AEI Scholars Call for Iran Regime Change and Possible War
Posted: May 14, 2006
AEI Scholars Call for Iran Regime Change and Possible War
As tensions with Iran increase, many of the neoconservatives who laid the ideological and strategic frameworks for the invasion of Iraq are calling on the Bush administration to prepare for a preventive war against Iran and to immediately implement a "regime change" strategy.The American Enterprise Institute (AEI), along with the Project for the New American Century, provided the Bush administration with many of the key members of its foreign policy team. In a January 2003 speech at AEI, President Bush noted that 20 AEI associates had joined his administration. Today, AEI scholars Reuel Marc Gerecht, David Frum, Michael Rubin, and Michael Ledeen are beating the drums for a preventive war against Iran or for a "regime change" strategy that rests on additional U.S. aid to select Iranian dissidents. We have included excerpts from their recent essays to provide readers a quick overview of the neocon arguments for expanded U.S. intervention in the Middle East.
Stephen Zunes, Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus (a joint project of the IRC and the Institute for Policy Studies) and professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, was among the leading critics of the pro-war arguments for preventive war against Iraq. In a recent analysis from FPIF, Zunes argues for a less bellicose U.S. foreign policy toward Iran and a more even-handed policy on nuclear proliferation issues. FPIFs military affairs analyst and senior fellow on military affairs at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Dan Smith, contends in his latest article, its time for the administration to sit down with the Iranians ... and resolve the differences without threats of armed conflict." We include excerpts from both, as well as one from the Middle East experts Open Letter to President Bush.
To Bomb, or Not to BombThat is the Iran Question
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24230,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
By Reuel Marc Gerecht | April 14, 2006
The opponents of military strikes against the mullahs' weapons facilities say there are no guarantees that we can permanently destroy their weapons production. This is true. We can't guarantee the results. But what we can do is demonstrate, to the mullahs and to others elsewhere, that even with these uncertainties, in a post-9/11 world the United States has red lines that will compel it to act. And one nonnegotiable red line is that we will not sit idly and watch a virulently anti-American terrorist-supporting rogue state obtain nukes. We will not be intimidated by threats of terrorism, oil-price spikes, or hostile world opinion. If the ruling clerical elite wants a head-on collision with a determined superpower, then that's their choice.
No matter what happens, it is long overdue for the Bush administration to get serious about building clandestine mechanisms to support Iranians who want to change their regime. This will take time and be brutally difficult. And overt democracy support to Iranianswhich is the Bush administration's current game planisn't likely to draw many recruits. Most Iranians probably know that this approach is a one-way invitation to Evin prison, which isn't the most effective place for expressing dissent. However we go about assisting the opposition, the prospects for removing the regime before it acquires nuclear weapons are slim.
So we will all have to wait for President Bush to decide whether nuclear weapons in the hands of Khamenei, Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad, and the Revolutionary Guards Corps are something we can live with. Given the Islamic Republic's dark history, the burden of proof ought to be on those who favor accommodating a nuclear Iran. Those who are unwilling to accommodate it, however, need to be honest and admit that diplomacy and sanctions and covert operations probably won't succeed, and that we may have to fight a warperhaps sooner rather than laterto stop such evil men from obtaining the worst weapons we know.
Maybe the Mullahs Don't Want War
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24241/pub_detail.asp
By David Frum | April 18, 2006
If there is to be any hope of avoiding a U.S.-Iranian war, the U.S. and its friends have to act now to stop the confrontation from working for the mullahsand start making it work against them.
That would begin with recognizing that the Iranians do fear the United States and do fear warand that the more credible the threat of an American strike is, the better the hopes for a negotiated end. Which in turn means that America's friends must applaud, not criticize, when the Americans take a tough linewhen, for example, they position their forces in a more menacing way, or test bunker-busting' bombs, or fund anti-regime Iranian groups.
There are nervous days ahead, and the winner will be the side better able to keep its nerve. And if anyone finds this confrontation too scary, please keep in mind: The confrontations will only get scarier after the Iranians go nuclear.
