Semsem
07-01-2004, 11:48 PM
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1088650987552
Jul. 1, 2004 10:33
A proper policy
By MICHAEL LEDEEN
Regime change in Iran can probably be accomplished without firing a single bullet
Properly understood, the recent little contretemps between Iran and Great Britain tells us a lot, both about Iran's regional strategy and Great Britain's ongoing appeasement of the mullahs.
There was considerable befuddlement among the chattering classes when the Iranians seized some British patrol boats (originally misidentified as "warships") and arrested some sailors and officers in the Shatt al-Arab waterway that divides Iran and Iraq. After all, that would seem to constitute a causus belli, and one wouldn't think that the Iranian regime was looking for a fight with the coalition.
The Iranians complained that the Brits had drifted into Iranian waters, but a British spokesman dryly observed that this was hardly an unusual event; it happens almost every day, due to the narrowness of the waterway. Why, then, had the Iranians suddenly decided to take action?
The Iranians subsequently made dark references to the materiel they had found on board the three boats, calling it "suspicious" and "hi-tech" and the like. I believe that the Brits were in the process of installing an underwater detection network that would alert them to any approaching vessels, and they were doing that because of recent attacks on Iraqi oil facilities in the area.
Thus the explanation for Iran's action: the mullahs are determined to strike at Iraqi oil production, and they don't want an efficient detection system in the area. Why, you might ask, is Iran so interested in stopping the oil flow from Iraq? The answer might surprise you. It's because they are desperate to swing the upcoming American presidential elections against George W. Bush, and they think that if they can get oil prices up to, say, $60 a barrel, that might do the trick.
INDEED, THE American elections are one of the driving issues behind all Iranian actions these days because the ayatollahs believe that if Bush is reelected, he will come after them and try to achieve regime change in Teheran, while they do not think that John Kerry will do the same. Whether or not they are right in their evaluation of the two candidates is beside the point. They believe it. So I think we can expect ongoing sabotage of oil facilities throughout the Middle East and perhaps even in South America, where Iran supports an extensive Hizbullah network.
The Brits have every right to feel annoyed at this latest example of Iranian desperation, for they have shown enormous dedication to appeasing the mullahs. Jack Straw has commuted to Teheran with remarkable energy, constantly praising Iran's presumed willingness to be cooperative on everything from trade to human rights and the ongoing charade of "discussions" about the Iranian nuclear project.
In fairness to Straw and his boss Tony Blair, the Iranians have indeed rewarded Great Britain with several juicy oil and natural gas contracts (although Jacques Chirac is by far the big winner in this competition). But Iran's repression of free speech, random street beatings of democracy advocates, summary executions, and extensive torture is so bad that even Human Rights Watch felt obliged to issue a particularly graphic condemnation of the Islamic Republic. And the toothless International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly found Iran lying about its race to build atomic bombs. Yet the Foreign Office lobbies the State Department in Washington to go easy on the mullahs.
It should be clear to all - indeed, it should have been clear a long time ago - that if Iran is left to its own devices, we will shortly face a radical Shi'ite regime, the world's leading supporter of international terrorism (the State Department last week once again gave the blue ribbon to the mullahs), the haven of al-Qaida, the creator of Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad, and the prime mover of Hamas and prime supporter of Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, armed with atomic bombs. One would have thought it inconceivable that we should have arrived at this situation without any Western country having made the slightest effort to bring down the evil regime in Teheran. Yet no one has done anything. Worse yet, leading American officials such as Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage openly call Iran "a democracy."
On occasion, the refusal to see Iran for what it is reaches comic proportions. The Iranian regime recently issued sign-up forms to recruit suicide terrorist volunteers; and with that crackpot realism that sometimes characterizes such undertakings, there was a line where the volunteer could choose where he or she wished to achieve martyrdom: Iraq, Israel, or some other site. Yet this remarkable official document, which tells us most everything we wish to know about the intentions of the Teheran mullahcracy, went virtually without comment in the Western media.
Alas, the West has convinced itself that action against Teheran is too risky. This is an inversion of reality. Doing nothing is the most dangerous policy, especially since regime change in Iran can probably be accomplished without firing a single bullet or dropping a single bomb. It would suffice to support what President Bush has long called "the legitimate desire of the Iranian people to be free."
Anybody want to play?
If so, here's an outline of the game plan:
First, support the Farsi-language broadcasters in southern California. There are several of them, and they carry an authority that no government-operated radio or television station can.
Second, throw the full moral and political support of the West behind the Iranian people. This includes such steps as calling for regime change in Iran (best accomplished by holding a national referendum to select the form of government and then free elections to select the leaders), supporting freedom of speech and press (today Iran is one of the major press "predators" - to use the word favored by "journalists without borders" - in the Middle East, having summarily silenced nearly 100 publications), demanding an end to the long list of violations of human rights (instead of sending European delegations that pretend not to see the widescale use of torture, arbitrary arrest and execution, closed tribunals and the like), supporting workers' rights (major sectors of the Iranian workforce haven't been paid for nine months or more), and so forth.
Third, put some teeth into the IAEA and sanction Iran for its defiance of the nuclear safeguards to which it has already formally agreed.
It is not hard or particularly expensive - certainly not compared to the cost of permitting a fanatical Islamic regime to lay its hands on atomic weapons. These are not acts of war, they are the minimum actions that normal civilized people expect of their leaders. They would be proper even if there were no terror war underway, and even if Iran were not on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.
Given the current circumstances, a proper Iran policy is a life-or-death imperative.
