I was thinking what would happen if all of a sudden Canada and other NATO, SEATO, or ANZUS countries, along with some members of the Unaligned Movement such as Sweden, agreed to automatically grant Iranian Baha'is citizenship upon landing on their soil.
Though it seems quite simple a plan, it could potentially wreak havoc in Iran on a number of fronts:
On the religious front:
The Iranian regime is so determined to prevent the spread of the Baha'i Faith, which it regards as an apostate religion, among the worse accusations possible in that country, that not only does it try to make it impossible for Baha'is to leave the country, but even went so far over a decade ago to try to convince Bahai's to return to Iran. Of course no Baha'i that I know bought it, and rightfully so since not long afterwards the persecution resumed as per usual.
Though this strategy seems very simple, it does have a number of advantages. First off, since the Iranian regime is trying to curtail the Baha'i Faith both at home and abroad (so it clearly sees this as a world endeavour), we needn't expect a sudden flow of Iranian Baha'is to our countries any time soon, seeing that most would likely find it hard to even get a passport, meaning that most would have to escape Iran via other means most likely, though some might manage to make it to one of our embassies (though I'm sure the Iranian authorities would be on top of that rather quickly too), which is technically our soil, in which case they could get their citizenship there. Once citizens of our countries with passports from our countries, it would make it very difficult for the Iranian regime to then keep them in the country. Worse yet, the regime might then become ever suspicious of anyone setting foot near our embassies, which would likely make even the non-Baha'is angry at the regime's harassment whenever they go to our embassies to apply for business, tourist, student, and other visas.
Once a Baha'i is a citizen of our countries, he'd also be entitled to free language raining, which could be provided by the British Council, the Alliance Francaise, USAID, CIDA, etc. even if he should decide to remain in Iran (highly unlikely scenario granted). So this last point would be somewhat theoretical, especially considering that the Iranian regime would likely not even tolerate such courses on their soil.
Add to that that the regime would likely be infuriated at the notion of non-Baha'i Iranians trying to seek asylum abroad by claiming to be Baha'i (certainly something the regime would regard as outright sacrilegious). And with Baha'is being able to go through the refugee bureaucracy much more quickly, Iranian Baha'is abroad would come to represent a larger segment of the bilingual Persian-speaking population after one generation, with their children spread out across NATO, SEATO, ANZUS, and other countries such as Sweden, would end up developing a predominantly Baha'i international commercial trading network over many years. It's also reasonable to suppose that they would have a strong influence on the ex-pat Persian-language publishing industry. This would isolate Iran even more as it suddenly faces the reality that Iranians travelling abroad will become ever more exposed to the Baha'i Faith in Persian (and even those at home via the internet). Needless to say the authorities would not take kindly to that either.
While it is true that few Baha'is would likely even make it to our embassies owing to countermeasures by the regime to lock them into the country, the impact would still be just as great. After all, the regime then finds itself with a tough choice to make. It can clamp down severely on passport issuance to any Iranian it suspects of being a Baha'i, and it can also question all who approach a foreign embassy to try to keep Iranian Baha's from setting foot in them. Bear in mind though that this would not affect Baha'is alone, but all Iranians trying to travel abroad. Needless to say such a policy would isolate and imprison all Iranians equally, thus likely making them all want change to put an end to this oppression.
Inversely, the regime could simply accept that it has lost its battle against the Baha'is and accept that they'll be able to leave the country, in which case it loses all control over the Faith (not as if it can control the growing Baha'i community beyond its borders already anyway), in which case it must accept that as more Iranians are exposed to the Bahai Faith abroad, that this will become a continuing problem in the country for years if not decades to come, with a constant brain drain and population drain in the country.
Of course a third option is that it simply launches a whole scale slaughter of the Baha'is of the country rather than the more gradualist approach it is imposing now. This woudl most certainly backfire as Persians suddenly become sympathetic to the Baha'is in large numbers.
It's a simple strategy, but the regime would face no true remedy other than to stop persecuting the Baha'is.
On the diplomatic front
One disadvantage on the diplomatic front that I could see would be that the regime could try to use this as a propaganda ploy to say the Baha'is are sellouts or whatever. On the other hand, especially if the regime has to harass people to keep them away from embassies, and makes it harder for Iranians to obtain passports, such propaganda would not hold water for long, especially if we cool down our war rhetoric.
On the economic front
Should the regime try to isolate itself, it would undoubtedly hurt its own economy in the process, thus causing even more upheaval. And if it should choose to remain open, then Baha'is become the main pillars of Iran's international trade. They're screwed either way.
On the military front
Should we adopt a friendly attitude towards Iran, it would then be very difficult for the regime to find a pretext to attack us. And after all, a country can grant citizenship to whomever it wants. But should the regime panic over our new citizenship las and decide to attack us anyway, it would then be easier to protect the Baha'is from the regime since as soon as a soldier should come across an Iranian Baha'i who declares himself a Baha'i, that person could be treated as a citizen of our country if he wishes. Again, this would make many allies in Iran (seeing that the Baha'i faith is already the second largest religion in the country!). Whether they fight on our side or not would be beside the point. At least we know they wouldn't attack us. Add to that that since the Baha'i Faith is a relatively new religion, many Iranian Baha'is would be converted baha'is, meaning that they are also deeply intertwined into Iranian society via family ties. So if the Baha'is become our friends, many of their family members who are not Baha'i would likely remain neutral too.
As simple as this strategy is, it would force Iran to make some tough choices. Honestly, I doubt it would be interested in war, but it would not take long before it realized that maybe it's time to leave the Baha'is alone.
Though it seems quite simple a plan, it could potentially wreak havoc in Iran on a number of fronts:
On the religious front:
The Iranian regime is so determined to prevent the spread of the Baha'i Faith, which it regards as an apostate religion, among the worse accusations possible in that country, that not only does it try to make it impossible for Baha'is to leave the country, but even went so far over a decade ago to try to convince Bahai's to return to Iran. Of course no Baha'i that I know bought it, and rightfully so since not long afterwards the persecution resumed as per usual.
Though this strategy seems very simple, it does have a number of advantages. First off, since the Iranian regime is trying to curtail the Baha'i Faith both at home and abroad (so it clearly sees this as a world endeavour), we needn't expect a sudden flow of Iranian Baha'is to our countries any time soon, seeing that most would likely find it hard to even get a passport, meaning that most would have to escape Iran via other means most likely, though some might manage to make it to one of our embassies (though I'm sure the Iranian authorities would be on top of that rather quickly too), which is technically our soil, in which case they could get their citizenship there. Once citizens of our countries with passports from our countries, it would make it very difficult for the Iranian regime to then keep them in the country. Worse yet, the regime might then become ever suspicious of anyone setting foot near our embassies, which would likely make even the non-Baha'is angry at the regime's harassment whenever they go to our embassies to apply for business, tourist, student, and other visas.
Once a Baha'i is a citizen of our countries, he'd also be entitled to free language raining, which could be provided by the British Council, the Alliance Francaise, USAID, CIDA, etc. even if he should decide to remain in Iran (highly unlikely scenario granted). So this last point would be somewhat theoretical, especially considering that the Iranian regime would likely not even tolerate such courses on their soil.
Add to that that the regime would likely be infuriated at the notion of non-Baha'i Iranians trying to seek asylum abroad by claiming to be Baha'i (certainly something the regime would regard as outright sacrilegious). And with Baha'is being able to go through the refugee bureaucracy much more quickly, Iranian Baha'is abroad would come to represent a larger segment of the bilingual Persian-speaking population after one generation, with their children spread out across NATO, SEATO, ANZUS, and other countries such as Sweden, would end up developing a predominantly Baha'i international commercial trading network over many years. It's also reasonable to suppose that they would have a strong influence on the ex-pat Persian-language publishing industry. This would isolate Iran even more as it suddenly faces the reality that Iranians travelling abroad will become ever more exposed to the Baha'i Faith in Persian (and even those at home via the internet). Needless to say the authorities would not take kindly to that either.
While it is true that few Baha'is would likely even make it to our embassies owing to countermeasures by the regime to lock them into the country, the impact would still be just as great. After all, the regime then finds itself with a tough choice to make. It can clamp down severely on passport issuance to any Iranian it suspects of being a Baha'i, and it can also question all who approach a foreign embassy to try to keep Iranian Baha's from setting foot in them. Bear in mind though that this would not affect Baha'is alone, but all Iranians trying to travel abroad. Needless to say such a policy would isolate and imprison all Iranians equally, thus likely making them all want change to put an end to this oppression.
Inversely, the regime could simply accept that it has lost its battle against the Baha'is and accept that they'll be able to leave the country, in which case it loses all control over the Faith (not as if it can control the growing Baha'i community beyond its borders already anyway), in which case it must accept that as more Iranians are exposed to the Bahai Faith abroad, that this will become a continuing problem in the country for years if not decades to come, with a constant brain drain and population drain in the country.
Of course a third option is that it simply launches a whole scale slaughter of the Baha'is of the country rather than the more gradualist approach it is imposing now. This woudl most certainly backfire as Persians suddenly become sympathetic to the Baha'is in large numbers.
It's a simple strategy, but the regime would face no true remedy other than to stop persecuting the Baha'is.
On the diplomatic front
One disadvantage on the diplomatic front that I could see would be that the regime could try to use this as a propaganda ploy to say the Baha'is are sellouts or whatever. On the other hand, especially if the regime has to harass people to keep them away from embassies, and makes it harder for Iranians to obtain passports, such propaganda would not hold water for long, especially if we cool down our war rhetoric.
On the economic front
Should the regime try to isolate itself, it would undoubtedly hurt its own economy in the process, thus causing even more upheaval. And if it should choose to remain open, then Baha'is become the main pillars of Iran's international trade. They're screwed either way.
On the military front
Should we adopt a friendly attitude towards Iran, it would then be very difficult for the regime to find a pretext to attack us. And after all, a country can grant citizenship to whomever it wants. But should the regime panic over our new citizenship las and decide to attack us anyway, it would then be easier to protect the Baha'is from the regime since as soon as a soldier should come across an Iranian Baha'i who declares himself a Baha'i, that person could be treated as a citizen of our country if he wishes. Again, this would make many allies in Iran (seeing that the Baha'i faith is already the second largest religion in the country!). Whether they fight on our side or not would be beside the point. At least we know they wouldn't attack us. Add to that that since the Baha'i Faith is a relatively new religion, many Iranian Baha'is would be converted baha'is, meaning that they are also deeply intertwined into Iranian society via family ties. So if the Baha'is become our friends, many of their family members who are not Baha'i would likely remain neutral too.
As simple as this strategy is, it would force Iran to make some tough choices. Honestly, I doubt it would be interested in war, but it would not take long before it realized that maybe it's time to leave the Baha'is alone.
