[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Toppling Tehran

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Rasker



Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 1455
Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 9:03 am    Post subject: Toppling Tehran Reply with quote

Toppling Tehran

September 25, 2005
New York Post
Amir Taheri

http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2005&m=09&d=28&a=7

Last month Iran's new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad presented his government's "medium- and long-term strategy" in the form of a 6,000-word document submitted to the Islamic Majlis (parliament) in Tehran.

In it he presented the Islamic Republic as "the core power" in a new Muslim bloc whose chief task is to prevent the United States from imposing its vision on the Middle East.

The document presented the Iran-U.S. duel as "a clash of civilizations" and predicted that the Islamic Republic will emerge victorious. "Leadership is the indisputable right of the Iranian nation," the document asserted.

Ilan Berman, whose "Tehran Rising: Iran's Challenge to the United States" has just been published, could not have read Ahamdinejad's program when writing his own timely essay. And yet, it is as if Berman already knew what was going on in the minds of the new ruling elite in Tehran.

At a time when everyone is obsessed with the issue of Tehran building a nuclear bomb, Berman shows that the real question is the Islamic Republic's desire for domination in a vast region that includes the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Basin, Central Asia and the Middle East.

"Will Iran, armed with nuclear weapons, emerge to dominate the Middle East? Or will the Islamic Republic give way to a more benign, pro-Western political order?" Berman asks.

By posing the dilemma this way, Berman clearly rejects a third possibility one cherished by the Clinton administration to seek a "grand bargain" with the Islamic Republic under which Iran would be recognized by the United States as the regional "superpower" in exchange for changes in certain aspects of Iranian behavior, especially on such issues as Palestine and sponsoring terrorism.

Berman, who teaches at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., sees the Iran-U.S. duel as a win-lose situation, at least as long as Iran is ruled by a totalitarian Islamist elite.

Berman believes that the present balance of power in the Middle East cannot be sustained for any appreciable length of time. Either Iran succeeds in chasing the Americans out of the Middle East, or the United States, with or without allies, adopts a policy of regime change vis--vis Tehran.

Regime change, however, is easier said than done. Even in Iraq, where the U.S.-led coalition won a quick military victory largely because the Iraqi people decided not to fight for Saddam Hussein, regime change has proven more complicated than many had imagined.

This is why Berman devoted less than 3 percent of his short book to ways and means of achieving regime change in Tehran.

Berman suggests the revival of what he labels "The Reagan Doctrine," which, he says, led to the destruction of the Soviet Union. In practical terms, this recommendation amounts to no more than a greater use of public diplomacy and the free flow of information, especially through Persian-language radio and television networks funded by Washington.

He also wants Washington to use the Iranian expatriate community including some 2 million in the United States as a channel for relaying democratic ideas into Iran itself.

Berman also wants the United States to find a new alternative leadership for Iran, someone like Lech Walesa in Poland. He suggests two candidates. The first is Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi (eldest son of the late Muhammad Reza Shah), who has called for a referendum to find out what type of government Iranians want for the future.

Berman's other candidate is the Mujahedin Khalq group, which has some 4,000 armed men and women in a camp in Iraq under the protection of the U.S.-led Coalition.

Berman suggests that the United States conduct a series of polls both inside and outside Iran to find out which dissident group is most likely to win the largest measure of support from the Iranian people. Once that is determined, America and its allies could give political, diplomatic and, presumably, financial support to the alternative Iranian leadership.

But even then it is not quite clear how such a leadership would be installed in Tehran.

Through elections?

Through invasion? Or through an internal coup d'etat by anti-mullah elements?

Those with a deeper knowledge of Iran will find Berman's scenario for regime change without military action somewhat unconvincing. But the book's value lies elsewhere.

It is Berman's frank admission that President Bush's dream for a democratic Middle East that would be friendly to the United States may well turn into a nightmare if Iran, under its present leadership, succeeds in imposing its agenda on the region.

And that is not such a far-fetched idea. There is no guarantee that whoever succeeds Bush will share his vision or have his guts, some might say his audacity, to take risks that no other American leader has taken since Harry S. Truman.

The Islamic Republic in Iran has dealt with five American presidents so far. Only one of them, George W. Bush, has so far refused to offer the mullahs some version of the "grand bargain" that President Bill Clinton tried to offer the mullahs only to be snubbed by them. Even within the Republican Party there are quite a few grandees who dream of a "grand bargain" with the mullahs, among them Sen. Chuck Hagel and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft.

Indeed, there is no reason why the Islamic Republic should not try to wait Bush out and then go for broke in what Ahmadinejad describes as Iran's "natural sphere of leadership" that is the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Basin and Central Asia.

Berman's book makes it impossible for the policymakers in Washington to ignore the Islamic Republic as a nasty toothache that it is bound to fade away. But it is far from clear whether or not the current administration has the time and, yes, the courage to devise a strategy to meet what is one of the biggest challenges U.S. foreign policy faces at present.

Amir Taheri is former editor-in-chief of Kayhan, the most important Iranian newspaper during the shah's regime. He is a member of Benador Associates.
_________________
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two basic flaws in the premis...one that this is a US problem, not the world's...and that it is America's task to solve it rather than the international community's.

2. It fails utterly to address the mindset of other nations in the region as to the IRI's intent.

When I think of what some sort of military intervention may involve....I wonder how long the regime would stand and fight if every nation sharing borders was at war with the IRI, attacking from every quadrent.

modern military doctrine demands a short time-frame to minimize civilian casualties and displacement, and given the IRI's WMD's, there is no way anything but unconditional surrender would be considered....a limited engagement would be foolhardy.

