HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
Despite
Thin Intelligence Reports, US Plans To Overthrow Iranian Regime
by
Jason Leopold
May
29, 2003
Here
we go again. While postwar Iraq continues to crumble, the Bush administration
is now setting its sights on a new target – Iran – in its so-called effort to
reshape most of the Middle East and bring democracy to countries ruled by
vicious dictators. But the Bush administration is again relying on flimsy
evidence and thin intelligence information in claiming that the Iran poses an
immediate threat to the United States.
The
U.S. still hasn't uncovered any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which was
the prime reason for launching an attack against the country. Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in an interview reported by CNN Tuesday that it's
possible the WMD in Iraq may have been destroyed prior to the war. So, right
now, the Bush administration has a credibility problem similar to that of The
New York Times, which is still reeling from a spectacular scandal that one of
its reporters fabricated dozens of national stories.
In
taking a hardline stance against Iran, the Bush administration is going to have
to do better than "trust us" and this time offer some hard evidence
that countries like Iran pose an immediate threat to U.S. interests.
Still,
if the rhetoric coming out of the White House this week is any indicator, the
U.S. is gearing up for war, again. The reasons, however, are based on
accusations, not tangible evidence.
Ari
Fleischer, Bush's press secretary, said during his daily press briefing Tuesday
that Iran hasn't taken the appropriate steps to round up al Qaeda terrorists
allegedly hiding out within its borders, a claim disputed by the CIA. Moreover,
Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons puts the U.S. in grave danger. Therefore,
regime change is in order.
"The
future of Iran will be determined by the Iranian people, and I think the
Iranian people have a great yearning for government that is representative of
their concerns," Fleischer said.
Fleischer
also said Iran's claim that its nuclear program is designed to produce fuel for
civilian nuclear reactors is a "cover story."
"Our
strong position is that Iran is preparing instead to produce fissile materials
for nuclear weapons," Fleischer said. "That is what we see."
An
Iranian opposition group says the Iranian government is building two secret nuclear
sites that might already be partially operational, producing enriched uranium
that could be used in nuclear weapons.
Alireza
Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, claims
the Iranian government has "planned it" so that it can "be able
to get the bomb by 2005."
The
NCRI provided detailed information about the previously undisclosed sites –
Lashkar-Abad and Ramandeh, about 25 miles west of Tehran, but offered no direct
evidence.
Iranian
officials have denied harboring al-Qaeda operatives and said the country would
vigorously defend itself against any U.S. threat, which in the eyes of the Bush
administration, could set the stage for another war and further increase
anti-American sentiment and put the U.S. in more danger of terrorist attacks,
according to several Democratic lawmakers.
However,
the real cover story is the one the Bush administration is spinning in order to
win public support for what was already planned for Iran months ago, well
before "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Before
the United States military decimated Iraq, the neocons at the highly
influential think tanks the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for
the New American Century were already advising Bush administration
officials, like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, on how to overthrow the
ruling parties in Iran, Libya and Syria after the war in Iraq was over.
Many
of AEI and PNAC's former members are now working in Bush's administration.
PNAC's influence on Bush's foreign and defense policies are so powerful that
many of its recommendations on how to transform the military have already been
adopted by the Pentagon.
But
unlike Iraq, using military force in these other countries to replace the rulers
wasn't being considered as a way to oust the regimes, according to former Bush
administration officials. Whether or not that becomes the course of action now
is debatable, but even if military force isn't used for regime change in Iran
or other Middle Eastern countries the reasons for engaging in political warfare
in that region is just as troubling as the reasons the U.S. launched a military
attack on Iraq: intelligence information that suggests these countries pose an
immediate threat to the U.S. is thin and possibly non-existent.
Still,
the Bush administration has its agenda and it seems that Iran is indeed its
next target. Instead of military action, the Bush administration will encourage
a "popular uprising" in its effort to overthrow Iran's supreme
leader, Ali Khamenei, and lend financial support to Iranians to get the job
done.
To
get Iranians to rise up against its government, U.S. Senator Sam Brownback,
R-Kansas, has drafted an amendment to the Senate Foreign Authorization bill
titled The Iran Democracy Act that calls for using the new Radio Farda to host
programming from Iranian Americans who communicate with their families inside
Iran about the desire for an internationally monitored referendum vote on what
form of government Iran should have.
The
amendment would also provide grants for private radio and TV stations in the
U.S. that broadcast pro-democracy news and information into Iran. The amendment
also provides funds to translate books, videos and other materials into Persian
- specifically, information on building and organizing non-violent social
movements.
Moreover,
Brownback introduced legislation that would establish an Iran Democracy
Foundation to provide grants to the Iranian-American community and for the
radio and TV stations in the U.S. that broadcast directly into Iran.
This
is the type of political warfare the Bush administration believes will force
Iran's government from power. But the Bush administration will have a hard time
convincing Iranians that it can follow through on its promise. For one, anarchy
is running amok in postwar Iraq and many critics have accused the Bush
administration of abandoning its goal of democratizing the country.
Furthermore, Iranians remember how the first President Bush encouraged the
Kurds to rise up against Saddam Hussein during the 1990s only to be abandoned
by that administration and ultimately slaughtered by Hussein.
But
that doesn't stop the think tanks from believing that it can't be done.
"For
Iran, the approach might be compared to the approach the United States and
other democratic states took to Poland in the 1980s," said David Frum,
President Bush's former speechwriter, who is credited with coining the phrase
"axis of evil," in an April 5 presentation at AEI. "In Poland,
as in Iran, an economically incompetent authoritarian regime ruled over an
increasingly angry population. In Poland, as in Iran, a mass opposition
movement rose up against the regime: Solidarity in Poland, the student
democratic movement in Iran. Back in the 1980s, the United States and its
allies never confronted the Polish communists directly. Instead, they imposed
stringent economic sanctions on the regime – and contributed hundreds of
millions of dollars to pay for its covert newspapers and radio stations and to
support the families of jailed or exiled activists…as the regimes economy
disintegrated, the Polish communists were compelled first to open negotiations
with Solidarity, next to permit Solidarity to compete in semi-free elections,
and finally to step aside for a Solidarity government. Fourteen years later,
Poland is a democratic state and a staunch NATO ally."
Richard
Perle, who sits on the Defense Policy Board, a group that advises Rumsfeld, is
more blunt in the reasons for going after Iran and he is not shy about
suggesting that military force be used if necessary.
"The
idea that our victory over Saddam will drive other dictators to develop
chemical and biological weapons misses the key point: They are already doing
so. That's why we may someday need to preempt rather than wait until we are
attacked," Perle said in a letter to AEI members earlier this month.
Michael
Ledeen, another influential AEI scholar, claims that the U.S. ought to
"bag" Iran's regime because of its anti-American views.
"The
Iranian people have shown themselves to be the most pro-American population in
the Muslim world, but the Iranian regime is arguably the most anti-American on
Earth. Let's support the people, and help them bag the regime."
Jason Leopold, formerly the bureau
chief of Dow Jones Newswires, is a freelance journalist based in California,. He
is currently finishing a book on the California energy crisis. He can be
contacted at jasonleopold@hotmail.com.