|
Weekly Commentary
Toward a Coherent
Policy in Support of Regime Change in Iran
In calling for a strong policy toward Iran, Lt. Gen. McInerney
and Maj. Gen. Vallely, two veteran military analysts, wrote in
the Wall Street Journal yesterday, “It is imperative… that we
immediately and forcefully check Iran, inside and outside of
Iraq.” In doing so, they cited the clerical regime’s sinister
designs in Iraq.
The two added that “the best way to end the threat posed by Iran
is end the mullahs' rule of Iran,” and called for removal of the
Iranian main opposition organization, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq
from the State Department's list of terrorist organizations,
saying that group is "the most organized, disciplined, and
popular opposition movement in Iran."
Similarly, Jed Babbin, the former Deputy Undersecretary of
Defense under President George H. W. Bush, told a recent
symposium on Iran’s nuclear program that “Iran is, by far, the
most dangerous terrorist nation. Their nuclear ambitions and
their unarguable involvement in global terrorism make them our
number one problem.”
Mr. Babbin went on to say, “We should be pursuing regime change
in Iran now, through covert operations, support for Iranian
opposition groups (such as the Mujahideen e Khalq, which we
wrongly labeled a terrorist group at Tehran's request).”
Given the current stalemate in Washington concerning the policy
on Iran, these bold policy recommendation are to say the least
refreshing if not over due. But the obvious question is why
these veteran analysts and policy experts see this urgency and
why the removal of the MEK from the State Department terror list
is indispensable to the any serious policy toward Iran.
The explosive “Iran problem” we are facing both in Iraq and in
the nuclear arena is the same “mullah problem” the Iranian
people have been fighting against for more than two decades now.
Never before in the history of US-Iran relationship, has the
need for democracy in Iran and the security interests of the
United States been so intimately intertwined. This fact has
recently been in full display in Iran where harsher crackdown,
including public executions particularly of minors in recent
weeks, has been matched by an increasing number of suicide
volunteers clerical regime has recruited for dispatch to Iraq.
Iran has been on a crash course to pass the nuclear point of no
return and make its political and ideological gains in Iraq
irreversible. The urgency these policy experts are talking about
has been imposed on us by the tyrants in Iran. Unlike our policy
makers in Washington, the mullahs are not deferring these issues
to post presidential election. They have in fact been exploiting
this apparent policy paralysis in Washington to act with
impunity.
The terrorist designation of the MEK was a by-product of the
failed policy of engagement pursued by the previous
administration following the presidency of Khatami in 1997. That
was the case then and it is now.
For 16 months after the war, the United States and law
enforcement agencies interviewed the MEK members at their main
Camp, Ashraf, in Iraq. Senior U.S. administration officials told
the New York Times in July, “The United States has found no
basis to charge members of an Iranian opposition group in Iraq
[the MEK] with violations of American law.” The State Department
also confirmed that the dissident group was not a belligerent
during the Iraq war.
Now, with the failure of the policy of engagement and all of its
aliases such as “grand bargain” and “direct dialogue”, the only
viable approach is the formulation of a meaningful and coherent
policy in support of regime change by Iranians.
Recommendations by Generals McInerney and Vallely, and Mr.
Babbin are serious practical policy proposals based on a
realistic analysis of the gravity of the threat the mullahs pose
to the well-being of Iranians and our security interests.
Blacklisting this dissident group has not only hampered its
campaign against the mullahs and weakened a significant segment
of Iran’s democracy movement; it has also put our Iran policy in
a stray jacket limiting our ability to reach out to the
opposition groups in Iran. It has also enabled the regime to
justify the savage treatment of its dissidents and MEK members
and supporters as part of the “war on terrorism”.
Generals McInerney and Vallely wrote, “We understand these
suggestions will strike some as too strong. Considering,
however, that Iran is poised to make a play for regional
dominance, our countermove must be the strongest we have ever
made in our 25-year cold war with Iran. Iraq's success is
dependent on it.” They could not have said it any better.
(USADI)
Return to Top
The Los Angeles Times
September 09, 2004
Bush Can't Afford
Inaction on Iran
Hyped reports about an Israeli "mole" in the Pentagon are
falling apart faster than the Kerry campaign. It now seems
likely that the analyst in question was, at worst, guilty of
mishandling a classified document, not espionage. According to
news accounts, the memo he's accused of passing to pro-Israel
lobbyists called for U.S. support of Iranian dissidents trying
to overthrow their dictatorial government. This may not be
spy-novel stuff, but it does raise an important question: Why
hasn't President Bush implemented the recommendations reportedly
contained in the Pentagon paper?