The option to support "vetted" democratic (and I include monarchists in this) groups inside Iran is a viable one, but I do not believe it would be in the interests of the west to support the MEK at this time (until they change to a more democratic ideology), nor would it be generally good to support a single opposition group over others....causing resentment rather than unity of purpose.

When I think of a situation that may look a bit like the French resistance in WW2, there were many in the resistance from all political stripes, but united against German occupation.

But supporting groups without the west being concurrent in a combined "regime change" strategy to remove the mullahs in the shortest possible time frame would lead to disaster for the opposition, as well as prolong any transition process , and lead to prolonged instability in the region.

It is correct that a decision must be made very soon, probably within these next months till IAEA referal is done, and being debated in the UN sec. Council....as this is the regime's trigger point for retaliatory measures....increased terrorism, possibly other quasi military/economic actions in the gulf...Afghanistan...Pakistan as well has seen IRI influence and terrorism.....

On the economic side, I think it is now clear to all nations that have dealings with the IRI, that their long-term interests do not lie with this regime, but with "regime change" and an interim government that favors democracy and free market economy in a globalized world.

In the short term, there will be economic destabilization to some extent, whether they take the rout of regime change or not...and this is becoming increasingly clear as the IRI's rhetoric of threats continues.

Not a pretty picture for the next year or two....but one thing else that is totally ignored by the author is the fact that Bush has vowed not to leave major problems to his successor to deal with....factor that into the calculations as you please.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spenta



Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As everybody knows I am a monarchist, but I don't think you can exclude the MKO from any kind of a push for regime change in Iran. While MKO will not win an election in Iran (ask anyone in Iran), they still are a pretty largeable presence in the US and also Iran. Their network inside the country is absolutely essential for any kind of intelligence gathering and also 'making things happen' kinda level. Their infrastructre in exile is equally imrpessive when it comes to making things happen. Any way you look at it, its stupid to axe them out of any push for regime change.

However, I think RP is the best leader, the best known and the best liked inside and outside Iran. While RP has his critics and many who hate him passionately, You're not going to find another leader as well known or as well supported as RP, inside or outside of Iran.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !



Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spenta wrote:
... MKO will not win an election in Iran (ask anyone in Iran),


problem is, that MKO also knows this and that's why they are counting on the military option rather than an election or referendum.

their mentality is this: once a group defeats IRI in a military battle, then they are the victorious ones and get to replace the government and stay in power. just like that!

what they are starting to understand is that no one group alone can do this. even the U.S needs allies on this one.

count down begins when opposition groups unite. and it's time they recognize that.

_______________________________________________________

when Berman elaborates on IRI plan for control over Middle East, he's first and foremost trying to provoke the neighbours to this possibility. it is a warning sign to the Middle Eastern governments not to support IRI or fall for its traps. he's offering an effective policy to make allies in the region and isolate IRI further.
_________________
Paayande Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Spenta,

Given the fact that the MEK/MKO/NCRI (it would be easier if they decided to stick to one name....chuckle) is still on the Dept of State's list of terrorist org's, any direct support by the US can be written off by them.

This doesn't mean they are excluded from the effort...nor did I mean to imply that as they do have their own resources to put to work in this effort.

It was the conditions of their involvement that I was pointing to, as the last thing I think anyone wants to see is a post-regime power struggle that saps the energy of forming a viable government structure by a UN monitored referendum...which I believe is the general hope of the majority to see happen first and foremost....then a new Constitution, based on universal human rights norms.

In that event, I don't see the "old guard" gaining leverage in a population as young as Iran's ....resulting in a total break with the past..to a totally democratic future....

Now there's definately a place for RP in this.....a role that must be defined by the people's will obviously....but I see there are traditional roots whereby the Monarchy as such, may be restored in a non-power wielding role....RP as facilitator to democracy....rather than in control politicly....nor do I see a constitutional monarchy as the end result of such a referendum....

In any case the people will make the choice as that opportunity becomes manifest.

I think the best the MEK can hope for is simply to be accepted as part of the Iran nation, having been forgiven for the past due to their efforts in the downfall of the IRI. They may even have some political involvement...and a voice in the parliment as a result....but that's again, up to the people....

Take a fellow like Batabi, these are the folks that will ultimately become Iran's future leaders...Those outside Iran who've been in exile in democratic nations will by necessity be involved, as their experience with democratic systems of government must serve to teach and inspire those who have never experienced it for themselves.

I think even RP would agree with this....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

P.S. SPENTA FOR PRESIDENT......MMMmmmm....got a nice ring to it..

You'd do well in my opinion, but I think it would be a cold day in hell before the Brits got an oil contract....(chuckle)....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spenta



Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Oppenheimer

Spenta is definately not running for president. I'm rather fond of my 'dillettantish' lifestyle, which is very unkosher when it comes to having a political career of any kind in any country Laughing lets face it, there were too many photographs I never burned, LOL.

Dear Liberty Now

I really don't thing that the MEK can use the military option to take power in a post revolutionary type situation in Iran. Most of the armed forces in Iran will not back them because of their involvement with Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war. The only way anyone can take over militarily in a post revolutionary Iran is if they have the the backing of the majority of the military, thats how it was with the last revolution too, and MEK cannot produce that kind of support.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spenta is definately not running for president. I'm rather fond of my 'dillettantish' lifestyle, which is very unkosher when it comes to having a political career of any kind in any country lets face it, there were too many photographs I never burned, LOL.
------------

Ha! Now you've got my captive attention! (chuckle)....


As for military takovers....we've just been witness to one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group