Nuclear Hostage Crisis
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24232/pub_detail.asp
By Michael Rubin | April 14, 2006
It is comforting but dangerous and naive to believe a magic formula of incentives and guarantees can defuse the Iranian nuclear crisis. The cost of diplomacy alone is high. The Islamic Republic did not construct its centrifuge cascade overnight. Mr. Ahmadinejad may want glory, but the credit for Iran's nuclear enrichment lies with his reformist and pragmatist predecessors. That Iran is now enriching uranium is a testament to years of diplomatic insincerity.
There is little to negotiate. Either Iran agrees to open its sitesboth declared and undeclaredto unfettered inspection, or it does not. Either Tehran details its dealings with Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, or it does not. While the National Intelligence Estimate says Iran is five to 10 years away from building a bomb, this assumption rests on an entirely domestic program. If Iran purchases weapons-grade material from outside suppliers, all bets are off. North Korea, partner in Washington's last Grand Bargain, would be happy to sell.
The cost of any military strike on Iran would be high, although not as high as the cost of the Islamic Republic gaining nuclear weapons. The Bush administration is paying the price for more than five years without a cogent, coordinated Iran policy. Each passing day limits policy options. Engaging the regime will preserve the problem, not eliminate it. Only when the regime is accountable to the Iranian people can there be a peaceful solution. To do this requires targeted sanctionsfreezing assets and travel banson regimes officials, coupled with augmented and expedited investment in independent rather than government-licensed civil society, labor unions, and media. It may be too late, but it would be irresponsible not to try.
Iran is at War with Us
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24123/pub_detail.asp
By Michael Ledeen | March 28, 2006
It's time to take action against Iran and its half-brother Syria, for the carnage they have unleashed against us and the Iraqis. We know in detail the location of terrorist training camps run by the Iranian and Syrian terror masters; we should strike at them, and at the bases run by Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guards as staging points for terrorist sorties into Iraq. No doubt the Iraqi armed forces would be delighted to participate, instead of constantly playing defense in their own half of the battlefield. And there are potent democratic forces among the Syrian people as well, as worthy of our support as the Iranians.
Once the mullahs and their terrorist allies see that we have understood the nature of this war, that we are determined to promote regime change in Tehran and Damascus, and will not give them a pass on their murderous activities in Iraq, then it might make sense to talk to Khamenei's representatives. We could even expand the agenda from Iraqi matters to the real issue: we could negotiate their departure, and then turn to the organization of national referenda on the form of free governments, and elections to empower the former victims of a murderous and fanatical tyranny that has deluded itself into believing that it is invincible.
Updated Right Web Profiles
Another neoconservative institute that is pushing policy that takes us ever closer to war with Iran is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. FDD has a special project called Ending Irans Genocidal Threat. See Right Webs profiles of FDD and its president Clifford May.Voice of Neocons' Fast-Rising Institute:
In mid-March, FDD president Clifford May commended President Bush's dedication to protecting the free world, and Bush congratulated the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies for making a difference.
See Right Web Profile: Clifford May
Bush Gives Neocon Institute Credit for Iraq:
President Bush commends the work of the fastest-growing neoconservative think tank, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is focused on U.S.-Israeli policy, counterterrorism, and working with "democracy activists" in the Middle East, including Iran.
See Right Web Profile: Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Foreign Policy Analysts Caution Against U.S. Interventionism
The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iranhttp://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3251
By Stephen Zunes | April 28, 2006
A military strike against Iran, either directly by the United States or through Israel, will not likely succeed in curbing Irans nuclear program. Indeed, it will likely motivate the Iranian government, with enhanced popular support in reaction to foreign aggression against their country, to redouble their efforts.
Iran has deliberately spread its nuclear facilities over a wide geographical range, with at least nine major locations. Even the bunker buster bombs may not fully penetrate a number of these facilities, assuming all the secret sites could be located.