The case for action seems overwhelming in light of Bush's
oft-stated warning: "Either you are with us or you are with the
terrorists." There is no question which side Iran is on. The
State Department calls Iran the "most active state sponsor of
terrorism in the world."… A number of Al Qaeda operatives remain
in Iran, ostensibly under house arrest but in all likelihood
allowed to carry on their deadly work. Iran has trained and
armed Muqtada Sadr's militia, which has been attacking U.S.
forces in Iraq…
Why would Iran be worried about being attacked by the United
States? Because it is close to producing a nuclear bomb...
Hassan Abasi, a senior member of the Revolutionary Guards,
recently boasted that Iran had "a strategy drawn up for the
destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."
Faced with this grave and gathering threat, John F. Kerry
advocates appeasement.… Iran has already violated a 2003
agreement with Britain, France and Germany to curtail its
nuclear weapons development. The mullahs are hellbent on going
nuclear; they are not going to give up what one Iranian
newspaper editor calls "the rare pearl for which we have labored
greatly."
If we can't trust Tehran to make a deal, then we need a more
confrontational approach… Luckily, Iran has a robust opposition
movement that makes peaceful change from within a feasible
alternative.
Self-styled realists claim that the tyrants of Tehran can't be
budged, but then that's what they said about the Soviet
commissars too, right up until the fall of the Berlin Wall. As
in the Soviet bloc, most people in Iran have lost faith in their
rulers. Many have even braved regime goons to protest in the
streets. If they can succeed in establishing a representative
government, it will not matter whether Iran has nuclear weapons,
any more than it matters that India, Israel, France or any other
democracy has nukes. Conversely, even without nukes, the
terrorist-sponsoring mullahs would remain a major threat. We
need to focus on the nature of the regime, not simply the nature
of its weapons.
Bush has recognized the need for democratization in the Middle
East, yet, oddly enough, he doesn't seem to be doing much to
help Iranian freedom fighters. Bush's own deputy secretary of
State has said that regime change is not U.S. policy. I hope
this is just a ruse to hide covert actions, but I fear it's the
truth. On Iran, as in so many other areas, the administration
seems to be paralyzed by disagreements between Defense
Department hawks and State Department doves. If Bush doesn't
break through this gridlock soon, he will greatly undermine his
claim to offer strong leadership in the war on terror.
Excerpts from an article by Max
Boot, a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New
York.
Return to Top
Reuters
September 09, 2004
Iran Using EU to Buy
Time to Get Atomic Bomb
VIENNA -- Iran is using negotiations with the European Union's
"big three" on suspending sensitive nuclear activities to buy
the time it needs to get ready to make atomic weapons, an
Iranian exile and intelligence officials said.
With intelligence sources saying Iran could be months away from
nuclear weapons capability, the United States wants Iran
reported to the U.N. Security Council immediately, charging
Tehran uses its civilian atomic energy program as a front to
develop the bomb. Tehran vehemently denies the charge.
"Iran continues to use existing differences between the U.S. and
Europe to their advantage and tries to drag out talks with the
EU to buy time," Alireza Jafarzadeh, an Iranian exile who has
reported accurately on Iran's nuclear program in the past, told
Reuters. "They feel they have bought at least 10 months,"
Jafarzadeh said. He said he was citing sources in Iran familiar
with the results of a recent high-level meeting on Iran's
nuclear program attended by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei.
Jafarzadeh said officials at the meeting also decided to
allocate an additional $2 billion from Iran's central bank
reserves to supplement some $14 billion already spent on what he
called Iran's "secret nuclear weapons program."
The EU trio remain committed to a process of engagement with
Tehran. However an intelligence official said a failure to act
now as Washington would like, could be decisive for the
development of an Iranian nuclear weapons capability.
"The Europeans express helplessness, despair and lack of
strategy, which is exactly what (the Iranians) want to hear," a
senior non-U.S. intelligence official said. "This is their
golden opportunity, between now and the coming of a new (U.S.)
administration."
Return to Top
|
