﺭ ﻋﺮﺏ ﺩﺭ ﺧﻠﻴﺞﻓﺎﺭﺱ، ﻳﻌﻨﻰ ﻋﺮﺑﺴﺘﺎﻥ ﺳــﻌﻮﺩﻯ ﻋﻤ ً ﻼ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﭘﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩﻫﺎﻯ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻰ ﺍﻳﺎﻻﺕ ﻣﺘﺤﺪ ﺍﺩﺍﺭﻩ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ .ﺣﺎﻝ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﭘﺮﺳﻴﺪ ،ﺩﺭ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻄﻰ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ
ﺗﺎ ﻣﻐﺰ ﺍﺳــﺘﺨﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺷﻐﺎﻝ ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻫﺎﻯ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻰ »ﺁﻧﮕﻠﻮﺳﺎﻛﺴﻮﻥ« ﺩﺭﺁﻣﺪﻩ، ﺩﻟﻴﻞ »ﺩﺳﺖ ﺩﺳﺖ« ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﻛﺎﺥﺳﻔﻴﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺧﺮﻭﺝ »ﺭﺳﺎﻧﻪﺍﻯ« ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻫﺎﻯ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻰﺍﺵ ﺍﺯ ﻋﺮﺍﻕ ﭼﻪ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ؟ ﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﻛﻼﻡ ،ﻃﻰ ﺳــﺎﻝﻫﺎﻯ ﮔﺬﺷــﺘﻪ ﻛﻪ ﻧﻪ ﺻﺪﺍﻡ ﺣﺴــﻴﻦ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺭﻳﻜﺔ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺗﻜﻴﻪ ﺯﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ ،ﻭ ﻧﻪ ﺣﺰﺏ ﺑﻌﺚ ﺑﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻳﺎﻧﻜﻰﻫﺎ ﺗﺒﻠﻴﻐﺎﺕ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺍﻩ ﻣﻰﺍﻧﺪﺍﺧﺖ ،ﺍﺭﺗﺶ ﺍﻳﺎﻻﺕ ﻣﺘﺤﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻋﺮﺍﻕ ﭼﻪ ﻣﻰﻛﺮﺩ؟ ﭘﺎﺳــﺦ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺌﻮﺍﻝ ،ﺍﮔﺮ ﺑﺨﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﺮ »ﺗﺒﻠﻴﻐﺎﺕ ﺟﻨﮓ« ﻛﻪ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻤﺎً ﺍﺯ ﭘﻨﺘﺎﮔﻮﻥ ﺭﺍﻫﺒﺮﻯ ﻣﻰﺷــﻮﺩ ﺗﻜﻴﻪ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷــﻴﻢ ،ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﺳﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ: ﻧﺒﺮﺩ ﻛﺎﺥﺳــﻔﻴﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺮﻭﺭﻳﺴــﻢ! ﺑﻪ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﺳﺎﺩﻩﺗﺮ ،ﺍﺭﺗﺶ ﺍﻳﺎﻻﺕ ﻣﺘﺤﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻋــﺮﺍﻕ ﻟﻨﮕﺮ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺧﺘﻪ ﺑﻮﺩ ﺗﺎ »ﺗﺮﻭﺭﻳﺴــﺖﻫﺎ« ﺭﺍ ﺩﺳــﺘﮕﻴﺮ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺑﺮﺳــﺎﻧﺪ؛ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﻮﺩ ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﻭ ﺍﺳــﺎﺱ ﺗﺒﻠﻴﻐﺎﺕ ﻛﺎﺥﺳــﻔﻴﺪ! ﻭﻟﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺩﻳﺪﻳﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻧﻪ »ﺗﺮﻭﺭﻳﺴــﻢ« ﻃﻰ ﺍﻳﻨﻤﺪﺕ ﻣﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻣﺎﻧﺪ ،ﻭ ﻧﻪ ﺍﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﺭﺗﺶ ﺍﻳﺎﻻﺕ ﻣﺘﺤﺪ ،ﮔﺮﻭﻩﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺷــﺒﻜﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﺸﺨﺼﻰ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺤﺖ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺗﺮﻭﺭﻳﺴــﺖ ﺩﺳــﺘﮕﻴﺮ ،ﻣﺤﺎﻛﻤﻪ ﻭ ﻣﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻧﻤﻮﺩ .ﺍﻳﻦ »ﺗﺮﻭﺭﻳﺴــﺖﻫﺎ« ﻫﺮ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ ،ﻫﻨﻮﺯ ﻫﻢ ﻫﺴــﺘﻨﺪ ،ﻧﺎﺷﻨﺎﺱﺍﻧﺪ ،ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺻﺮﺍﺣﺖ ﺑﮕﻮﺋﻴﻢ ﻫﻴﭽﻜﺲ ﻫﻢ ﻣﺰﺍﺣﻢﺷﺎﻥ ﻧﻤﻰﺷﻮﺩ. ﻭﻟﻰ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ »ﺑﺴﺎﻣﺎﻧﻰ« ﺗﺮﻭﺭﻳﺴﻢ ﺩﺭ ﻋﺮﺍﻕ ﻣﻰﺧﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ،ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴﺎﺕ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻯ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺷــﺖ :ﺗﻼﺵ ﻏﺮﺏ ﺟﻬــﺖ ﭼﭙﺎﻭﻝ ﻧﻔﺖ ،ﺗﺜﺒﻴﺖ »ﻃﺮﻑﻫﺎﻯ« ﻭﺍﺑﺴــﺘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﺷــﻨﮕﺘﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺃﺱ ﻗــﺪﺭﺕ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻰ ﻭ ﺍﻣﻨﻴﺘﻰ ﺩﺳﺖﻧﺸــﺎﻧﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻋﺮﺍﻕ ،ﻭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﺍﻣﺮ ﭘﺎﻳﻪﺭﻳﺰﻯ ﺷﺒﻜﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﺟﺎﺳﻮﺳﻰ ﻭ ﺧﺒﺮﭼﻴﻨﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻨﺎﻃﻖ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩﺓ ﺧﺎﻭﺭﻣﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺳــﻨﺘﻰ ﺍﻳﺎﻻﺕ ﻣﺘﺤﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﻧﻔﻮﺫ ﭼﺸﻢﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺖ .ﺣﺎﻝ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻭﺑﺎﻣﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺳﺘﭙﺎﭼﮕﻰ ﺍﺭﺗــﺶ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ ﻛﺸــﺎﻧﺪﻩ ،ﺑﺎﻳــﺪ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺑﮕﻴﺮﻳﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻛﺎﺥﺳــﻔﻴﺪ ﺍﺯ ﭼﭙﺎﻭﻝ ﻧﻔﺖ ﻋﺮﺍﻕ ﺳــﻴﺮ ﻧﺸﺪﻩ ،ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﻰﭘﻨﺪﺍﺭﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﮋﻳﻚ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺳﻴﺪﻩ. ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ،ﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ »ﺧﺮﻭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﻋﺮﺍﻕ« ﺟﺰ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﻋﻘﺐﻧﺸﻴﻨﻰ ﻣﻘﻄﻌﻰ ﺍﺯ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﮋﻫﺎﻯ ﺍﻳﺎﻻﺕ ﻣﺘﺤﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺧﻠﻴﺞﻓﺎﺭﺱ ﻫﻴﭻ ﻧﻤﻰﺑﻴﻨﻴﻢ. ﻭ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺁﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﻋﻘﺐ ﻣﻰﻧﺸــﻴﻨﺪ ،ﻣﺴــﻠﻤﺎً ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻣﻴﺪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺟﺎﺧﺎﻟﻰ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﻭ »ﺑﻰﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺘﻰ« ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺭﺧﺪﺍﺩﻫﺎ ،ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﭘﻴﺶ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺧﺘﻦ
ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪﺍﻯ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﺍﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯﺍﺗﻰ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺻﺪﻫﺎ ﻫﺰﺍﺭ ﺗﻔﻨﮕﭽﻰ ﻧﺘﻮﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻭﺭﺩ ،ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻛﺴﺐ ﻛﻨﺪ .ﻭﻟﻰ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻣﺴــﺌﻠﺔ ﻧﻔﺖ ﻭ ﻣﺴﻴﺮ ﺣﺮﻛﺖ ﻫﻴﺪﺭﻭﻛﺮﺑﻮﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻫﻤﻴــﺖ ﻓــﺮﺍﻭﺍﻥ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ،ﺁﻳﻨﺪﺓ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ »ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﻋــﺮﺏ« ﻣﻰﺧﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺁﻧﻘﺪﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﺯ ﭼﺸــﻢ ﻛﺎﺥﺳﻔﻴﺪ ﺩﻭﺭ ﻧﻤﺎﻧﺪﻩ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺁﻳﻨﺪﻩﺍﻯ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺍﻭﺑﺎﻣﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ »ﺁﺷﻮﺏﺳــﺎﺯﻯ« ﺩﺭ ﻣﺼﺮ ،ﻟﻴﺒﻰ ،ﻳﻤﻦ ﻭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﺍﻣﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻮﺭﻳﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺗﺤﻘﻖﺍﺵ ﺧﻴﺰ ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ .ﻭﻟﻰ ﺑﻪ ﺻﺮﺍﺣﺖ ﺑﮕﻮﺋﻴــﻢ ،ﺍﻳﻨﺠﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻛﺎﺥﺳــﻔﻴﺪ ﺑﺎ »ﺧﻮﺵﺑﻴﻨﻰ« ﺑﻴــﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺣﺪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ »ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ« ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ؛ ﭼﺮﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﺔ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺵ ﻧﻔﻮﺫ ﺍﻳﺎﻻﺕ ﻣﺘﺤﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻴﭻ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻓﺮﺍﻫﻢ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ. ﻧﺨﺴــﺘﻴﻦ ﻣﻌﻀــﻞ ﺍﻳﺎﻻﺕ ﻣﺘﺤــﺪ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺭﻭﺳــﻴﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺷــﻮﺩ .ﺍﻟﺒﺘــﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻄﻊ ﻧﻤﻰﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﭘﺎﻯ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺤﺚ ﭘﻴﺮﺍﻣﻮﻥ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﮕﻰ ﻭ ﻭﻳﮋﮔﻰﻫﺎﻯ »ﺭﺷﺪ« ﻭ ﺷﻜﻞﮔﻴﺮﻯ »ﺩﻣﻜﺮﺍﺳﻰ« ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﺳــﻴﻪ ﮔﺬﺍﺷــﺖ؛ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻬﻢ ﻣﻰﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﺟﺪﺍﮔﺎﻧﻪﺍﻯ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﺤﻠﻴــﻞ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﻴــﺮﺩ ،ﻭﻟﻰ ﺑﻪ ﺻﺮﺍﺣﺖ ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﮔﻔــﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻧﺘﻈﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻳــﺎﻻﺕ ﻣﺘﺤﺪ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺤــﻮﻻﺕ ﺍﺧﻴﺮ ﺭﻭﺳــﻴﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻴﭻ ﻋﻨــﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺮﺁﻭﺭﺩﻩ ﻧﺸــﺪ .ﻧﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ »ﺁﺷﻮﺏﻫﺎﻯ« ﺑﺮﺧﺎﺳــﺘﻪ ﺍﺯ »ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺑﺎﺕ« ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﺳﻴﻪ ﻓﺮﻭ ﻧﺸﺴــﺘﻪ ،ﻛﻪ ﺭﻭﻧﺪ ﺯﻳﺮ ﺳــﺌﻮﺍﻝ ﺑﺮﺩﻥ ﺣﺎﻛﻤﻴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻓﻮﺕ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺳــﺘﻴﻦ »ﺁﺷﻮﺏﻫﺎﻯ ﺧﻴﺎﺑﺎﻧﻰ« ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻛﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﻄﻴﻞ ﺷﺪﻩ. ﺭﻭﺳــﻴﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﭘﺎﻯ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺴــﻴﺮ ﻭﻳﮋﻩﺍﻯ ﮔــﺬﺍﺭﺩﻩ؛ ﻫﺮ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺤﻠﻴــﻞ »ﺩﻣﻜﺮﺍﺗﻴــﻚ« ﺍﺯ ﺗﺤــﻮﻻﺕ ،ﻧﺘﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺴــﻴﺮ ﺭﺍ ﻳﻚ »ﺩﻣﻜﺮﺍﺳﻰ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻰ« ﺑﺮﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﻛﺮﺩ. ﺍﺯ ﺳــﻮﻯ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ،ﺍﻫﺮﻡﻫﺎﻯ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺘﮕﺰﺍﺭﻯ ﻏﺮﺏ ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﺳﻴﻪ ﻳﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺣﺎﻛﻤﻴﺖ ﻣﺤﺎﻓﻞ »ﭘﻮﺗﻴﻦ ـ ﻣﺪﻭﺩﻑ« ﻓﺮﺳﺎﻳﺶ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ،ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻛﻠﻰ ﺍﺯ ﺣﺎﻛﻤﻴﺖ ﺣﺬﻑ ﺷﺪﻩ .ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ،ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﻛﻨﻮﻧﻰ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺮﻣﻠﻴﻦ ﺍﺟــﺎﺯﻩ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺩﺍﺩ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻤﭽﻨــﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﻓﺸــﺎﺭﻫﺎﻯ ﺩﻳﭙﻠﻤﺎﺗﻴﻚ ﻭ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻰ ﻏﺮﺏ ﺑﺎﻳﺴــﺘﺪ ﻭ ﺑــﺎ ﺗﻜﻴﻪ ﺑﺮ ﺳــﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﻯ ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻤﻨﺪ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻰ، ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻠﻰ ﺑﺮ ﭘﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻨﺎﻓﻊ ﻣﻠﻰ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪﺍﻯ ﺍﺗﺨﺎﺫ ﻛﻨﺪ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ »ﺳﻴﺎﺳــﺖ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ« ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺟﻨﺠﺎﻝ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ »ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺑﺎﺕ« ﺑﻪ ﺻﺮﺍﺣﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻄﺮ ﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ.
ﺍﮔﺮ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﺎﻧﻜﻪ ﺑﺎﻻﺗﺮ ﮔﻔﺘﻴﻢ ،ﺍﻫﺮﻡﻫﺎﻯ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺘﮕﺰﺍﺭﻯ ﻛﺮﻣﻠﻴﻦ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻭ ﻣﺆﺛﺮ ﺑﺎﻗﻰ ﺑﻤﺎﻧﺪ ،ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﻛﺸــﻮﺭﻫﺎﻯ ﺍﺷﻐﺎﻝ ﺷﺪﺓ ﺍﻓﻐﺎﻧﺴﺘﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻋﺮﺍﻕ ،ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺎً ﻧﻘﺎﻁ ﺍﺳــﺘﺮﺍﺗﮋﻳﻚ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻳﺎﻻﺕ ﻣﺘﺤﺪ ﺟﻬﺖ ﻧﻔﻮﺫ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ ﻣﻰﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﻪ ﺟﺴﺘﺠﻮ ﺷﻮﺩ .ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ. ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳــﺎﺱ »ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻏﺮﺏ« ،ﺩﺭ ﻫﺠﻤــﺔ »ﻣﺎﻟﻰ ـ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻯ« ﻛﺮﻣﻠﻴﻦ ﺑﻪ ﺳــﻮﻯ ﺁﺏﻫﺎﻯ ﮔﺮﻡ ،ﺗﺮﻛﻴﻪ ﻭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ،ﻫﻤﺴــﺎﻳﮕﺎﻥ ﺟﻨﻮﺑﻰ ﺭﻭﺳﻴﻪ ﺳﺪ »ﻧﻔﻮﺫﻧﺎﭘﺬﻳﺮ« ﺑﻪ ﺷﻤﺎﺭ ﻣﻰﺭﻭﻧﺪ. ﻭﻟﻰ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳــﺪ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺍ ً ﻧﻔﻮﺫﻧﺎﭘﺬﻳﺮ ﺗﺮﻙ ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ .ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ،ﺗﺮﻛﻴﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻋﻀﻮ ﺭﺳــﻤﻰ ﭘﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻰ »ﺁﺗﻼﻧﺘﻴﻚ ﺷــﻤﺎﻟﻰ« ،ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺩﻭ ﻣﺸــﻜﻞ ﺍﺳﺎﺳــﻰ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ .ﭼﺮﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﮕﺮﺍﻯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﺸﻮﺭ، ﺑــﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺗﻌﻬــﺪﺍﺕ ﺑﻴﻦﺍﻟﻤﻠﻠﻰ ﻭ »ﻋﻠﻨــﻰ« ،ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﻧﻴﺴــﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺬﺏ ﺍﺳــﻼﻣﮕﺮﺍﺋﻰﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪﺍﻯ ﻧﻘﺶ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺖ ﻧﻈﺮﻯ ﻭ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺗﻰ ﺍﻳﻔﺎ ﻛﻨﺪ. ﺩﻟﻴــﻞ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﻳــﻦ ﻭﻳﮋﮔﻰ »ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻯ« ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﺳــﻼﻣﮕﺮﺍﻳﺎﻥ »ﺿﺪﻳــﺖ ﺑــﺎ ﻏﺮﺏ« ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻰ ﺷــﺪﻩ؛ ﻫﺮ ﭼﻨــﺪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺍﺳــﺘﺎﻥ ﺍﺯ ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﻭ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﺟﺰ ﺷﻮﺧﻰ ﻫﻴﭻ ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ .ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﺣﺎﻝ ،ﺁﻧﻜﺎﺭﺍ ﻧﻤﻰﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺍﺯ ﺣﻀــﻮﺭ 500ﻫﺰﺍﺭ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻰ ﺗﺮﻙ ﻭ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻰ ﻭﺍﺑﺴــﺘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺭﺗﺶ ﻧﺎﺗﻮ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﻪ »ﻓﺎﻛﺘﻮﺭ« ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ،ﻭ ﺑﺴــﺎﻁ »ﻏﺮﺏﺳــﺘﻴﺰﻯ« ﺑــﻪ ﺭﺍﻩ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﺩ .ﺩﺭ ﺛﺎﻧﻰ ،ﻣﺸــﻜﻞ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻯ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻫﺴــﺖ؛ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﮕﺮﺍﺋﻰ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﻪ ﭘﺎﻯ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻴﺮ ﻗﻬﻘﺮﺍﺋﻰ ﮔﺬﺍﺷــﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺮﺍﺷﻴﺐ ﻓﺮﻭﭘﺎﺷﻰ ﺍﻭﻓﺘﺎﺩﻩ .ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻳﻚ ﻛﺸﻮﺭ ﺑﺎ ﺣﻔﻆ ﻳﻚ ﺩﻣﻜﺮﺍﺳﻰ »ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻠﻰ« ،ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻣﺸﺘﻰ ﻣﻼﺟﻤﺎﻋﺖ ﻭ ﺑﭽﻪﺁﺧﻮﻧﺪ ﺣﺎﻛﻤﻴــﺖ »ﺍﺑﺪﻣﺪﺕ« ﺗﺄﻣﻴﻦ ﻛﺮﺩ؟ ﻣﻰﺑﻴﻨﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺩﺳــﺘﻴﺎﺑﻰ ﺑــﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻫﺪﻑ ،ﻛﺎﺥ ﺳــﻔﻴﺪ ﻧﻴﺎﺯﻣﻨﺪ ﺗﺤﻜﻴــﻢ ﭘﺎﻳﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﻳﻚ ﻓﺎﺷﻴﺴــﻢ ﺩﻳﻨﻰ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺷﺪ ،ﻭ ﺗﺮﺩﻳﺪﻯ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺻﺤﻨﻪﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﻯﻫﺎﻯ »ﺩﻣﻜﺮﺍﺗﻴﻚ ـ ﺍﺳــﻼﻣﻰ« ﻭﺍﺷــﻨﮕﺘﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﻪ ﺑﺰﻭﺩﻯ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻜﻪ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺍﻓﺘــﺎﺩ .ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎً ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﺳــﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻠﻨﺪﮔﻮﻫﺎﻯ ﺳــﺎﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺳــﻴﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﻫﺎﻯ ﻓﺎﺭﺳــﻰ ،ﺗﺮﻛــﻰ ﻭ ﻋﺮﺑﻰ ﺯﻭﺯﻩ ﻭ ﻋﺮﺑﺪﻩ ﺑــﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ »ﺣﻜﻮﻣﺖ ﺩﻳﻨﻰ« ﺳــﺮ ﺩﺍﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ؛ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﺘﻰ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻌﺒﻮﺩ ﻛﺎﺥﺳــﻔﻴﺪ ﺑــﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﮋﻳﻚ ﻣﻰﺭﻭﺩ ﺗﺎ ﻗﺎﺗﻞ ﺟﺎﻥﺍﺵ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ ﺷﻮﺩ. ﺑﺎﺯﺗــﺎﺏ ﺍﻳــﻦ ﻣﻌﻀﻞ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺑﺮﺭﺳــﻰ ﺍﺳــﺖ .ﭘﺮﻭژﺓ ﺟﻤﻜﺮﺍﻧﻰﻫﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ »ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺑﺎﺕ« ﺭﻭﺷــﻦ ﺍﺳــﺖ؛ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﻭژﻩ ﺍﺯ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻻﻳﺔ ﻣﺸــﺨﺺ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﺷﺪﻩ .ﺩﺭ ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﻻﻳﻪ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺤﻴﺮﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﻝ »ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﻣﻌﻈــﻢ« ﻭ ﻻﺕ ﻭ ﺍﻭﺑــﺎﺵ ﺑﻴﺖﺭﻫﺒﺮﻯ ﺭﺍ ﺷــﺎﻫﺪﻳﻢ .ﺍﻳﻨــﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻋﺎﺩﺕ
ﻣﻌﻤــﻮﻝ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻜﻴﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺰﺧﺮﻓﺎﺕ ﻭ ﺷــﻌﺎﺭﻫﺎﻯ ﭘــﻮچ ﻭ ﻏﻴﺮﺣﻘﻮﻗﻰ ﺑﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻣﻠﺖ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻰ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧﻰ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﺟﺒﻬﻪ ﺑﺎﺯ ﻛﺮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ .ﺩﺭ ﻭﻕﻭﻕﺻﺎﺣﺎﺏﻫﺎﺋﻰ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻨﺒﻌﺚ ﺍﺯ »ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ« ﻣﻰﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺷــﻮﺩ، ﻭﺍژﮔﺎﻧــﻰ ﺍﺯ ﻗﻤﺎﺵ »ﺣﻖ«» ،ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺖ«» ،ﺍﺳﺘﻜﺒﺎﺭﺳــﺘﻴﺰﻯ« ،ﻭ ...ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﺣﺶ ﺩﻳﻦ ﻭ ﻧﺰﺩ ﺳﻮﺳﻤﺎﺭﺧﻮﺍﺭﺍﻥ ﺻﺪﺭ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ،ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﻰ ﺟﺰ ﺳــﺮﻛﻮﺏ ﻣﺮﺩﻣﺎﻥ ﻭ ﭘﺎﻳﻤﺎﻝ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺟﻬﺖ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺵ ﻧﻮﻋﻰ »ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺖ ﺻﺤﺮﺍﺋﻰ« ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻪ ،ﭘﻴﻮﺳﺘﻪ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﻭ ﺑﺎﺯﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ .ﺍﺭﺍﺫﻝ ﻭ ﺍﻭﺑﺎﺵ ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﻭ ﻣﻬﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ »ﭘﻴﺎﻡ« ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻰ ﺁﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺳﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺍﺩﻳﻮ ﻭ ﺗﻠﻮﻳﺰﻳﻮﻥ »ﻣﺼﺎﺩﺭﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ« ،ﺑﻪ ﻣﻠﺖ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻰﺭﺳﺎﻧﻨﺪ :ﻣﺴﻴﺮ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﺖ ﺍﺳــﻼﻣﻰ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺭﻭﺯ 22ﺑﻬﻤﻦ ﺳــﺎﻝ 57ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﺭﺗﺶ ﻛﻮﺩﺗﺎﭼﻰ ﺷﺎﻫﻨﺸــﺎﻫﻰ ﺑﻪ ﺷــﺨﺺ ﺧﻤﻴﻨﻰ ﻭ ﻻﺕﻭﻟﻮﺕﻫﺎﻯ »ﻧﻬﻀﺖ ﻋﺎﻇﺎﺩﻯ« ﻭ ﻟﺸــﻮﺵ ﺣﻮﺯﻩ ﻭ ﺑﺎﺯﺍﺭ ﺩﻳﻜﺘﻪ ﺷــﺪﻩ .ﻣﺴﻴﺮﻯ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﺁﻥ ﺟﻔﻨﮕﻴﺎﺗــﻰ ﺍﺯ ﻗﻤﺎﺵ »ﻧﺒﺮﺩ ﺑﺎ ﺁﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ« ﻭ »ﺿﺪﻳﺖ ﺑﺎ ﻏﺮﺏ« ﻭ ﻏﻴﺮﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺃﺱ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖﻫﺎﻯ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﺖ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻰ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ .ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺍﺫﻋﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ ،ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺩﻭﻟﺘﻰ ﻛﻪ ﻧﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﺷﻨﮕﺘﻦ ﺭﺍ ﺳﻖ ﻣﻰﺯﻧﺪ ،ﻭ ﺗﻮپ ﻭ ﺗﻔﻨﮓ ﻭ ﻓﺸــﻨﮓ ﺍﻳﺎﺩﻯﺍﺵ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻑﻫﺎﻯ ﺍﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻠﻰ ﺁﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﺗﺤﻮﻳﻞ ﻣﻰﮔﻴﺮﺩ، ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﻜﺮﺧﻮﺭﻯﻫﺎ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺎً ﻣﻀﺤﻚ ﻭ ﺧﻨﺪﻩﺩﺍﺭ ﺷﺪﻩ. ﻭﻟﻰ ﺍﮔﺮ »ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ« ﻭ ﻻﺕﻫﺎﻯ ﺑﻴﺖﺭﻫﺒﺮﻯ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻊ »ﺻﺪﺭﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ« ﭼﺎﺩﺭ ﺯﺩﻩﺍﻧــﺪ ،ﺍﺭﺑﺎﺑــﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻧﺪﻳﺶ ﺍﻳﻨﺎﻥ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺭﻭﺯﻫﺎﻯ ﺳــﺨﺖﺗﺮﻯ ﺭﺍ ﻛﺮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ! ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ »ﺁﻳﻨﺪﻩﻧﮕﺮﻯﻫﺎ« ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻭﺑﺎﺷﻰ ﺍﺯ ﻗﻤﺎﺵ ﻛﺮﻭﺑﻰ ،ﻣﻮﺳﻮﻯ ،ﺧﺎﺗﻤﻰ ﻭ ...ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ »ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺑﺎﺕ« ﺑﻪ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻔﺖ ﺑﺮﺧﺎﺳــﺘﻪﺍﻧﺪ! ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻌﺮﻛﻪ ﻛﺎﻣ ً ﻼ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ؛ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺗﻴــﺮ ﺍﻭﻝ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺷﺴــﺖ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﻣﻌﻈــﻢ ﻣﻰﺟﻬﺪ ﺑﺮ ﻫــﺪﻑ ﺍﺻﺎﺑﺖ ﻧﻜﻨﺪ، ﻛﻤﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺗﻴﺮﻫﺎﻯ ﺑﺎﻗﻴﻤﺎﻧﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ ﻋﻤﻮﺳﺎﻡ ﺩﺭ ﻛﻒ ﻣﻮﺳﻮﻯ ﻭ ﻛﺮﻭﺑﻰ ،ﻳﻌﻨﻰ ﻫﻤﭙﺎﻟﻜﻰﻫﺎﻯ ﺟﻨﺎﻳﺘﻜﺎﺭ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺎﻣﻨﻪﺍﻯ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﮔﺬﺍﺷــﺖ .ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻨﺒﺎﺭ ﺗﻴﺮﺵ ﺑﻪ ﻫﺪﻑ ،ﻛﻪ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﻗﻠﺐ ﻣﻠﺖ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﺍﺻﺎﺑﺖ ﻛﻨﺪ. ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻨﻬﻤﻪ ،ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄﻮﺭ ﻛﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﻴﻢ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﺔ ﻋﻤﻮﺳﺎﻡ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﻪ ﺑﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦﻫﺎ ﺑﻴﺦ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ،ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺷﺎﻫﺪ ﻓﻮﺕ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺷﺒﻜﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﺧﺒﺮﺳﺎﺯﻯ ﻳﺎﻧﻜﻰﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻟﻨﺪﻧﻰﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺭﺿﺎ ﭘﻬﻠﻮﻯ ﺑﻮﺩﻳﻢ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﻓﺮﺩ
ﻛــﻪ ﻃﻰ ﺳــﺎﻟﻴﺎﻥ ﺩﺭﺍﺯ ﻋﻤ ً ﻼ ﺟﺰ ﺩﻧﺒﺎﻟﻪﺭﻭﻯ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺷﻮﺏﺳــﺎﺯﻯﻫﺎﻯ ﻏﺮﺏ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳــﺮﺍﻥ ﻫﻴﭻ ﻛﺎﺭﻯ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻧﺪﺍﺩﻩ ،ﺑﻪ ﻳﻚﺑــﺎﺭﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺑﻮﻕﻫﺎﻯ ﺗﺒﻠﻴﻐﺎﺗﻰ ﺳﺎﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺳﻴﺎ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﺑﻪ »ﺳﺘﺎﺭﺓ« ﺩﻣﻜﺮﺍﺳﻰ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ ،ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺗﻰ ﺩﺑﺴــﺘﺎﻧﻰ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ »ﺍﺟﻤﺎﻉ« ﭘﻴﺮﺍﻣﻮﻥ ﺍﻫــﺪﺍﻑ ﺩﻣﻜﺮﺍﺗﻴﻚ ﻗﺪ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻣﻰﻛﻨﺪ. ﻭﻟﻰ ﺭﺿﺎ ﭘﻬﻠﻮﻯ ﺍﺷــﻜﺎﻝ ﻋﻤﺪﻩﺍﻯ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ؛ ﺍﻳﺸــﺎﻥ ﺍﺻــﻮﻻً ﻧﻤﻰﺩﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺩﻣﻜﺮﺍﺳﻰ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻰ ﭼﻴﺴــﺖ ،ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ »ﺍﻧﻮﺍﻉ« ﺭﻧﮕﺎﺭﻧﮓ ﻫﻤﻨﺸﻴﻦﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻣﺸــﺎﻭﺭﺍﻧﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﺮﮔﺰﻳﺪﻩﺍﻧﺪ ،ﻳﻚ »ﺩﻣﻜﺮﺍﺕ« ﻫﻢ ﻧﻤﻰﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻳﺎﻓــﺖ .ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠــﻪ ،ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻋﻠﻴﺤﻀﺮﺕ ،ﻫﻢ ﺩﺑﺴــﺘﺎﻧﻰ ﺍﺳــﺖ ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﻓﺎﺷﻴﺴــﺖ ﻭ ﺿﺪﺩﻣﻜﺮﺍﺗﻴﻚ .ﺳﺮﺑﺴــﺘﻪ ﺑﮕﻮﺋﻴﻢ ،ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻫﺪﺍﻓﻰ ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺖ ﻣﻰﻛﻨﻴﻢ ،ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺭﺓ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻭ ﭼﻮﻥ »ﻧﻈﺮﻯ«» ،ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻰ« ﻭ ﺍﺑﻌــﺎﺩ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻰ ﻭ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻰ ﺁﻥ ﻛﺴــﺐ ﺍﻃﻼﻉ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﺎﺷــﻴﻢ. ﺍﻳــﻦ ﻭﻳﮋﮔﻰ ﻧﺰﺩ ﺭﺿﺎ ﭘﻬﻠــﻮﻯ ﺍﺻﻮﻻً ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ ،ﻭ ﻣﺸــﻜﻞ ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻓــﺮﺩﻯ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ »ﻧﺎﺟﻰ ﺩﻣﻜﺮﺍﺳــﻰ« ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻓﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑــﺎ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﻰ »ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥﻣﺤﻮﺭﻯ« ﺑﻴﮕﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ. ﺧﻼﺻــﺔ ﻛﻼﻡ ،ﻣﻰﺑﻴﻨﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻨﺎﻓﻊ ﻣﻠﻰ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﺳــﻪ ﻻﻳﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳــﺘﮕﺰﺍﺭﻯ ﻏﺮﺏ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺸــﻮﺭ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺷﺪﻩ .ﺳــﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﻚ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ: ﺍﺻﻮﻟﮕﺮﺍﺋﻰ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻮﻉ »ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ«؛ ﺍﺻﻼﺡﻃﻠﺒﻰ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻮﻉ »ﺟﻨﺒﺶ ﺳــﺒﺰ« ﻭ ﻻﺕﻫﺎﻯ »ﺧﻂﺍﻣﺎﻡ«؛ ﻭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﺍﻣﺮ »ﺩﻣﻜﺮﺍﺳــﻰ« ،ﻭﻳﺮﺍﺳــﺖ ﺍﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺛﺎﺑﺘﻰ ﻭ ﺍﺭﺗﺸﺒﺪ ﻧﺼﻴﺮﻯ! ﺑﻠﻪ ،ﻫﺮ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺑﺎﺯﻳﮕﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﻪ ﻻﻳﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻇﺎﻫﺮ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺷــﻌﺎﺭ »ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ« ﻣﻰﻧﻤﺎﻳﻨﺪ ،ﺁﻧﻘﺪﺭﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﺑﻴﮕﺎﻧﻪ ﻧﻴﺴــﺘﻨﺪ. ﺧﺎﺩﻣﺎﻥ ﻳﻚ ﺑﺎﺭﮔﺎﻩﺍﻧﺪ ،ﻭ ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄﻮﺭ ﻛﻪ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻗﺮﻥ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻣــﺮ ﻣﻘﺪﺱ »ﻧﺎﻥ ﻗﺮﺽ« ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﺑــﻪ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻴﭻ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻛﻮﺗﺎﻫﻰ ﻧﺨﻮﺍﻫﻨﺪ ﻛﺮﺩ .ﺣﺘﻰ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻛﺎﺭﺩ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻐﺰ ﺍﺳــﺘﺨﻮﺍﻥ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﺑﺴــﺎﻳﻨﺪ ،ﺑﻪ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻥ »ﺍﺭﺑﺎﺏ« ﮔﻮﺵ ﻓﺮﺍﺧﻮﺍﻫﻨﺪ ﺩﺍﺩ ﻭ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻃﺮﻓﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺭﺑﺎﺏ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﻛﻨﺪ »ﺧﺎﻟﻰ« ﻣﻰﻛﻨﻨﺪ .ﺟﺎﺧﺎﻟﻰ ﺁﺧﻮﻧﺪﻳﺴﻢ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺭﺿﺎﻣﻴﺮﭘﻨﺞ ﻭ ﺟﺎﺧﺎﻟﻰ ﻣﺤﻤﺪﺭﺿﺎ ﭘﻬﻠﻮﻯ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺁﺧﻮﻧﺪﻙﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺷــﺎﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩﻳﻢ ،ﺣﺎﻝ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺩﻳــﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺰﻧﮕﺎﻩ ﻛﺪﺍﻡ ﻃﺮﻑ ﻣﻰﺧﻮﺍﻫــﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺁﻥ ﻳﻜﻰ »ﻧﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺁﺏ« ﺗﺄﻣﻴﻦ ﻛﻨﺪ.
ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻭﺟــﻮﺩ ،ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻰ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻧﭙﺬﻳﺮ ﻧﻴﺴــﺖ ،ﻫﺮ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺧﻮﺍﺳــﺖ ﺍﻳﺎﻻﺕ ﻣﺘﺤﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺴــﻴﺮ ﻏﻴﺮﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺷﻮﺩ .ﺑﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺒﺎﻁ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﺶﻫﺎﻯ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﺭ ﻏــﺮﺏ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻻﺕﻭﻟﻮﺕﻫــﺎ ﻫﻤﻪ »ﻧﻘﺶ ﺑﺮ ﺁﺏ« ﺍﺳــﺖ ،ﭼﺮﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺳــﺘﺮﺍﺗﮋﻯ ﻣﻨﻄﻘــﻪﺍﻯ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻛﻠــﻰ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻳﺎﻓﺘــﻪ ،ﻭ ﺣﻀﺮﺍﺕ ﻋﻠﻴﺮﻏــﻢ ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩﺍﺭﻯ ﺍﺯ ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺖﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﺤﻔﻠﻰ ﻭ ﺳﻴﺎﺳــﻰ ﻣﺠﺒﻮﺭ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻨﺪ ﺷــﺪ ،ﻫﻢ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﻡﻭﺍﺭ ﺧــﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ »ﻋﻠﻨﻰ« ﻛﻨﻨﺪ ،ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺍﻓﻜﺎﺭﻋﻤﻮﻣﻰ ،ﺩﺭ ﻓﻀﺎﺋﻰ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺭﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﺧﻴﺎﺑﺎﻧﻰ »ﻣﺴــﺌﻮﻟﻴﺖ« ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻰ ﺑﭙﺬﻳﺮﻧﺪ .ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺻﺮﺍﺣﺖ ﺑﮕﻮﺋﻴﻢ، ﻣﺴــﺌﻮﻟﻴﺖ ﺳﻴﺎﺳــﻰ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﺳــﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﺖ ﺑــﺮﺍﻯ ﻓﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﭘﺸــﺖ ﺍﺭﺑﺎﺏﺷــﺎﻥ ﺳــﻨﮕﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪﺍﻧﺪ .ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﻓﻌﻠﻰ» ،ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺑــﺎﺕ« ﺟﻤﻜﺮﺍﻥ ﻧﻪ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻛﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻭ ﻧﻪ »ﺳﺮﻧﻮﺷﺖﺳــﺎﺯ« .ﭼﻪ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﻛــﻪ ﻣﻠﺖ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻧﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﺎﻫﻨﮕﻰ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺻﻼﺡﻃﻠﺐ ﻭ ﺳــﻠﻄﻨﺖﻃﻠﺐ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻧﺴــﺎﻧﻰ ﻭ ﺩﻳﺮﻳﻨــﺔ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﻳــﻦ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺶ ﻣﻬــﻮﻉ ﻭ ﺿﺪﺍﻧﺴــﺎﻧﻰ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﻭ ﺍﺳــﺎﺱ ﺗﺤﺮﻳﻢ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ،ﺻﺤﻨﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺁﺩﻣﻚﻫﺎﺋﻰ ﻭﺍﮔﺬﺍﺭﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﭼﻨــﺪ ﺭﻭﺯ »ﻗﺪﺭﺕﻃﻠﺒﻰ« ﺑﻪ ﮔﺪﺍﺋــﻰ ﻭ ﺩﺭﻳﻮﺯﮔﻰ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺎﺭﮔﺎﻩ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﻭ ﺍﺻﻮﻟﮕﺮﺍﺋﻰ ﺭﻭﻯ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ .ﺣﺴــﺎﺏ ﺍﻳﻨﺎﻥ ،ﻭ ﺩﻭﺳــﺘﺎﻥ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻒﻧﻤﺎﻯﺷــﺎﻥ ﺭﻭﺷﻦﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺳــﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﺁﻳﻨﺪﺓ ﻳﻚ ﻣﻠﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺭﻗﻢ ﺯﻧﻨﺪ.