The writer, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is author of The War Against the Terror Masters.
Jul. 1, 2004 10:33
A proper policy
By MICHAEL LEDEEN
Regime change in Iran can probably be accomplished without firing a single bullet
Properly understood, the recent little contretemps between Iran and Great Britain tells us a lot, both about Iran's regional strategy and Great Britain's ongoing appeasement of the mullahs.
There was considerable befuddlement among the chattering classes when the Iranians seized some British patrol boats (originally misidentified as "warships") and arrested some sailors and officers in the Shatt al-Arab waterway that divides Iran and Iraq. After all, that would seem to constitute a causus belli, and one wouldn't think that the Iranian regime was looking for a fight with the coalition.
The Iranians complained that the Brits had drifted into Iranian waters, but a British spokesman dryly observed that this was hardly an unusual event; it happens almost every day, due to the narrowness of the waterway. Why, then, had the Iranians suddenly decided to take action?
The Iranians subsequently made dark references to the materiel they had found on board the three boats, calling it "suspicious" and "hi-tech" and the like. I believe that the Brits were in the process of installing an underwater detection network that would alert them to any approaching vessels, and they were doing that because of recent attacks on Iraqi oil facilities in the area.
Thus the explanation for Iran's action: the mullahs are determined to strike at Iraqi oil production, and they don't want an efficient detection system in the area. Why, you might ask, is Iran so interested in stopping the oil flow from Iraq? The answer might surprise you. It's because they are desperate to swing the upcoming American presidential elections against George W. Bush, and they think that if they can get oil prices up to, say, $60 a barrel, that might do the trick.
INDEED, THE American elections are one of the driving issues behind all Iranian actions these days because the ayatollahs believe that if Bush is reelected, he will come after them and try to achieve regime change in Teheran, while they do not think that John Kerry will do the same. Whether or not they are right in their evaluation of the two candidates is beside the point. They believe it. So I think we can expect ongoing sabotage of oil facilities throughout the Middle East and perhaps even in South America, where Iran supports an extensive Hizbullah network.
The Brits have every right to feel annoyed at this latest example of Iranian desperation, for they have shown enormous dedication to appeasing the mullahs. Jack Straw has commuted to Teheran with remarkable energy, constantly praising Iran's presumed willingness to be cooperative on everything from trade to human rights and the ongoing charade of "discussions" about the Iranian nuclear project.
In fairness to Straw and his boss Tony Blair, the Iranians have indeed rewarded Great Britain with several juicy oil and natural gas contracts (although Jacques Chirac is by far the big winner in this competition). But Iran's repression of free speech, random street beatings of democracy advocates, summary executions, and extensive torture is so bad that even Human Rights Watch felt obliged to issue a particularly graphic condemnation of the Islamic Republic. And the toothless International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly found Iran lying about its race to build atomic bombs. Yet the Foreign Office lobbies the State Department in Washington to go easy on the mullahs.
It should be clear to all - indeed, it should have been clear a long time ago - that if Iran is left to its own devices, we will shortly face a radical Shi'ite regime, the world's leading supporter of international terrorism (the State Department last week once again gave the blue ribbon to the mullahs), the haven of al-Qaida, the creator of Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad, and the prime mover of Hamas and prime supporter of Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, armed with atomic bombs. One would have thought it inconceivable that we should have arrived at this situation without any Western country having made the slightest effort to bring down the evil regime in Teheran. Yet no one has done anything. Worse yet, leading American officials such as Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage openly call Iran "a democracy."
On occasion, the refusal to see Iran for what it is reaches comic proportions. The Iranian regime recently issued sign-up forms to recruit suicide terrorist volunteers; and with that crackpot realism that sometimes characterizes such undertakings, there was a line where the volunteer could choose where he or she wished to achieve martyrdom: Iraq, Israel, or some other site. Yet this remarkable official document, which tells us most everything we wish to know about the intentions of the Teheran mullahcracy, went virtually without comment in the Western media.
Alas, the West has convinced itself that action against Teheran is too risky. This is an inversion of reality. Doing nothing is the most dangerous policy, especially since regime change in Iran can probably be accomplished without firing a single bullet or dropping a single bomb. It would suffice to support what President Bush has long called "the legitimate desire of the Iranian people to be free."
Anybody want to play?
If so, here's an outline of the game plan:
First, support the Farsi-language broadcasters in southern California. There are several of them, and they carry an authority that no government-operated radio or television station can.
Second, throw the full moral and political support of the West behind the Iranian people. This includes such steps as calling for regime change in Iran (best accomplished by holding a national referendum to select the form of government and then free elections to select the leaders), supporting freedom of speech and press (today Iran is one of the major press "predators" - to use the word favored by "journalists without borders" - in the Middle East, having summarily silenced nearly 100 publications), demanding an end to the long list of violations of human rights (instead of sending European delegations that pretend not to see the widescale use of torture, arbitrary arrest and execution, closed tribunals and the like), supporting workers' rights (major sectors of the Iranian workforce haven't been paid for nine months or more), and so forth.
Third, put some teeth into the IAEA and sanction Iran for its defiance of the nuclear safeguards to which it has already formally agreed.
It is not hard or particularly expensive - certainly not compared to the cost of permitting a fanatical Islamic regime to lay its hands on atomic weapons. These are not acts of war, they are the minimum actions that normal civilized people expect of their leaders. They would be proper even if there were no terror war underway, and even if Iran were not on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.
Given the current circumstances, a proper Iran policy is a life-or-death imperative.
The writer, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is author of The War Against the Terror Masters.