The U.S.-backed Israeli raid of Iraqs Osirak reactor in 1981, according to virtually all accounts by Iraqi nuclear scientists, was at most a temporary setback for Saddam Husseins nuclear program and ultimately led to the regime accelerating its timetable for the development of nuclear weapons until it was dismantled under the watch of the UNs International Atomic Energy Agency in the early 1990s. Despite this, the Congress passed a resolution in 1991 defending Israels action and criticizing the United Nations for its opposition to Israels illegal military attack.
The only real solution to the standoff over Irans nuclear program is a diplomatic one. For example, Iran has called for the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone for the entire Middle East in which all nations in the region would be required to give up their nuclear weapons and open up their programs to strict international inspections. Iran has been joined in its proposal by Syria, by U.S. allies Jordan and Egypt, and by other Middle Eastern states. Such nuclear weapons-free zones have already been successfully established for Latin America, the South Pacific, Antarctica, Africa, and Southeast Asia.
Blowback in the Gulf
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3262
By Col. Daniel Smith, U.S. Army (Ret.) | April 28, 2006
The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops. The intelligence agencies say the nuclear threat from this nation is 10 years away, but the director of intelligence paints a more ominous picture. A new U.S. national security strategy trumpets preemptive attacks and highlights the country as a major threat.
That statement by Joe Cirincione, the long-time director of non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace and currently the senior vice president for national security and international affairs at the Center for American Progress, is but one example of what a growing number of analysts see as a repetition of pre-war rhetoric and reports about Iraq now being applied to Iran. The only difference today is that the new director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, agrees with the analytical assessment that Iran is 10 years from a bomb provided they do not buy one from another country such as North Korea.
Although the Bush administration and its coalition of the willing ignored those opposed to war, both in the United States and in other countries, the anti-war movement succeeded in slowing the rush to war in 2002. With regard to Iran, because of the public record on Iraq, one has a better idea of the Bush administrations tactics and can key actions that impede the rush to armed conflict with Iran.
Open Letter to President George Walker Bush
http://www.antiwarpetition.com/
American Middle East Experts | April 21, 2006
We the signatories of this letter have dedicated our lives to studying the Middle East and it is in that capacity and as concerned citizens that we write to strongly oppose and warn against the military option in Iran. As the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no evidence of research or diversion of materials toward atomic weapons in Iran, concerns about future dual use of nuclear technology ought to be addressed in face to face negotiations. Such alternative venues as coercive diplomacy and military action will lead to further militarization and pressures on civil society at the expense of the democratic movement in Iran. The extreme right of the political spectrum of that country will be the sole beneficiary of such policies. The catastrophic regional and global consequences of escalating this crisis will not serve the interests of the United States, the course of democratic development in Iran, or the cause of global peace.
If you would like to see our variety of free ezines and listservs, please go to: http://www.irc-online.org/lists/.
To be removed from this list, please email (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) with "unsubscribe Right Web."
Please click the following link to bookmark this page:
If the link doesn't appear don't worry, your browser doesn't support this function.
Try pressing 'ctrl + d' on a PC or 'cmd + d' if your using a Mac.
New Profiles
Pipes, Daniel
Pipes recently lauded the racist Dutch politician Geert Wilders, calling him "a charismatic, savvy, principled, and outspoken leader."
Adelson, Sheldon
The Casino magnate and key backer of U.S. and Israeli rightwing groups, Sheldon Adelson's free Israeli daily is at the center of a dispute over the future of the country's print media.
United Against Nuclear Iran
The neoconservative-aligned UANI recently launched a new program aimed at pressuring companies that do business with Iran by threatening legal action if they don’t “fully disclose” business dealings in Iran.
Center for Security Policy
Parroting rightwing media talking points, CSP recently questioned whether the Obama administration was really on the side of the United States.
Committee on the Present Danger
At a recent CPD roundtable promoting U.S. missile defenses, participants were presented a video pushing discredited threats, like terrorists employing nuclear-armed ballistic missiles or knocking out the nation's infrastructure using EMP weapons...
The Right Web Mission
Right Web tracks militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy.