[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 

Iraq: Failure of Priority

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> General Discussion & Announcements
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:43 pm    Post subject: Iraq: Failure of Priority Reply with quote

Iraq: Failure of Priority

The Bush administration correctly identified the threat to global safety and stability when it pointed to the three nations that it included as an axis of evil. However, it failed in its deeper understanding of the two that are in the middle east. It miscalculated the role of Islam and the interconnection of those two nations. Most importantly, it misidentified its highest priority and the most imminent threat.

More than three years after the invasion of Iraq, it is clearer now more than ever what a circus Iraq has become. Month after month, it seems that America is being set back further and further instead of approaching its intended goal. No one can at this point deny the mess that is Iraq. The Republicans have lost both houses, the Secretary of Defense just got fired, the President essentially admits he is in a losing strategic situation, a Committee of “Experts” has been appointed to make recommendations on how to improve the disaster, and most Americans are calling for a withdrawal in the immediate future. America is living its deja vous of Vietnam.

How could this happen to the most mighty military of the world?

As with Vietnam, America’s failure stemmed again from not having clear military goals, and from expecting the military to fill in the gap of a sound strategic agenda. America’s flaw was not its military failure, but objective failure.

To conquer a place is not a great achievement, I always say. To hold a place is the achievement. It was clear from the beginning of the invasion that America would have no problem conquering Iraq. The challenge would lie in holding and securing Iraq. To hold and secure a place comes not only from military might, but from correct planning and policy before the invasion even begins.

So what was America’s biggest strategic mistake?

Miscalculating the role of Islam and the way that Iran fit into the problem. It is evident that Bush planned initially to control Iraq and Afghanistan, and then to turn to Iran. That was a big mistake of priority. The Iraq of 2003 was small potatoes compared to the Iran of 2003 in its significance and threat. Though Saddam was a threat to the region and needed to be removed eventually, his position was too weak to pose a real danger at the time. The real danger came from Iran, and continues to come from Iran. Iran was and continues to be a clear and present danger. Iran is the one that is actively pursuing WMD’s and is the single greatest contributor to terrorism in the world, funded by the resources of the single most powerful nation of the middle east.

It was a fatal error to enter Iraq without first dealing with Iran. The first strike in any fight is usually the most decisive. It makes sense to first take out the biggest and strongest foe prior to turning attention to smaller foes. Yet, America did the opposite. It chased after the weaker Iraq while leaving Iran intact and capable of tormenting it.

The other mistake was not recognizing the importance of Islam in that region as it pertains to political power. The majority of Iraq is Shia. There is a great inter-relationship that binds Iran and Iraq that goes back millennia. What is the term “Iraq?” It means “lower Iran.” It has been a part of Iran since the time of the Achaemenids. Mesopotamia has fallen in and out of Iran’s hands throughout the millennia, and shares a great bond with Iran. Only after the arrival of Islam in the 7th century did Mesopotamia significantly separate from Iran proper. Ironically, the cultural separation that occurred back then was followed by another more sinister bond shortly thereafter: the bond of Shia Islam.

That bond was sealed with the Saffavid dynasty, which named Shia Islam as the state religion in order to better unify the empire. Prior to the Saffavids, even though the Shia sect existed it was not politically significant. Under the Saffavids, Mesopotamia’s bond with Iran was rekindled with the fire of Shia Islam, and that connection continues to this day. Incidentally, the time of the Saffavids was the last time that Mesopotamia existed within the borders of Iran. Soon thereafter it would be a part of the Ottoman Empire up until its disintegration after WWI. In the aftermath of WWI, that Empire was arbitrarily carved up into smaller regions that eventually gained independence as artificial Arabic nations, one of which was Iraq.

It is for that reason that Iraq’s sense of national identity is relatively weak. It is a nation that should have never been. Although Mesopotamia was the home of one of the earliest and brightest civilizations, that civilization died long ago. Its traces are more alive in the Iranian civilization than in Iraq. Other than that civilization itself, that region has only been a province of one Empire after the next, never again finding its own identity. The people of that nation therefore have no connection to a central government and form bonds only within tribal networks or reach out to another concept altogether: religion. Within this outreach, they become the pawns of their Iranian counterparts and Mullahs. Furthermore, Islam itself was a religion custom made for recruiting subjects for war. Islam was created for war and thrives in times of war.

The result is that via religious authority the Islamic government in Iran weighs a heavy political control in Iraq. Iran has in this way turned the tables on the Americans and has made Iraq a nightmare. It has no shortage of willing participants, and it provides them with superb training, arming and funding prior to unleashing them upon the Americans and other Iraqis. Added to this are other non-Shia terrorist organizations that target the Shias and Americans and the recipe becomes complete for the American nightmare.

Iran is really at war with the US. It has been ever since the first hostage was taken in 1979. America is just not honest enough with itself to admit it. Over and again, the current regime in Tehran has committed acts of war against the US. The scenario has become more heated since the Iraqi invasion. Iran is also at war with Israel. This was demonstrated last summer with the war in Lebanon that the Iranian Hezbollah waged upon Israel.

So long as the Islamists hold power in Tehran and control the resources of that relatively powerful and important nation, a US victory is impossible and extremely costly at best. One cannot fight a monster by engaging only its tentacles. This monster grows new tentacles very easily. It must be engaged at its head; at its source. The Mullahs can keep this up forever if their fight is carried out only in Iraq, Lebanon, or other third party nations. The US, however, will grow weary as it already has and will be forced into defeat.

The war in Iraq is un-winnable in Iraq. The US must realize this, and realize it fast before it’s too late. If it simply abandons Iraq or is defeated there, the Shia Mullahs will become even more powerful.

Had America held off on invading Iraq until the Mullah regime was dispatched first, then it could have taken its time and tried different avenues in neutralizing Iran. However, now that it has made the error of committing to Iraq first, it does not have the luxury of time when dealing with Iran. It must act, and it must act now.

Its only recourse in securing global security is to bring about the demise of this regime by any means possible before it completely loses Iraq.

There are many means to bring about such a demise, many of which are peaceful. However, unlike its prior track-record, it must be fully committed to the task. A pitiful gesture such as allocating 70 million dollars for radio / television subsidization of dissidents is laughable and will have no serious effect. The IR spends ten times as much on its propaganda, if not more. Furthermore, information propagation will only go so far. More serious steps need to be taken, and a far larger budget must be committed.

The current war in Iraq is costing about 80 billion dollars per year. What is 70 million compared to that? It is peanuts. America is spending 1000 times as much fighting the tentacles of the beast than engaging that beast in its lair. Ironically, with that humongous effort in Iraq both in dollar amount as well as human toll, America will get no-where.

If peaceful means do not prove effective almost immediately, then America must act militarily in Iran. I have for long condemned the idea of American military action against my homeland, hoping that peaceful change will occur. The events of the past year have served to nullify my prior notion that Iran can and should only be freed by the hands of Iranians. Perhaps that is possible, but seeing the direction that Iran is headed a delay in its freedom will mean a greater cost to itself as well as the rest of the world. Furthermore, the American error of creating a mess in Iraq that the Mullahs are now reaping has forced the need for the expedition of regime change in Iran.

The US has been following the avenue of nuclear proliferation in order to get at Iran. That is an important reason, but it is not its only ticket to Tehran. As previously mentioned, Iran has been at war with America for decades now. Its role in Iraq is a clear act of war against America. Should it wish, the US has the justification it needs to attack this regime in any way it wishes, including an all out invasion.

Many would view a military strike on Iran in the midst of an already unpopular war in Iraq as madness. However, when viewed with the knowledge that Iraq is what it is mostly because of Iran, that apparently insane strategy makes perfect sense. With the removal of the Mullah regime in Tehran, the Iraqi situation will be greatly pacified. With the removal of the Mullahs, more than half of the world’s terrorism will collapse, with the other half being placed on death row.

It will be a very difficult sell to the American people to attack Iran given the failure in Iraq. It will be unpopular to say the least. However, the President must follow the correct strategy, not the popular strategy. Given America’s dire situation in the middle east currently, it has little more to lose. This administration has already been deemed a failure in its middle east policy. If Bush does nothing in regard to Iran, he will still go down in history as the buffoon that lost Iraq and the middle east to Islamic terrorism. However, if he takes a chance and goes for the head of the monster, he may yet salvage the ME, Iraq, Iran, and indeed the world. He may turn defeat into an astonishing victory. He may turn his legacy from failure to reverence. More importantly, he may turn American fear into American security.

It is said that it is always darkest right before dawn. There is still a chance to turn this disaster into success. It is time to go for bust.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reasons for Bush Admin Failure in Iraq Reply with quote


Reasons for Bush Admin Failure in Iraq, Iran policy :
1- In Past 6 years Bush Admin ignored the push for Human Rights, Secular Democracy, Free Society for Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan
2- Bush Admin ignored Dr. Constantine C. Menges warning before his death regarding massive spending by Islamic Fascists occupiers of Iran in Iraq....
3- Bush Admin should not have allowed Islamic Fascists occupiers of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah to participate in political process when they don't agree with the concept of secular democracy ...
4- FREE Elections are meaningful process when we can establish FREE Societies .....
5- When there is no security, the Elections can not provide optimal solution.


Dr. Constantine Menges wrote:

And therefore the Iranian dictatorship diverted large amounts of money, probably billions of dollars, from the oil revenues from the things that could help the people of Iran in order to accomplish it’s, it’s power objectives in Iraq. And prepared the five major components of it’s secret war in Iraq to take over that country and to oppose the United States and force the United States out of the Middle-East.


Dr. Constantine Menges wrote:
And therefore the Iranian dictatorship diverted large amounts of money, probably billions of dollars, from the oil revenues from the things that could help the people of Iran in order to accomplish it’s, it’s power objectives in Iraq. And prepared the five major components of it’s secret war in Iraq to take over that country and to oppose the United States and force the United States out of the Middle-East.



To So Called Realist Appeasers Who Do Not See The Difference Between Islamic Fascists Occupiers Of Iran and Communist China ....


FREE Society, Human Rights, Secular Democracy movements in Iran abandoned, genuine allies and admirers of the United States left to fend for themselves; this is not the moral or intellectual compass we should follow to please EU3, China, Russia Neo Colonialists and Saudi Arabia if USA wish to be a progressive Super Power.
1. The "War on Terror" which is a subset of "War on Taazi" UNWINNABLE and the world peace can not be achieved as long as the Unelected Taazi Islamists Terror and Torture Masters are in power in Iran. The TAAZI terror state and fear society can not create peace and stability.

2. President Bush must support clear and open policy calling for regime change in Iran.
3. The Administration must abandon its failed policy of “Afghanistan yesterday, Iraq today, Iran maybe tomorrow”, and confront the threat from the IRI regime immediately. The War on Terror can not be fought in serial and slowly ....
4. President Bush must deliver an ultimatum to the IRI's primary hidden supporters (Britain) and secondary supporters (France, Germany, EU, Japan, Canada, Russia, and China) to stop giving economic assistance, intelligence assistance, or other assistance to the regime. The EU, in particular, should not use resources stolen from the Iranian people to finance its own failed welfare state.
5- We have come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with this unelected and undemocratic regime is to deal with it strongly and with a comprehensive set of measures. The measures that we recommend and strongly advocate are as follows:

* Stop, with immediate effect, all international trades with the undemocratic Islamic “Republic” of Iran.
*Stop the purchase of oil from Iran and refrain from signing any new contracts and renewal of any existing ones.
* Blockade Iran’s ports in the Persian Gulf and possibly the Caspian Sea allowing passage of food and medicine.
*Stop all IRI satellite TV and Radio programming to the outside world.
* Cease all Mullahs personal assets outside Iran including its support organization such as Alavi Foundation in New York City.
* Freeze IRI assets outside of Iran and impose prohibition on investment, a travel ban, and asset freezes for government leaders and nuclear scientists.
* Worldwide announcement to all nations that any deals and contracts made with IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) by any entity is null and void. The IRI does not represent Iranians.
* Publicly identify known IRI agents, arrest and prosecute their agents abroad as promoters of international terrorism and abusers of human rights. Shut down all illegal unregistered agent organizations representing IRI interests, their lobbyist and apologists.
* Close or limit Islamic Republic’s embassies and its activities including travel limits on Iranian diplomats.
* Release the frozen assets of Iran to the IRI opposition to be spent on strike funds and promotion of democracy.
* Expel IRI representatives from UN since the IRI constitution is contrary to the UDHR (Universal Declarations of Human Rights).

Please remember; the key to salvation of Iraq is also in freedom of Iran. The freedom-loving countries of the world must unite and assist Iranian people to end this embarrassment to humanity and civility called Islamic Republic and allow Iran to come back to the arms of the civilized nations.




AmirN wrote:
The Bush administration correctly identified the threat to global safety and stability when it pointed to the three nations that it included as an axis of evil. However, it failed in its deeper understanding of the two that are in the middle east. It miscalculated the role of Islam and the interconnection of those two nations. Most importantly, it misidentified its highest priority and the most imminent threat.

More than three years after the invasion of Iraq, it is clearer now more than ever what a circus Iraq has become. Month after month, it seems that America is being set back further and further instead of approaching its intended goal. No one can at this point deny the mess that is Iraq. The Republicans have lost both houses, the Secretary of Defense just got fired, the President essentially admits he is in a losing strategic situation, a Committee of “Experts” has been appointed to make recommendations on how to improve the disaster, and most Americans are calling for a withdrawal in the immediate future. America is living its deja vous of Vietnam.

How could this happen to the most mighty military of the world?

As with Vietnam, America’s failure stemmed again from not having clear military goals, and from expecting the military to fill in the gap of a sound strategic agenda. America’s flaw was not its military failure, but objective failure.

To conquer a place is not a great achievement, I always say. To hold a place is the achievement. It was clear from the beginning of the invasion that America would have no problem conquering Iraq. The challenge would lie in holding and securing Iraq. To hold and secure a place comes not only from military might, but from correct planning and policy before the invasion even begins.

So what was America’s biggest strategic mistake?

Miscalculating the role of Islam and the way that Iran fit into the problem. It is evident that Bush planned initially to control Iraq and Afghanistan, and then to turn to Iran. That was a big mistake of priority. The Iraq of 2003 was small potatoes compared to the Iran of 2003 in its significance and threat. Though Saddam was a threat to the region and needed to be removed eventually, his position was too weak to pose a real danger at the time. The real danger came from Iran, and continues to come from Iran. Iran was and continues to be a clear and present danger. Iran is the one that is actively pursuing WMD’s and is the single greatest contributor to terrorism in the world, funded by the resources of the single most powerful nation of the middle east.

It was a fatal error to enter Iraq without first dealing with Iran. The first strike in any fight is usually the most decisive. It makes sense to first take out the biggest and strongest foe prior to turning attention to smaller foes. Yet, America did the opposite. It chased after the weaker Iraq while leaving Iran intact and capable of tormenting it.

The other mistake was not recognizing the importance of Islam in that region as it pertains to political power. The majority of Iraq is Shia. There is a great inter-relationship that binds Iran and Iraq that goes back millennia. What is the term “Iraq?” It means “lower Iran.” It has been a part of Iran since the time of the Achaemenids. Mesopotamia has fallen in and out of Iran’s hands throughout the millennia, and shares a great bond with Iran. Only after the arrival of Islam in the 7th century did Mesopotamia significantly separate from Iran proper. Ironically, the cultural separation that occurred back then was followed by another more sinister bond shortly thereafter: the bond of Shia Islam.

That bond was sealed with the Saffavid dynasty, which named Shia Islam as the state religion in order to better unify the empire. Prior to the Saffavids, even though the Shia sect existed it was not politically significant. Under the Saffavids, Mesopotamia’s bond with Iran was rekindled with the fire of Shia Islam, and that connection continues to this day. Incidentally, the time of the Saffavids was the last time that Mesopotamia existed within the borders of Iran. Soon thereafter it would be a part of the Ottoman Empire up until its disintegration after WWI. In the aftermath of WWI, that Empire was arbitrarily carved up into smaller regions that eventually gained independence as artificial Arabic nations, one of which was Iraq.

It is for that reason that Iraq’s sense of national identity is relatively weak. It is a nation that should have never been. Although Mesopotamia was the home of one of the earliest and brightest civilizations, that civilization died long ago. Its traces are more alive in the Iranian civilization than in Iraq. Other than that civilization itself, that region has only been a province of one Empire after the next, never again finding its own identity. The people of that nation therefore have no connection to a central government and form bonds only within tribal networks or reach out to another concept altogether: religion. Within this outreach, they become the pawns of their Iranian counterparts and Mullahs. Furthermore, Islam itself was a religion custom made for recruiting subjects for war. Islam was created for war and thrives in times of war.

The result is that via religious authority the Islamic government in Iran weighs a heavy political control in Iraq. Iran has in this way turned the tables on the Americans and has made Iraq a nightmare. It has no shortage of willing participants, and it provides them with superb training, arming and funding prior to unleashing them upon the Americans and other Iraqis. Added to this are other non-Shia terrorist organizations that target the Shias and Americans and the recipe becomes complete for the American nightmare.

Iran is really at war with the US. It has been ever since the first hostage was taken in 1979. America is just not honest enough with itself to admit it. Over and again, the current regime in Tehran has committed acts of war against the US. The scenario has become more heated since the Iraqi invasion. Iran is also at war with Israel. This was demonstrated last summer with the war in Lebanon that the Iranian Hezbollah waged upon Israel.

So long as the Islamists hold power in Tehran and control the resources of that relatively powerful and important nation, a US victory is impossible and extremely costly at best. One cannot fight a monster by engaging only its tentacles. This monster grows new tentacles very easily. It must be engaged at its head; at its source. The Mullahs can keep this up forever if their fight is carried out only in Iraq, Lebanon, or other third party nations. The US, however, will grow weary as it already has and will be forced into defeat.

The war in Iraq is un-winnable in Iraq. The US must realize this, and realize it fast before it’s too late. If it simply abandons Iraq or is defeated there, the Shia Mullahs will become even more powerful.

Had America held off on invading Iraq until the Mullah regime was dispatched first, then it could have taken its time and tried different avenues in neutralizing Iran. However, now that it has made the error of committing to Iraq first, it does not have the luxury of time when dealing with Iran. It must act, and it must act now.

Its only recourse in securing global security is to bring about the demise of this regime by any means possible before it completely loses Iraq.

There are many means to bring about such a demise, many of which are peaceful. However, unlike its prior track-record, it must be fully committed to the task. A pitiful gesture such as allocating 70 million dollars for radio / television subsidization of dissidents is laughable and will have no serious effect. The IR spends ten times as much on its propaganda, if not more. Furthermore, information propagation will only go so far. More serious steps need to be taken, and a far larger budget must be committed.

The current war in Iraq is costing about 80 billion dollars per year. What is 70 million compared to that? It is peanuts. America is spending 1000 times as much fighting the tentacles of the beast than engaging that beast in its lair. Ironically, with that humongous effort in Iraq both in dollar amount as well as human toll, America will get no-where.

If peaceful means do not prove effective almost immediately, then America must act militarily in Iran. I have for long condemned the idea of American military action against my homeland, hoping that peaceful change will occur. The events of the past year have served to nullify my prior notion that Iran can and should only be freed by the hands of Iranians. Perhaps that is possible, but seeing the direction that Iran is headed a delay in its freedom will mean a greater cost to itself as well as the rest of the world. Furthermore, the American error of creating a mess in Iraq that the Mullahs are now reaping has forced the need for the expedition of regime change in Iran.

The US has been following the avenue of nuclear proliferation in order to get at Iran. That is an important reason, but it is not its only ticket to Tehran. As previously mentioned, Iran has been at war with America for decades now. Its role in Iraq is a clear act of war against America. Should it wish, the US has the justification it needs to attack this regime in any way it wishes, including an all out invasion.

Many would view a military strike on Iran in the midst of an already unpopular war in Iraq as madness. However, when viewed with the knowledge that Iraq is what it is mostly because of Iran, that apparently insane strategy makes perfect sense. With the removal of the Mullah regime in Tehran, the Iraqi situation will be greatly pacified. With the removal of the Mullahs, more than half of the world’s terrorism will collapse, with the other half being placed on death row.

It will be a very difficult sell to the American people to attack Iran given the failure in Iraq. It will be unpopular to say the least. However, the President must follow the correct strategy, not the popular strategy. Given America’s dire situation in the middle east currently, it has little more to lose. This administration has already been deemed a failure in its middle east policy. If Bush does nothing in regard to Iran, he will still go down in history as the buffoon that lost Iraq and the middle east to Islamic terrorism. However, if he takes a chance and goes for the head of the monster, he may yet salvage the ME, Iraq, Iran, and indeed the world. He may turn defeat into an astonishing victory. He may turn his legacy from failure to reverence. More importantly, he may turn American fear into American security.

It is said that it is always darkest right before dawn. There is still a chance to turn this disaster into success. It is time to go for bust.


Superb article by AmirN.

Interview wrote:
Constantine Menges, Senior Reagan Adviser, Passes
NewsMax Wires
Monday, July 12, 2004




Dr. Constantine C. Menges, a senior foreign policy adviser to Ronald Reagan, passed away this Sunday after a quiet struggle with cancer.

A senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, Dr. Menges, 64, was one of the architects of Ronald Reagan’s effort to defeat the Soviet Union.

“Dr. Menges was a heroic figure in the Reagan White House,” former ambassador Faith Whittlesey said. Whittlesey served as the U.S. ambassador to Switzerland and on the senior staff of the Reagan White House. “He played a major role in the White House, oftentimes behind the scenes, in helping Bill Casey, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Bill Clarke not only devise the strategy that defeated the Soviets, but in implementing it.”

Dr. Menges had joined the Reagan administration at the urging of CIA Director William J. Casey and he served briefly at the agency as its National Intelligence Officer for Latin America.

In 1983 he left the CIA and joined the White House’s National Security Council to serve as special assistant to the president for National Security Affairs.

Among his many policy achievements, Dr. Menges may be best remembered for having been the key advocate and planner for the successful U.S. effort to liberate Grenada in 1983.

The successful military operation – sometimes referred to as the “Menges Plan” – liberated the island nation from a Castro-backed communist government. The Grenada liberation has been described as a major turning point in U.S. Cold War strategy.

During the 1980s Menges became a champion of implementing President Reagan’s anti-communist efforts in Latin America, including support for the “Contra” insurgency that threatened the Marxist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

Dr. Menges helped form the Reagan administration’s policy of supporting indigenous democratic forces that could combat what he viewed as the Soviet’s “indirect aggression” against the West. The policy meant limited costs and no risk of U.S. casualties.

In his book “Inside the National Security Council: The True Story of the Making and Unmaking of Reagan’s Foreign Policy,” Dr. Menges argued that the National Security Council's main role was to offer the president the best, most impartial information for decision-making.

During the Reagan years, however, Dr. Menges revealed that the State Department often acted to thwart presidential directives and subvert the national security process. He complained that the failure of several senior Reagan aides to follow this process had led to the Iran-Contra scandal.

After leaving government, Dr. Menges continued his academic work on foreign policy and national security matters. He regularly briefed members of Congress and senior government officials on emerging threats.

In recent years, he warned of three major threats against the United States. These included:

# Growing pro-Castro alliance throughout Latin America. Dr. Menges warned that a foreign policy disaster of titanic proportions was festering in Latin America, as pro-Castro regimes had taken root in Venezuela, Brazil and other countries. He noted that more than 220 million Latinos had fallen into Castro’s orbit in the past few years due to U.S. foreign policy negligence.

# State-sponsored terror. A strong supporter of President Bush’s war on terror, Dr. Menges believed the U.S. was wise to focus upon state sponsors of terror, including Iraq. But from the earliest days of the U.S. effort to remove Saddam Hussein, Dr. Menges said that Iran would try to subvert U.S. efforts in southern Iraq. He suggested the Bush administration had not adequately prepared to deal with Iran’s subversion. He claimed the Iranians had already poured $1 billion into Iraq to support thousands of subversive agents.

# China’s superpower rise. Dr. Menges believed the U.S. should continue to engage China in trade and cultural matters, but believed the U.S. should put strict linkages between U.S. economic ties and demands for human rights. Dr. Menges saw China as an emerging superpower that could pose new dangers to the U.S. At the time of his death he was completing his latest book, “China, The Gathering Threat.”

Dr. Menges is survived by his beloved wife, Nancy, and his son, Christopher.


LISTEN NOW!:
[url=http://tofoiran.packdeal.com/clips/Radio-Sedaye-Iran/20040502-20.asx ]Dr. Constantine C. Menges discusses the regime in Iran, the Mullah's malicious intentions, and the FUTURE OF FREEDOM in Iran and Iraq.[/url]
(English and Persian Translation By Dr. Iman Foroutan S.O.S Iran)
LISTEN NOW!:

Dr. Constantine C. Menges discusses the regime change in Iran


http://tofoiran.packdeal.com/clips/Radio-Sedaye-Iran/20040502-20.asx

http://tofoiran.packdeal.com/clips/Radio-Sedaye-Iran/20040502-10.asx

http://tofoiran.packdeal.com/clips/Radio-Sedaye-Iran/20040502-06.asx


cyrus wrote:
KRSI Radio Interview – Sunday, May 2, 2004

Guest: Dr. Constantine Menges, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Interviewer/Translator: Dr. Iman Foroutan, Executive Director, S.O.S. IRAN (www.sosiran.com)
*********************************************************************

Dr. Menges, Welcome to Radio Sedaye Iran KRSI

It’s good to be with you this morning.

Iman - Thank you. I’m sorry I started the program in Farsi but I had to tell our audience that ah how fortunate we are to have you this morning here and gave a brief background of all the fantastic work you have done in the past and for the goals of democracy world wide in your career. And briefly mentioned your work about Iran. Ah Dr. Menges um I was going to ask you, before we get into specific questions, would you be kind enough to have some opening remarks with regards to your own analysis of Iran’s roll in today’s ah political environment and atmosphere especially with regard to Iraq, U.S. policies and how you see things going and then we can get into details.

eh with, my pleasure. I would want to tell your listeners I’m an immigrant like many of those in the Iranian exile movement who’s family apposed a terrible dictatorship this one in Nazi Germany and who my father was in the democratic opposition and then was arrested and was able to get out in time and so I came here as an immigrant and like so many of you in the Iranian exile movement I’m pleased that the United States of America gave my family refuge and the opportunity for freedom. And of course it’s the freedom of every human being that President Bush seeks also that the people of Iraq and the people of Iran can be free that they live ah normal lives without having a coercive brutal and repressive regime imposing on them.

I will have to translate as we go along if you don’t mind?
Iman translates

And I ah have been privileged to be able to work on behalf of human freedom and democracy in the United States in various roles including in the government, as I know you said, working for three Presidents um and I have been deeply concerned by the actions of the dictatorship in Iran since it came to power in 1979. Ah we know that the Iranian regime has is the most active state sponsor of terror in the world. That it is developing weapons of mass destruction. Taking hundreds of millions of dollars from the people of Iran in order to develop these terrible weapons. Chemical biological and nuclear weapons and we know that the Iranian regime has been brutal and repressive at home and has denied many, many people in Iran their rights. So there is. I begin looking at the dictatorship in Iran with a great deal of concern.

Iman translates

Perhaps your listeners are surprised if I talk about the dictatorship in Iran. Um I, because of course, it has permitted elections and there has been some degree of political competition and some degree of openness for those elections. However, as every citizen in Iran knows, the Supreme Leader actually controls the real power in Iran through his direct control over the secret police, the military, all the media, the appointment of the prayer leaders, and through the council of guardians and the expediency council which can both deny people the right to run for election and can veto legislation on it’s own. And these institutions of small numbers of people are controlled by the leader who in my view and according to the view of most individuals who are clerics in the clergy of the Shiite Islamic clergy is acting in a heretical way. Because under Shiite Islam the clergy is not supposed to rule directly and the Khomeini view of this is a heresy in Islam. But is a dictatorship with some process of elections attached to it.

Iman translates

And I eh, as to the international actions of the Iranian dictatorship, we must recall the fact that it is the Iranian dictatorship that in 1979 declared war against the United States calling it the great Satan. And saying the United States had to be destroyed. And the Untied States and its allies also in the region had to be destroyed. And we know that the Iranian dictatorship also began a great deal of terrorist secret terrorist warfare not only against the United States but also against Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and other countries. Which did not have Islamic regimes to its liking in the 1980’s.

Iman Translates

And as part of that secret warfare, through terrorism that the secret Iranian dictatorship has conducted it has killed an estimated 1,500 Americans. And until Sept. 11th 2001, more Americans have died at the hands of the Iranian dictatorship than from any other source of terrorism.

Iman Translates

And we should recall that it was the terrorist movement Hezbollah supported by Iran in which with headquarters in Syria occupied Lebanon that not only helped destroy Lebanon but also blew up the U.S. embassy in 1983 in Lebanon and some months later killed, in one night, 241 marines who were there on a peacekeeping mission. As a dramatic, and the Khobar Towers attack in the mid 90”s in Saudi Arabia is a further example of some of this secret warfare through terrorism that Iran has waged directly against the United States.

Iman Translates

As with many other aggressive dictatorships the paradox is that while the Iranian dictatorship is brittle and vulnerable at home because of the broad opposition and disaffection of the people after 25 years of repression, economic failure and um extreme control efforts of control. It is effective in international secret warfare aggressive secret warfare and has been for all the 25 years of its existence, as it uses terrorism to kill innocent men, women and children in other countries.

Iman translates

If we look at Afghanistan it is paradoxical that after the brave Afghan Muslim resistance movements were able to um force the Soviet Union to leave to withdraw its troops ah it is… it was Iran, the Iranian dictatorship, that incited ah and funded Gobadine Hecmachar and other pro-Iranian organizations to prevent what would have been the consolidation of moderate Islamic constitutional republic in 1989 - 90 since five of the seven armed resistance groups in Afghanistan wanted to establish that but it was stopped by Iran’s secret warfare which created chaos and disorganization in Afghanistan. Opening the way then to Pakistan’s creation of the Taliban as another form of ah Islamic fundamental dictatorship. That then took over.

Iman translates

The Afghan Taliban regime then gave ah facilities, training camps and facilities to the Al-Qaida Islamic extremist movement, which in many respects, I think, drew it inspiration from the extremism of the Iranian dictatorship. And that in turn lead to the expansion of terrorist attacks in the 1990’s and ultimately to the massive attack on the United States on September 11th 2001. And then the correct actions of President Bush in using military force to remove the Taliban regime in the fall of 2001

Iman translates

Once the Taliban regime had been removed ah the Iranian regime then immediately used secret warfare methods again, in infiltrating into Afghanistan again, many armed Afghans whom it had trained and funded and working with several individuals in Afghanistan to begin a campaign to prevent the stabilization of the new government. um and eh this these secret warfare activities in Afghanistan are a large part of the explanation of why things there are still unsettled and not yet stable in a constitutional and a smooth constitutional republic.

Iman translates

And that brings me to the current situation in Iraq. Ah where Iran has also positioned itself to wage a intense secret war against the people of Iraq who constitutional democracy and against the United States and all those who are trying to support them.

Iman translates

I want to make clear to the listeners in Iran that I understand that it was Iraq and the bathist dictatorship of Saddam Hussein that began the terrible war in 1980 against Iran intending in the expected confusion after the coming to power of Khomeini take some of the Iranian territory and oil fields. Iraq was responsible for beginning the war, which cost millions of lives in both countries most tragically.

Iman translates

And it was Iraq also, the Iraq secular dictatorship of Saddam Hussein that invaded Kuwait in the summer of 1990 occupied it and was exceptionally brutal toward the people of Kuwait until the United States lead a broad coalition which forced Iraq out of Kuwait and liberated Kuwait and um pushed the Iraqi forces out. And lead to a peace agreement under which Iraq was required to disarm and surrender all of its weapons of mass destruction and many categories of weapons.

Iman translates

A part of the brutality of Saddam Hussein and an important part was his persecution of the Shiite Islam his killing of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Shiite Muslims leading then additional hundreds of thousands fleeing to Iran ah to save their lives and to avoid terrible persecution that the Saddam Hussein dictatorship unleashed upon the Shiite Muslims of Iraq.

Iman translates

It was good that Iran gave the Shiite of Iraq refuge and let them come in and let them live peacefully and avoid the terrible persecution and brutality of Saddam Hussein.

Iman translates

And while a hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shiites were living in Iran’s territory, the Iranian dictatorship decided it would try to recruit some of them to become its allies in a future effort to bring about in Iraq a Shiite regime like that in Iran. That is the rule of the clergy, Shiite extremist regime, like that in Iran that would be pro-Iranian and closely linked to the current dictatorship in Iran.

Iman translates

The Iranian dictatorship did not want to have the Saddam Hussein dictatorship succeeded by a moderate constitutional democracy for fear of the example this would set for the people of Iran and the inspiration it would give them for them to liberate themselves also from the clerical dictatorship.

Iman translates

And therefore the Iranian dictatorship diverted large amounts of money, probably billions of dollars, from the oil revenues from the things that could help the people of Iran in order to accomplish it’s, it’s power objectives in Iraq. And prepared the five major components of it’s secret war in Iraq to take over that country and to oppose the United States and force the United States out of the Middle-East.

Iman translates

Before I describe these five I want to make clear that it is my judgment that the overwhelming majority of Shiite Muslim in Iraq, as in Iran, desire a moderate free constitutional government. They do not want to live under an extremist clerical dictatorship. And that his also true for the overwhelming majority of Iraqi exiles who were in Iran and who have now returned to Iraq. They want to have a moderate constitutional government and to live in peace with Iran and at peace with all their neighbors.

Iman translates

What we know from history and the history of many counties including the country where I come from, where I came from originally, Germany, that violent minorities can overwhelm the good intentions and hopes of the peaceful majorities in counties if the violent minorities are organized and ruthless and the peaceful majorities don’t get the help they need to defend themselves and to establish moderate constitutional institutions.

Iman translates

Now let’s come to the five major aspects of Iran’s secret war activities ah against freedom and democracy in Iraq and against the U.S. and its allies in Iraq. Um, first Iran established on its territory with Iraqi exiles during the 1990’s a political organization called the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. SCIRI the initials SCIRI the initials spell in brief and Iran has also secretly funded in large measure the DOWA political party, which is an Islamic fundamentalist political party ah that has eah from Iraq.

Iman translates

Once the liberation of Iraq from the Saddam Hussein dictatorship began in March 2003. Iran told the Iraqi exiles who were members of this political organization were told to return to Iraq and to begin organizing politically in each town trying to take over political authority town by town and prepare the way to either govern that way or to win elections. With, of course, secret large secret Iranian funds that would be given to them.

Iman translates

While all member of this Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq are not necessarily Iranian agents, the leadership is directed and controlled by Iran. And it views itself as allies of Iran. And when the senior leader, the Ayatollah Mohammad Saeed A Hakim was cooperative with the coalition provisional authority in the summer of 2003 he was killed on August 29, 2003 in two simultaneous suicide bombings which killed another 94 people and which I believe were the products of Iranian cover action and which an Iranian defector has also said came and from the actions of the Iranian dictatorship.

Iman translates

It is worth remembering that tragic murder of 95 people took place outside the very holy shrine of Imom Ali in Najaff, Iraq. And, um, I would also note that the bother of Ayatollah Hakim, who succeeded as the new leader if the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq has since been totally cooperative with the Iranian dictatorship. And totally carries out their purposes and wishes ever since. So that’s one component, the political component, is one of the five.

Iman translates

The second component of Iran’s secret war to take over Iraq is Moktada al-Sadr, who is the son of Ayatollah al Sadr. Who was a close ally of Khomeini and agreed with the Shiite clerisy should rule directly and who was tragically murdered by Saddam Hussein.

Iman translates

Moktada al-Sadr, in my judgment is responsible for the murder of Ayatollah al Quee who is a, was a very wonderful Shiite cleric who had been in exile from the Saddam Hussein dictatorship in England and returned to Iraq after the liberation in April of 2003.

Iman translates

The younger Ayatollah al Quee was the son of the former grand Ayatollah of Iraq who actually had been an opponent of Ayatollah Badra and of Khomeini and adhered to the traditional Shiite view that the clergy should be an important source of spiritual guidance in the society but should not rule societies directly. And it’s Moktada al-Sadr that who then killed the son of the opponent of his father who would have been an important source of leadership for a moderate clergy for traditional Shiite view of the roll of the clergy and for cooperation in the process of moving Iraq from dictatorship to modern constitutional democracy with respect for Islam and a special place for Islam.

Iman translates

Your listeners in Iran should know that the Iraq judicial officials have issued a warrant for the arrest of Moktada al-Sadr for the murder of Ayatollah al Quee and in April of 2003. It’s also important to remember that two days after the murder of Ayatollah al Quee it is supporters of Moktada al-Sadr who surrounded the home of the current Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Iraq. Surrounded the home and demanded that he leave Iraq immediately. An example of this war within the clergy that Iran is waging against the moderate the moderate majority of the Iraqi clergy trying to bring the violent minority to power through the activities of Moktada al-Sadr. Among other things that Iran is doing.

Iman translates

Your listeners may ask, “How do I know Moktada al-Sadr is working so closely with Iran”. The answer is that Moktada al-Sadr’s actions precisely carry out the purposes of Iran but more importantly he went on June 6th 2003 at the commemoration of the death of Khomeini to visit in Iran where he met with Ayatolla Hararei who is an Iraqi Shiite cleric who agrees with the Iranian dictatorship that the clergy should rule and who I believe is the Iranian dictatorship’s candidate to be the successor to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. He met with him but he also met with Ayatollah Rafsinjani and in Qume with Kasim Solomen Mani who is commander of the International Revolutionary Guard Corps Jerusalem forces responsible for Iran’s aggressive cover action.

Iman translates

The, at the time a year ago Moktada al-Sadr had about an estimated 300 Iranian military intelligence personnel supporting him and he was starting to recruit Iraqi young men. Now a year later he has an estimated six to ten thousand Iraqi armed young men who have been misled into his extreme ideology and who have been armed and funded, I believe and is my judgment I believe that the Iranian regime is part of its covert action in Iraq. Part of its efforts to intimidate the people of Iraq and also to intimidate the moderate majority of Iraqi Shiite clergy.

Iman translates

Now this brings us to the third component of Iran’s secret activities, as I see it, and that is the Shiite clergy in Iraq. Where in addition to the intimidation and coercive activities of Moktada al-Sadr. Iran is trying to use money and relationships with elements of the clergy to encourage them to take a position against the United States and against movement towards constitutional government and to bring them into its camp through positive means and incentives and um and seduction as it were and persuasion and money rewards and the likes. So there is a very active program with eah in an effort to win over for the Iranian clerical dictatorship the support of the majority of the clergy in Iraq.

Iman translates

I think this will fail because the Iraqi Shiite clergy knows the story of Iran. Knows what has happened in the twenty-five years of repression and poverty and failure in Iran. But the activity is very well financed and very active and it is… it may also fail because the violence and coercion of Moktada al-Sadr was so visible and so shocking right at the start that this may in fact have the opposite effect of that intended by the Iranian dictatorship.

Iman translates

However, as the people of Iran know very well the in a dictatorship people are cut off from information. One reason that this program and the work of Mr. Horovati and this effort and Radio Sedaye is so important to try to bring the people of Iran some alternative view and alternative information. But in a dictatorship, people are cut off from information as they were in Iraq for many years. Therefore the media and what is conveyed in the media becomes very, very important in times of political transition.

Iman translates

And that is why the forth component of Iran’s secret war against freedom in Iraq is… it’s massive investment with the Iranian’s people’s money in television and radio media aimed at the people of Iraq. It may surprise the people of Iran to know that right now about 60 radio and television stations can be heard in Iraq and of these about 43 are controlled by the Iranian dictatorship.

Iman translates

In contrast, the coalition provisional authority, the United States, is funding one television station, one radio station and two newspapers. And so the people of Iraq are getting 43 Iranian funded information and propaganda sources aimed at them on the one hand and their also having this very effective and very misleading propaganda instrument of Algizerea and Al Abrabia which essentially takes a line in favor of Islamic extremism and um and all of this is bombarding the people of Iraq and could well mislead many of them and lead many of them into a direction of not understanding what is really going on and lead them including members of the clergy to move in the direction that the Iranian dictatorship would like them, like to see them move.

Iman translates

As a sign of the Iran’s understanding the importance of the media, ah, it’s worth noting that in October 2003 when the coalition wanted to establish one television station, it didn’t do so for some months more. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Iranian supported political movement, protested and said it would stage massive street demonstrations to prevent any such media organization from being established. 1 against 43.

Iman translates

In fact the people of Iran might find the language used by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq in late November of 2003 when they opposed the establishment of the media network by the coalition very familiar. The organization said, “If you do not change your programs and submit to our will, we will mobilize the Iraqi street against you.”

Iman translates
Now coming to the fifth method that Iran is using and we come to Hezbollah the extremely lethal effective terrorist organization that is mainly headquartered in Syria and occupied Lebanon and mainly funded and supported by the clerical dictatorship in Iran.

Iman translates

Beginning in the fall of 2003 there were press reports that Hezbollah Kaderum had moved into Iraq and were taking up residents all throughout the country and um one element one person from the U.S. Government said well Hezbollah is not doing anything hostile this must mean that the Iranian regime wants to be peaceful with respect to Iraq.

Iman translates

Now we know from the press reports that Hezbollah is there. There is reports of hundreds and perhaps several thousands Hezbollah Kaderum I don’t know how many its not possible to know that from the press. It is my judgment and now here I want to now help the listeners know that I’m moving from facts that are reported and can be verified to a judgment, a view of mine about what Hezbollah is doing. It is my judgment and I’ll wait for the translation for one moment.

Iman translates

It is my judgment and view that what Hezbollah has been doing and is doing is surveying the various targets for future terrorist attacks in Iraq that would include most likely U.S. Military bases, other coalition military bases, key Iraqi moderate democratic leaders, and their headquarters, political party headquarters, remember the destruction of the three Kurdish headquarters, political party headquarters some months ago. I would also suggest they are surveying civil administration places of the coalitional provisional authority and perhaps communication activities for example the Iraqi media network. All of these places, key places which I believe Hezbollah will seek to recruit Iraqi miss-guided young Iraqi terrorist to go and to conduct terrorist attacks in large scale beginning in July 2004 when the Iranian secret war offensive begins in a serious way in Iraq.

Iman translates

Recently a defector from the Iranian covert action organization said, and this report was carried by the BBC, and I cannot assure the listeners that this is a genuine defectors, the facts are correct, but I think what he said ties in with the facts that I know and with the judgment I have about the future, pattern of the Iranian dictatorship actions, this defectors said that Iran has spent more than one billion dollars in the last year alone in positioning it’s cover networks in Iraq and that this includes, by the way, buying and renting 2700 apartments and houses in which Iranian agents, weapons, terrorist, or assets and so forth are now living in perpetration for the time when this whole network will become activated. Which I believe will start in July 2004, after the turn over of political authority to the Iraqis.

Iman translates

In fact, this defector who was known as the name Hajeed saidie said that the killing of Ayatollah Muhammad akir ala kim the chairman of the council for the Islamic revolution in Iraq was, “one of the most important achievements of the Jerusalem force or the kuds corps. Who succeeded carrying out this mission in Iraq without any difficulty” this is what he said about that. Now, I offer a judgment and it’s speculative but it’s based on 25 years of observation of Iran, the Iranian dictatorship operations, aggressive dictatorship abroad, aggressive terrorism abroad. My judgment is that the eruption of violence by Moktada al-Sadr on April 4th was premature. That it was not part of a coordinated plan, that he acted impetuously and in a sense revealing the part of the Iranian hand inside Iraq by doing so. But that the main activities of the Iranian dictatorship will start when power has been, sovernty has been handed over to the Iraqi institutions which is due as you know to happen in about eight weeks on about July 1st 2004.

Iman translates

And my sense is that the way this… these Iranian supported networks will operate is that the political components will try to take evermore political authority in the civil institution in Iraq. They will do this through normal political means and building coalitions, they will do this through mass demonstrations and they will do this through the terrorist components using violence against their moderate opponents and intimidating them.

Iman translates

A small discussion about time left and when to take callers takes place.

And, the political part will of course be reinforced by the Iranian controlled media which will be backing the Iranian political organizations. And then at the same time the paramilitary groups, which now number about 40,000. The bader brigades attached to the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. And then the paramilitaries attached to Moktada al-Sadr who are about six to ten thousand but they’re roughly 40,000. They will be begin attacking, I believe, the coalition forces as well as their political enemies. And at the same time I think Hezbollah and HAMMAS will have recruited the Iraqis for the devastating terrorist attacks on the leadership of the Iraqi political movements, the coalition forces, and all of this Iranian network that uses violence directly will be trying to kill, I believe, as many United States military and civilian personnel working in Iraq as possible. And so I see a time of escalating violence and political destabilization inside of Iran. June, July, August, September, and October intended both to coerce the United States out of Iraq and to defeat President Bush in his reelection effort. That both purposes would be served and then ultimately to bring about a pro-Iranian extremist regime in Iraq.

Iman translates

Iman – at this point I guess we want to talk some about the domestic issues inside Iran?

Yes.

Iman translates

All that of I’ve just described, of course, is very bad news. And is very disturbing. Obviously, for both the people of Iraq and it’s consequences will also be very bad for the people of Iran because it will solidify the dictatorship in Iran. By giving it more support and a greater sense of its own power and invincibility

Iman translates

However, the good news is that we have in recent history many examples of regimes that were very effective in aggressive terrorist operations abroad that were vulnerable at home vulnerable, unpopular and brittle at home as the Iranian dictatorship is. That in fact were overthrown by the peaceful actions of their own people who did, in fact, liberate themselves. And these examples include the communist states of Eastern Europe in the 1989-90. The former Soviet Union in 1991-92 and the communist ultranationalist dictatorship in Serbia. Which had been established in 1945 until the year 2000 and was also overthrown by the peaceful actions of its people. And all of these cases, the nightmare of the Iranian dictatorship that the people would rise up came to pass and the people were successful and freed themselves.

Iman translates

And the people of Iran who are listening to this know, full well, how unpopular the Iranian dictatorship is. The women of Iran know how many of their fellow women disagree with the way in which their equality has been undone by the clerical dictatorship. The young people of Iran, 70% of you are under the age of 30, know how many of your friends are totally opposed to the extreme degree of control and pressure that is required in daily behavior by the clerical dictatorship in Iran. People in daily life know that the economic failure of the clerical dictatorship in Iran and of the massive corruption of the dictatorship and the use of foundations and people in Iran know, all the adults in Iran know, about the billions of dollars every year that the clerical dictatorship diverts to its power objectives, its extremist objectives, its propaganda, its secret warfare and terrorist activities and its weapons of mass destruction activities. Taking this money away from the real needs, the social needs of the people of Iran.

Iman translates

It is my judgment that about 75% of the Iranian people in all social groups including the clergy, the military, the revolutionary guard corps, all oppose the hard-line dictatorship in Iran and want to see a moderate constitutional government with a place for Islam that is respectful and important but not ruled by the clergy.

Iman translates

Now you might ask how does a political analyst in the United States come to a judgment like that and my answer to you is, that in the election process since 1997 we have seen a proxy for the views of the Iranian people in the competition between the candidates who represented the hard-line view of the supreme leader and the somewhat more less hard-line view of President Khatimi. There was a difference and there is a difference between these two groups. And when given a choice to vote the Iranian people had no choice to vote across a broader spectrum because the candidates were not permitted by the council of guardians. But even within that narrow range of choice its worth noting that in the elections of 1997, 2000, 2001 that the people of Iran overwhelmingly voted against the hardliners. And if you look at voting patterns you will see this is true of all the regions of Iran and also among the Iranian military who I believe will stand away and will not act against the people of Iran, if they seek to liberate themselves peacefully, it is also true in the revolutionary guard corps. And I think this frightens the regime because they know how… this shows them how unpopular they are and how they are rejected by the people.

Iman translates

And I believe the summer of 2004 is the historical moment for the people of Iran to liberate themselves. Because they have the opportunity because they’re on both boarders there is a process under way of movement toward moderate constitutional government with respect for Islam in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because there is a President in the United States, George W. Bush, who has on many occasions spoken clearly about the fact that Iranian people have a right to live in freedom and that the United States seeks to encourage that and to encourage them to move toward freedom and because the Iranian dictatorship has not yet succeeded in undoing the opportunity of the Iraqi people for freedom and moderate government and reinforcing itself by having done that. It has not yet succeeded. Its about to launch its activities. And so, it’s really a race now between the worst of the Iranian dictatorship’s aggression through terrorism occurring during the summer of 2004. Or the people of Iran recognizing that this may be their last chances for many years to come to peacefully, in many cities at the same time move to end the rule of this dictatorship. And I think the opportunity is there and I think the Iranian people can do this.
Iman translates

And the people of Iran should also know that in exile there are hundreds of thousands of their county men and women who hope for their freedom and liberty and are willing to help them and in fact I think it’s very important for the people of Iran to know that all the Iranian individuals in exile who seek liberty and freedom for the people of Iran have worked very hard to try to organize themselves to give help to the people inside Iran when they try to liberate themselves. For example, the activities by the Alliance for Democracy in Iran, which is a new coalition of pro democracy movements of Iranian exiles. For example, the important work of this radio station and Mr. Morovati and the efforts, which of course, will be very helpful when a new free media is to be established in Iran. The work of the Iran of Tomorrow project in which skilled and talented people, Iranian Americans, have come together to plan ways in which to help a new independent government in Iran realize the wishes of its people to the extent the people of Iran want their help. And so there is a tremendous opportunity and tremendous resources available outside Iran to help the people inside Iran. But the choice is with the people of Iran. Only they can liberate themselves. They can do it. Many dictatorships of this type have fallen and fallen much more quickly than expected. And the time is now. This is the moment.
It was a pleasure to be with you today.

Iman translates

Iman - Dr. Constantine, would you be willing to take a few phone calls?

Yes, about 10 minutes.

Iman translates

Caller – in Farsi

Iman translates into English – This particular listener called from Tehran inside Iran. And his question after thanking you for your time and for your fantastic overview of what is going on in Iran. He was asking that, as you may know, less than maybe 30% of the Iranian people have access to satellite or can hear even these important sources of news such as Radio Sedaye and KRSI. He’s asking you, knowing that how do you think the Iranian people can hear this voice and these messages to know that they or that this is a good time to start doing this perhaps, he was suggesting that, some resources like Radio Farda U.S. government would actually provide some resources for media like KRSI to actually have a better access to the Iranian people that would be very helpful and he wanted to know your opinion on it and that.

I agree completely and I thank the listener for his call from Tehran and I agree completely that there needs to be more broadcasting into Iran and there needs to be more funding for this. And its very important for the Iranian people to hear the voice of freedom and to hear different points of view. And so I agree with that. The U.S. government does have some broadcasting to Iran. We have the new Radio Farda, the voice of America, and there is… I think… that should be expanded. The question of public funds for private broadcast is more complicates and requires legislation in a democratic country and that takes time. It is possible for the Iranian communities in exile who are extraordinary successful, intelligent and hard working and successful individuals, I think, to contribute more funds. And provide funding for and expansion of broadcasting which I think would be a good idea. Also I think there should be a campaign to have more Americans who are not Iranian Americans to also participate in the voice of free broadcasting to Iran. So I think there are… I think there are possibilities for doing so and perhaps it might be a good idea to have some public funds. Though, at times I think in the United States it is just as well to separate publicly funded activities from privately funded activities so that the privately funded activities can remain entirely independent in content and tone and that’s… that’s very important anytime something is publicly funded then its a bureaucracy and then there is public policy and there are certain considerations that are involved with that. So, I agree with you completely. The broadcasting should be expanded and I think this could be done with voluntary contributions from Iranian Americans and Iranians in other countries in exile but also from other Americans who should become more aware of the importance of doing this and I’ll try to write some articles about this and see if I can get them published encouraging American citizens from all backgrounds to contribute more to this.

Iman translates

Caller in Farsi –

Iman translates – Dr. Constantine the listener is from Los Angeles was asking – Now that the 911 commission is going on they’re all talking about who knew what and why they didn’t do something about that before 911 why is it and don’t you think its time the U.S. does something with all the research you have done, all the information you have provided so another 911 specifically all the details you mentioned will not occur again against the U.S. and against the goals of democracy in the region.

I hope so. I agree completely with you and I published about this and I have tried to brief people in the government and in fact I have called this Iran’s secret war of against the U.S in Iraq the next 911. Because unfortunately it seems to me that the well meaning very busy individuals in the U.S. government who are working with the immediate challenges they are facing and are very busy with that, have not had, it seems to me, and it’s is my judgment that they have not connected this patter of Iranian activities. I think it should have never been permitted for Moktada al-Sadr’s armed units, for example, to have grown from 300 people a year ago to nearly 10,000 today, and I think it was an over… a mistake, a misjudgment on the part of the coalitional provisional authority and the U.S. government so I agree with you completely and I’m concerned about whether the expression we use here, “connecting the dots” I’m concerned whether the dots are being connected.

Iman translates

Our time is up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:19 pm    Post subject: Wrong Move By President Bush Reply with quote



President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq - Source Whitehouse.gov

President Bush meeting with Islamic religious cleric is a wrong move and as long as any faction of Islamist clerics are interfering in everyday life of the people in the Middle East, we are not going to see freedom and peace in both Iraq and Iran. Secular Democracy, and Free Society policy are the key for resolving Middle East problem. It seems our fellow American decision makers have not learned their lesson from September 11 . The Islamist followers are against FREE Society, Human Rights, and Secular Democracy.
TRUE SECURITY BEGINS WITH STOPPING TO APPEASE MULLAHS, REAL SUPPORT FOR ISLAMIC FASCISTS REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN, HUMAN RIGHTS, FREE IRAN, FREE SOCIETY & SECULAR DEMOCRACY.


Mr. Richard Clarke "Your government failed you,"


Richard A. Clarke (born 1951) is a former U.S. government official who specialized in intelligence, cyber security and counter-terrorism. Until his retirement in January 2003, Mr. Clarke was a member of the Senior Executive Service. He served as an advisor to four U.S. presidents from 1973 to 2003: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. During the September 11, 2001 attacks, Clarke was the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

We can't remember any high-ranking member of US Government in past 28 years ever saying anything like what Mr. Richard Clarke said :
Mr. Clarke began his testimony before the bipartisan, 10-member panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, with an apology to relatives of the 3,000 people killed on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Your government failed you," Mr. Clarke said, his voice close to breaking. "Those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you."
"We tried hard," Mr. Clarke went on, "but that doesn't matter, because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask -- once all the facts are out -- for your understanding and your forgiveness."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:06 pm    Post subject: Talking to Iran Reply with quote

Talking to Iran
OpenDemocracy
Reza Pahlavi
Tuesday, December 5th, 2006

http://www.rezapahlavi.org/articles/?english&id=46

The prospect of Washington-Tehran dialogue is moving up the political agenda. But the United States must consider the moral and strategic price of such engagement, says the former crown prince of Iran, Reza Pahlavi.

Public frustration with the stalemate in Iraq in the United States, reflected in the mid-term elections on 7 November, has now reshaped Congress, heralding a new era. The current strategy is being rethought and in anticipation, President Bush has commissioned two prominent Americans, James A Baker and Lee Hamilton, to lead the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to produce a fresh approach.

As an outsider I can only hope that these efforts prove salutary and productive. As an Iranian, however, I am concerned with the possible consequences of what is now being speculated.

In the past, I have repeatedly opposed any form of military action against my country as counterproductive. Today, I would like to be equally clear about expectations that Iran - and Syria for that matter - could become part of the solution in Iraq.

For some time, guilt-edged liberal opinion in America has been advocating engagement with the clerical regime in Iran. Diplomatic overtures and dialogue, inherently noble, should be the first resort in any conflict. But if policymakers wish to avoid disappointment, there needs to be a prior analysis of objectives. In this context: what is at stake, and what are the real chances of success in hoping that Iran will sanitise the climate in Iraq in a manner that is in line with US expectations?

If the US seeks Iran's cooperation in Iraq - in taming and disarming the feuding Shi'a (and Tehran-connected) militias run by Ayatollah Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim and Muqtada al-Sadr, or in encouraging prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to move towards power-sharing with the Sunni - a key question follows: what would be the Iranian rulers' price?

What price would the Islamic regime claim in exchange for undercutting its unearned foothold in Iraq, at a time when it regards the US and its global allies with acute hostility? If that price is a license to proceed with its opaque pursuit of dual-usage enrichment of uranium, could the Bush administration seriously contemplate it?

If, by contrast, Tehran seeks from any engagement a grand strategic bargain - encompassing (as well as the nuclear issue) Hizbollah, Hamas, jihadis, non-belligerence towards Israel, and a Palestinian settlement - then a different set of questions comes to mind.

In May 2003, the clerical regime signalled its willingness to come to terms with reality. The move's timing - barely a month after the lightning defeat of Saddam Hussein - speaks volumes about the motivations of Tehran's Islamist leadership. Now, circumstances have changed dramatically. The "awe" inspired by the United States blitzkrieg is replaced by contempt, meted out on a daily basis by Islamist president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad, unlike his predecessor Mohammad Khatami, is a revolutionary revivalist. His powers are limited but his rhetoric has enthralled the ultra-conservative clerics and tied the hands of the more pragmatic elements. The notion of the Great Satan, in the psyche of genuine Khomeini disciples, is ideological. For them, America is the embodiment of corrupting influences that are detrimental to Islam's flourishing.

America is also seen as the architect and protector of the Jewish state and its perceived mortification of (Muslim) Palestinians. The feud against Israel, extending to holocaust-denial, has set the regime in a hostile mould. Only compelling reasons of self-preservation will alter this. Moreover, with the Islamic Republic in its current mindset, secure in cost-free intransigence, any dialogue - particularly one wishfully aimed at cushioning America's difficulties in Iraq - will achieve nothing other than to bestow unwarranted recognition and legitimacy to a rogue regime.

There is another side to such engagement. For twenty-seven years this theocracy has cast a pall over Iran. Its young population has been robbed of the chance to live the epoch in which they are born. A full generation has been traumatised, prisoners of conscience executed and dissidents murdered in their homes or forced to flee.

George W Bush has repeatedly pledged America's support of Iranians in their struggle for freedom and democracy. To engage with the current Islamic Republic in these circumstances would render America's moral pact hollow and meaningless. It would be a further tragedy if, after failing to introduce democracy by force in Iraq, Washington now underwrites tyranny by diplomacy in Iran.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:08 pm    Post subject: Can Iran be a partner in Iraq? Reply with quote

Good article by David Ahmadi , except one last paragraph which was propagnda for MEK. As long as MEK has not given up on Islamic Ideology and join Secular Democracy movement of Iranian people struggle should not be considered as part of any solution and they will be rejected by FREE Iran oppositions.
Quote:

Can Iran be a partner in Iraq? Wed. 06 Dec 2006
Iran Focus
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9426
Op-Ed

By David Ahmadi

It is anticipated that the Iraqi Study Group, headed by former United States Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, would recommend that the U.S. talk to Iran and Syria as part of a new approach to resolve the security crisis in Iraq. It has also been leaked that the 100-or-so page report would recommend an international conference take place involving all the countries of the region.

Over the past few weeks, the U.S. press has been abuzz with reports of Washington engaging Tehran and Damascus as a possible change of policy in Iraq. However, there has been very few, if any, specific suggestions or roadmaps showing how engaging Iran and Syria would help.

It is said that Secretary Baker believes, as a matter of principle, in talking to the enemy. No doubt, he is the right man to make this statement. His credentials in diplomacy and negotiations are impeccable. Modern diplomacy, more than any other time, relies on negotiation and the ability of persuasion. There are certainly merits in negotiation and it can not be dismissed outright. But even if that is true, the question remains, is “talking to the enemy” enough to justify engaging with Iran and Syria?

President George W. Bush’s National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley offers a different view. He says dialogue on its own is not a solution, indicating that more than just dialogue is needed for a policy to be considered as a viable solution. He is as much right as Secretary Baker is. So, while both views might be correct in general terms, their applicability can only be tested when they are applied to a specific issue in a specific situation.

No conclusion can be reached for as long as we stick to generalization and not apply either viewpoint to a specific case. There are too many arguments and counter-arguments. The principle of dialogue and “talking to your enemy” has on many occasions saved the world from war and destruction. The cold war is the most striking example. Over fifty years of constant dialogue took place with the former Soviet Union even when conflict seemed almost inevitable.

On the other hand, the Second World War was itself the result of the idea of talking to the enemy and reaching compromise through negotiation. Let’s face it, negotiation is about making compromise. Diplomacy and negotiations are about give and take. It was in this spirit that Neville Chamberlain went to Munich in 1938.

On his return, he said, “My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. And now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds.”

A week later, Chamberlain justified his policy by saying, “We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a programme would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators” (speech, October 6, 1938, House of Commons).

So, both sides have enough historic ammunition to throw at each other in defence of their viewpoints. But, what about this particular case? Can Syria and Iran be partners in bringing peace and stability to Iraq and building a new Middle East? That is the real question.

The answer is no. They can not. Particularly in the case of Iran, recognizing it as a partner in seeking peace and security in Iraq is a recipe for disaster. Such a policy resonates more of the policy of appeasing Hitler than containment in the Cold War era. Those who advocate involving Iran should respond clearly to the following points:

1. Considering that negotiation will only be successful if there is give and take, the U.S. should be very clear in what is prepared to offer Tehran. The Iranian regime has already rejected the package of incentives which includes membership in the World Trade Organization WTO and the lifting of some embargo on Iran etc. Simply but more bluntly put, is the U.S. prepared to accept Iran ruled by the current theocratic regime obtaining a nuclear bomb? It is naïve to say that we negotiate Iraq and not nuclear. When talks starts, all issues will be on the table. It serves no purpose to evade this question. U.S. policy makers have to face the reality that the Iranian mullahs have no interest in nuclear energy. They are not spending this amount of money and resources and taking the country to the brink of confrontation with the international community in order to have nuclear energy. They want the bomb, and given the way they are marching forward with their nuclear projects without any concentrated effort from the international community to stop them, it is only a matter of time before they obtain it.

2. What was the outcome of four years of European negotiation with Iran on the nuclear issue? Short of recognizing Iran’s “right” to obtain a nuclear bomb, the EU made every concession. But it failed. Iranian officials have said that negotiations with Europe came in handy as they were rushing to complete the nuclear fuel cycle. Iran has become more emboldened. It has defied the United Nations Security Council, which adopted Resolution 1696 on July 31 demanding that Tehran suspend all its uranium enrichment activities by August 31.

3. On Iraq, the U.S. - and ordinary Iraqis for that matter - wants Iran to stop its meddling. But what does it intend to give in return? Recognizing Iran’s dominant role in Iraq? If not, why should Iran listen? They have a huge interest in furthering their influence in Iraq. The Iranians have been very clear: “The U.S. must leave Iraq”. This is no rhetoric. Iran has vigorously pursued a policy over the past three and a half years to force the Americans out of Iraq. Aiding banned militias, death squads and other extremist groups is part of the Iranian agenda. Its leaders want a theocratic regime in Iraq, based on their own model and led by their proxies. They have already made considerable advancements in this regard. So, the crux of the matter is whether the U.S. is prepared to hand over Iraq to Iran?

Iran can not be a partner in resolving the Iraqi problem simply because the Iranian regime has no interest in seeing an end to violence in Iraq. Indeed, more violence is the only way to force the Americans out of Iraq. In other words, a secure and stable Iraq is to the detriment of the Iranian regime. It is simply naïve to hope that the mullahs would do something against their own interests. As former U.S. National Security Council staff member Raymond Tanter recently told the television station al-Jazeera, inviting Iran to help stabilizing Iraq is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

What makes it even more dangerous is the fact that the fundamentalists ruling Iran do not play by the West’s rules. They have their own rules. That is why the West’s policy of appeasement of the Iranian regime over the past two decades has been a total failure. A combination of short-term economic interests and a lack of will have prevented the West from confronting the primary source of instability in the region, Tehran’s theocratic rulers.

U.S. policy has gone wrong in Iraq, not because it did not engage in negotiations with Iran but because it did not stop Iran’s meddling In Iraq.

The Iranian regime has always looked at Iraq as the grand prize in its drive to expand its dominance across the Middle East. The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein provided Tehran with the golden opportunity to install a puppet fundamentalist government in that country. Former commander of the Revolutionary Guards and current secretary of the State Expediency Council Mohsen Rezai said in November that the U.S. occupation of Iraq had brought the regime more “opportunity”.

In the current political landscape of Iraq, therefore, the strategic choice for the United States in its efforts to eradicate the insurgency, stabilize Iraqi and, ultimately, pave the way for the withdrawal of its troops, is to align itself with those forces in Iraq which oppose Iran's meddling and its efforts to dominate that country.

In June, some 5.2 million Iraqis signed a declaration which stated that the main dispute in Iraq was between democracy and dictatorship. “The first and most important political alignment in Iraq is between democratic and patriotic forces with their various inclinations and thoughts on the one hand and affiliates of the Iranian regime on the other”, they said.

The declaration, which was backed by numerous Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish groups, urged the Iraqi government and Washington to work to evict the Iranian regime from Iraq and lend support to Iraq-based Iranian dissidents – namely, the Mujahedin-e Khalq.

Here is an idea that U.S. policymakers should consider more seriously.


David Ahmadi is a London-based Middle East analyst
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:32 pm    Post subject: New 2007 USA Foreign Policy Plan For Free Iran, Iraq, Afghan Reply with quote


New 2007 USA Foreign Policy Plan For Free Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Beyond Recommendations Open Forum Discussion … By ActivistChat

Nothing Less Than Total Victory Against Islamic Fascists Can Be Acceptable


In order to advance a comprehensive solution, the ActivistChat recommendations are as follows :
1- Use "Iraq: Failure of Priority" article below by AmirN as basis of new policy change in Iraq.

2- Aggresive Regime Change Policy for Iran to Support popular leader like Prince Reza Pahlavi, Secular Organizations, Secular freedom-loving Iranian Activists (Writers, students ...) with solid track record and Secular Iranian Americans as replacement for the regime in Iran during transition.

3- Bush Admin should not ignore the push for Human Rights, Secular Democracy, Free Society in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan

4- Bush Admin should not allow Islamic Fascists occupiers of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah to participate in political process when they don't agree with the concept of secular democracy ... Islamic parties should not be allowed because Islamic democracy does not exist ...
5- FREE Elections are meaningful process when we can establish FREE Societies .....
6- When there is no security, the Elections can not provide optimal solution.
7- Non secular Iraqi should be removed from key positions of power and replaced by true secular Iraqis.
8- US military should train secular Iraqi without any affilation to any Islamic parties.
9- US forces must stay as long as needed in Iraq and don't allow dividing Iraq to 3 different sections as some suggesting. The American liberator spirit can not support to divide countries to Shite, Sunni, Kurds, Turks ...
US should support unity and secular democracy.

10- Any elements of Iraqi constitution which is against secular democracy concept must be rejected and removed by US government.
11- Religious people in Iraq must go back to their Mosque otherwise they must be arrested as source of voilence and problems.

12. President Bush must support clear and open policy calling for regime change in Iran.
13. The Administration must abandon its failed policy of “Afghanistan yesterday, Iraq today, Iran maybe tomorrow”, and confront the threat from the IRI regime immediately. The War on Terror can not be fought in serial and slowly ....
14. President Bush must deliver an ultimatum to the IRI's primary hidden supporters (Britain) and secondary supporters (France, Germany, EU, Japan, Canada, Russia, and China) to stop giving economic assistance, intelligence assistance, or other assistance to the regime. The EU, in particular, should not use resources stolen from the Iranian people to finance its own failed welfare state.
15. The "War on Terror" which is a subset of "War on Taazi" UNWINNABLE and the world peace can not be achieved as long as the Unelected Taazi Islamists Terror and Torture Masters are in power in Iran. The TAAZI terror state and fear society can not create peace and stability.
16- We have come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with this unelected and undemocratic regime is to deal with it strongly and with a comprehensive set of measures. The measures that we recommend and strongly advocate are as follows:

* Stop, with immediate effect, all international trades with the undemocratic Islamic “Republic” of Iran.
*Stop the purchase of oil from Iran and refrain from signing any new contracts and renewal of any existing ones.
* Blockade Iran’s ports in the Persian Gulf and possibly the Caspian Sea allowing passage of food and medicine.
*Stop all IRI satellite TV and Radio programming to the outside world.
* Cease all Mullahs personal assets outside Iran including its support organization such as Alavi Foundation in New York City.
* Freeze IRI assets outside of Iran and impose prohibition on investment, a travel ban, and asset freezes for government leaders and nuclear scientists.
* Worldwide announcement to all nations that any deals and contracts made with IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) by any entity is null and void. The IRI does not represent Iranians.
* Publicly identify known IRI agents, arrest and prosecute their agents abroad as promoters of international terrorism and abusers of human rights. Shut down all illegal unregistered agent organizations representing IRI interests, their lobbyist and apologists.
* Close or limit Islamic Republic’s embassies and its activities including travel limits on Iranian diplomats.
* Release the frozen assets of Iran to the IRI opposition to be spent on strike funds and promotion of democracy.
* Expel IRI representatives from UN since the IRI constitution is contrary to the UDHR (Universal Declarations of Human Rights).

17- The US officials must have clear understanding of Islam as described by Mr. Amil Imani the Iranian writer and poet, and if they don't know about Islam must ask Mr. Amil Imani to teach them.
"The terror and death inflicted on humanity is not the work of radical Islam, neither the political Islam, nor the militant Islam. It is Islam, period. Get it? And the perpetrators are not fringe elements confined to brainwashed Saudis, loony Taliban, or a know nothing Pakistanis who have hijacked Islam and are now in the business of mass murder. The latest project of the practitioners of the “religion of peace” aimed to blowing planeloads of innocent civilians to smithereens in midair over the Atlantic -- ought to finally drive the point home: it is Islam, dummy. Get it?"



18- ActivistChat members rejects the Iraq Study Group Shameful Détente suggestion with Islamic Fascists Occupiers Of Iran, the Study Group does not see the difference between Islamic Fascists and Communist China, Russia ....
Due to the fact that majority of Iraq Study Group members in past 27 years were partially responsible for appeasing Mullahs and helping them to come to power in Iran therefore they are guilty for many problems we are facing today. We can't remember that the Iraq Study Group members or any high-ranking member of US Government in past 28 years ever made apology or saying anything like what Mr. Richard Clarke said :
Mr. Clarke made an apology to relatives of the 3,000 people killed on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Your government failed you," Mr. Clarke said, his voice close to breaking. "Those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you."
The Iraq Study Group does not address the key problem that the Bush Admin has ignored the push for secular democracy, free society, Human Rights for Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan ..... The Iraq Study Group members or any other US government officials or members of congress who ignore the spirit of US constitution which is based on Secular Democracy as defined by American founding fathers can not consider themselves American patriot.
We Americans as liberators can not follow Neo Colonialist policy of EU3 in the name of short term National Interest and we must end Islamofascism Now. President Bush who has access to top secrets of US government declared a failure of past U.S. policy spanning 60 years in support of governments not devoted to political freedom.
"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Some members of the Iraq Study Group as past US government officials are responsible for past failures, have they made any apology to American People? An Unwise U.S. Private Talks with Islamofascists In Iran or Iraq as suggested by the Iraq Study Group under any context is considered as U.S. Detente With Evil Islamofascists. Insults to Freedom-Loving American and Iranian People, Betrayal Of Freedom, Betrayal Of Free Society, Betrayal Of Secular Democracy and Betrayal Of Human Rights and must be rejected by freedom-loving American people from left, center and right.

19- As President correctly stated "Iran is a nation held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people, and denying them basic liberties and human rights" and the following article by poet and writer Mr. Amil Imani is the best description for who is Iranians? "The Mullahs Ruling Iran Are Not Iranians"
Being Iranian is defined by a state of mind, not by a place of residence. The barbaric Islamist mullahs and their mercenaries presently ruling Iran are not Iranians. They are Islamofascists who have betrayed their magnificent heritage and have enlisted themselves in the service of a most oppressive, discriminating, and demeaning ideology.
Iranians are proud spiritual descendants of King Cyrus the Great, the author of the first charter of the human rights. Some of Cyrus’ children live in the patch of land called Iran. The overwhelming majority—free humans with human beliefs—live in every country, city, and village of the earth.
These world-wide people, one and all, irrespective of nationality, color, or creed are Iranians because they all adhere to the Cyrus Charter; they practice and defend its lofty tenets; and, transfer this precious humanity’s treasure to the next generation.
Unequivocal genetic findings have clearly established that biologically there is only one human race; that the genetic variation within a single troop of chimpanzees, for instance, is greater than that of any two human groupings, no matter how different they may appear physically.
What makes people different is not their biology, but the “software” that runs them.
There is ample proof to support the above assertion. A case in point is the present menace posed by the people whose life is programmed by the software of Islam: an ideology anathema to the Cyrus Charter. And the results are self-evident. Hate, superstition, violence, and a raft of other inhuman beliefs drives these religious fascists. These captive followers of the primitive Islamic Charter are both the perpetrators and the victims of much suffering. The result is backward Islamic societies that are intent at dragging the rest of the world into the same sorry state. Misery likes company, it is said. To read complete article please visit the following URL: http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8355


Please remember; the key to salvation of Iraq is also in freedom of Iran. The freedom-loving countries of the world must unite and assist Iranian people to end this embarrassment to humanity and civility called Islamic Republic and allow Iran to come back to the arms of the civilized nations.

President Bush meeting with Islamic religious cleric from Iraq was a wrong move and as long as any faction of Islamist clerics are interfering in everyday life of the people in the Middle East, we are not going to see freedom and peace in both Iraq and Iran. Secular Democracy, and Free Society policy are the key for resolving Middle East problem. It seems our fellow American decision makers have not learned their lesson from September 11 . The Islamist followers are against FREE Society, Human Rights, and Secular Democracy.
TRUE SECURITY BEGINS WITH STOPPING TO APPEASE MULLAHS, REAL SUPPORT FOR ISLAMIC FASCISTS REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN, HUMAN RIGHTS, FREE IRAN, FREE SOCIETY & SECULAR DEMOCRACY.
FREE Iran activists will reject new Bush 07 plan if it does not include our key demands above. The Cold war mentality does not apply to Islamic Fascists movement as we have seen it in Sept 11.





Nothing Less Than Total Victory Against Islamic Fascists Can Be Acceptable




AmirN wrote:
Iraq: Failure of Priority

The Bush administration correctly identified the threat to global safety and stability when it pointed to the three nations that it included as an axis of evil. However, it failed in its deeper understanding of the two that are in the middle east. It miscalculated the role of Islam and the interconnection of those two nations. Most importantly, it misidentified its highest priority and the most imminent threat.

More than three years after the invasion of Iraq, it is clearer now more than ever what a circus Iraq has become. Month after month, it seems that America is being set back further and further instead of approaching its intended goal. No one can at this point deny the mess that is Iraq. The Republicans have lost both houses, the Secretary of Defense just got fired, the President essentially admits he is in a losing strategic situation, a Committee of “Experts” has been appointed to make recommendations on how to improve the disaster, and most Americans are calling for a withdrawal in the immediate future. America is living its deja vous of Vietnam.

How could this happen to the most mighty military of the world?

As with Vietnam, America’s failure stemmed again from not having clear military goals, and from expecting the military to fill in the gap of a sound strategic agenda. America’s flaw was not its military failure, but objective failure.

To conquer a place is not a great achievement, I always say. To hold a place is the achievement. It was clear from the beginning of the invasion that America would have no problem conquering Iraq. The challenge would lie in holding and securing Iraq. To hold and secure a place comes not only from military might, but from correct planning and policy before the invasion even begins.

So what was America’s biggest strategic mistake?

Miscalculating the role of Islam and the way that Iran fit into the problem. It is evident that Bush planned initially to control Iraq and Afghanistan, and then to turn to Iran. That was a big mistake of priority. The Iraq of 2003 was small potatoes compared to the Iran of 2003 in its significance and threat. Though Saddam was a threat to the region and needed to be removed eventually, his position was too weak to pose a real danger at the time. The real danger came from Iran, and continues to come from Iran. Iran was and continues to be a clear and present danger. Iran is the one that is actively pursuing WMD’s and is the single greatest contributor to terrorism in the world, funded by the resources of the single most powerful nation of the middle east.

It was a fatal error to enter Iraq without first dealing with Iran. The first strike in any fight is usually the most decisive. It makes sense to first take out the biggest and strongest foe prior to turning attention to smaller foes. Yet, America did the opposite. It chased after the weaker Iraq while leaving Iran intact and capable of tormenting it.

The other mistake was not recognizing the importance of Islam in that region as it pertains to political power. The majority of Iraq is Shia. There is a great inter-relationship that binds Iran and Iraq that goes back millennia. What is the term “Iraq?” It means “lower Iran.” It has been a part of Iran since the time of the Achaemenids. Mesopotamia has fallen in and out of Iran’s hands throughout the millennia, and shares a great bond with Iran. Only after the arrival of Islam in the 7th century did Mesopotamia significantly separate from Iran proper. Ironically, the cultural separation that occurred back then was followed by another more sinister bond shortly thereafter: the bond of Shia Islam.

That bond was sealed with the Saffavid dynasty, which named Shia Islam as the state religion in order to better unify the empire. Prior to the Saffavids, even though the Shia sect existed it was not politically significant. Under the Saffavids, Mesopotamia’s bond with Iran was rekindled with the fire of Shia Islam, and that connection continues to this day. Incidentally, the time of the Saffavids was the last time that Mesopotamia existed within the borders of Iran. Soon thereafter it would be a part of the Ottoman Empire up until its disintegration after WWI. In the aftermath of WWI, that Empire was arbitrarily carved up into smaller regions that eventually gained independence as artificial Arabic nations, one of which was Iraq.

It is for that reason that Iraq’s sense of national identity is relatively weak. It is a nation that should have never been. Although Mesopotamia was the home of one of the earliest and brightest civilizations, that civilization died long ago. Its traces are more alive in the Iranian civilization than in Iraq. Other than that civilization itself, that region has only been a province of one Empire after the next, never again finding its own identity. The people of that nation therefore have no connection to a central government and form bonds only within tribal networks or reach out to another concept altogether: religion. Within this outreach, they become the pawns of their Iranian counterparts and Mullahs. Furthermore, Islam itself was a religion custom made for recruiting subjects for war. Islam was created for war and thrives in times of war.

The result is that via religious authority the Islamic government in Iran weighs a heavy political control in Iraq. Iran has in this way turned the tables on the Americans and has made Iraq a nightmare. It has no shortage of willing participants, and it provides them with superb training, arming and funding prior to unleashing them upon the Americans and other Iraqis. Added to this are other non-Shia terrorist organizations that target the Shias and Americans and the recipe becomes complete for the American nightmare.

Iran is really at war with the US. It has been ever since the first hostage was taken in 1979. America is just not honest enough with itself to admit it. Over and again, the current regime in Tehran has committed acts of war against the US. The scenario has become more heated since the Iraqi invasion. Iran is also at war with Israel. This was demonstrated last summer with the war in Lebanon that the Iranian Hezbollah waged upon Israel.

So long as the Islamists hold power in Tehran and control the resources of that relatively powerful and important nation, a US victory is impossible and extremely costly at best. One cannot fight a monster by engaging only its tentacles. This monster grows new tentacles very easily. It must be engaged at its head; at its source. The Mullahs can keep this up forever if their fight is carried out only in Iraq, Lebanon, or other third party nations. The US, however, will grow weary as it already has and will be forced into defeat.

The war in Iraq is un-winnable in Iraq. The US must realize this, and realize it fast before it’s too late. If it simply abandons Iraq or is defeated there, the Shia Mullahs will become even more powerful.

Had America held off on invading Iraq until the Mullah regime was dispatched first, then it could have taken its time and tried different avenues in neutralizing Iran. However, now that it has made the error of committing to Iraq first, it does not have the luxury of time when dealing with Iran. It must act, and it must act now.

Its only recourse in securing global security is to bring about the demise of this regime by any means possible before it completely loses Iraq.

There are many means to bring about such a demise, many of which are peaceful. However, unlike its prior track-record, it must be fully committed to the task. A pitiful gesture such as allocating 70 million dollars for radio / television subsidization of dissidents is laughable and will have no serious effect. The IR spends ten times as much on its propaganda, if not more. Furthermore, information propagation will only go so far. More serious steps need to be taken, and a far larger budget must be committed.

The current war in Iraq is costing about 80 billion dollars per year. What is 70 million compared to that? It is peanuts. America is spending 1000 times as much fighting the tentacles of the beast than engaging that beast in its lair. Ironically, with that humongous effort in Iraq both in dollar amount as well as human toll, America will get no-where.

If peaceful means do not prove effective almost immediately, then America must act militarily in Iran. I have for long condemned the idea of American military action against my homeland, hoping that peaceful change will occur. The events of the past year have served to nullify my prior notion that Iran can and should only be freed by the hands of Iranians. Perhaps that is possible, but seeing the direction that Iran is headed a delay in its freedom will mean a greater cost to itself as well as the rest of the world. Furthermore, the American error of creating a mess in Iraq that the Mullahs are now reaping has forced the need for the expedition of regime change in Iran.

The US has been following the avenue of nuclear proliferation in order to get at Iran. That is an important reason, but it is not its only ticket to Tehran. As previously mentioned, Iran has been at war with America for decades now. Its role in Iraq is a clear act of war against America. Should it wish, the US has the justification it needs to attack this regime in any way it wishes, including an all out invasion.

Many would view a military strike on Iran in the midst of an already unpopular war in Iraq as madness. However, when viewed with the knowledge that Iraq is what it is mostly because of Iran, that apparently insane strategy makes perfect sense. With the removal of the Mullah regime in Tehran, the Iraqi situation will be greatly pacified. With the removal of the Mullahs, more than half of the world’s terrorism will collapse, with the other half being placed on death row.

It will be a very difficult sell to the American people to attack Iran given the failure in Iraq. It will be unpopular to say the least. However, the President must follow the correct strategy, not the popular strategy. Given America’s dire situation in the middle east currently, it has little more to lose. This administration has already been deemed a failure in its middle east policy. If Bush does nothing in regard to Iran, he will still go down in history as the buffoon that lost Iraq and the middle east to Islamic terrorism. However, if he takes a chance and goes for the head of the monster, he may yet salvage the ME, Iraq, Iran, and indeed the world. He may turn defeat into an astonishing victory. He may turn his legacy from failure to reverence. More importantly, he may turn American fear into American security.

It is said that it is always darkest right before dawn. There is still a chance to turn this disaster into success. It is time to go for bust.




Quote:
Bush: I won't be rushed on Iraq


By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061213/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday he would "not be rushed" into a decision on a strategy change for Iraq, saying that in a round of consultations he heard both some interesting ideas and some "ideas that would lead to defeat."

"And I reject those ideas," Bush said after meeting with top generals and Defense Department officials at the Pentagon. He said those ideas included "leaving before the job is done, ideas such as not helping this (Iraqi) government take the necessary and hard steps to be able to do its job."
.





Last edited by cyrus on Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:09 pm; edited 15 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:54 pm    Post subject: Who Is This Iraqi Mullah? Reply with quote

Who Is This Iraqi Mullah? Secular Democracy Or Mullah Appeasers?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:04 pm    Post subject: Rice Rejects Overture to Iran, Syria Reply with quote

Rice Rejects Overture to Iran, Syria
‘Compensation’ in any deal might be too high, she says


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16213163/
December 15, 2006
The Washington Post
Glenn Kessler and Robin Wright



Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday rejected a bipartisan panel's recommendation that the United States seek the help of Syria and Iran in Iraq, saying the "compensation" required by any deal might be too high. She argued that neither country should need incentives to foster stability in Iraq.

"If they have an interest in a stable Iraq, they will do it anyway," Rice said in a wide-ranging interview with Washington Post reporters and editors. She said she did not want to trade away Lebanese sovereignty to Syria or allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon as a price for peace in Iraq.

Rice also said there would be no retreat from the administration's push to promote democracy in the Middle East, a goal that was de-emphasized by the Iraq Study Group in its report last week but that Rice insisted was a "matter of strategic interest." She reiterated her commitment to pursuing peace between Palestinians and Israelis -- a new effort that President Bush announced in September but that has yielded little so far.

"Get ready. We are going to the Middle East a lot," Rice said.

In a separate interview with Post editors and reporters, Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte provided an assessment of the situation in Iraq that did not deviate much from the Iraq Study Group's grim appraisal. He said the Iraqi insurgency could now finance itself from inside Iraq "through corruption, oil smuggling and kidnappings."

Rice's remarks indicated that, despite a maelstrom of criticism of Bush's policies by outside experts and Democrats, the administration's extensive review of policy in Iraq and the region will not yield major changes in its approach. Rice said that Bush could be "quite expansive" in terms of a policy review and that the new plan would be a "departure." But the president will not radically change any of his long-term goals or commitment to Iraq, she said.

Indeed, Rice argued that the Middle East is being rearranged in ways that provide the United States with new opportunities, what she repeatedly called a "new strategic context."

‘New strategic context’
She said the range of struggles in the Middle East, such as the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, the conflict between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government, and strife in Iraq, represents a "clarifying moment" between extremists and what she called mainstream Arabs.

"This is a time for pushing and consulting and pressing and seeing what we can do to take advantage of this new strategic context," Rice said.

But she said democracy in the Middle East is "not going to be concluded on our watch" and acknowledged that "we've not always been able to pursue it in ways that have been effective."

"I take that criticism," she added.

Rice's comments on Iran and Syria were among her strongest on one of the key recommendations of the Iraq panel, co-chaired by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton. The report noted that Iran cooperated with the United States on Afghanistan and urged the administration to "explore whether this model could be replicated in the case of Iraq."

Bush called Iran part of an "axis of evil" shortly after the 2001 Bonn conference that led to the formation of the Afghan government, a label that Iranian diplomats have said soured Tehran's interest in cooperation.

In May, Rice offered to join talks on Iran's nuclear program if Tehran suspended its uranium-enrichment program, but Iran has rejected that condition. She said that Syrian officials have been unreceptive to previous entreaties by U.S. diplomats.

Negroponte noted that Iran was in a "defensive posture" three years ago when Iraq was invaded, wondering whether it would soon be a target. But now, flush with oil wealth, he said, it has become a major factor in the Middle East.

Rice said the administration's goal over the next two years is to give Iraqis the space to marginalize extremists and create a moderate middle that can hold the country together. The violence may not have ended before the administration leaves office, she acknowledged, but she said she hopes that Iraqis would "get to a place that is sustainable" by the end of 2008.

Although the administration is reviewing its troubled strategy in Iraq, Rice said the United States ultimately does not hold the key to solving the country's multifaceted military and political crises.

"The solutions to what is happening in Iraq lie in Baghdad, in their ability to deal with their own political differences," she said. The U.S. role is only in a support capacity, she said, reflecting the emerging undercurrent of the ongoing White House policy review to shift the mission from combat to support in both security and political reconciliation.

Rice said Iraqi officials have appealed to the administration to show greater flexibility and to hand over more responsibility to the new government, which was elected last December and took office in May.

Support for al-Maliki
Rice voiced support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki but said the full array of sectarian and ethnic leaders must be prepared to bring their diverse communities along in tackling the most sensitive issues, including political reconciliation and disarming militias.

The administration has been pressing this message in meetings with two of Iraq's most prominent leaders, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of Iraq's largest Shiite party, who was in Washington last week, and this week with Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, the highest-ranking Sunni in Iraq's government.

"You can't ask a prime minister in a democracy to take difficult steps that nobody will back that up," Rice said.

Although Shiite militias and death squads are behind much of the sectarian violence, Rice said she believes that most Iraqi Shiites are "firmly" on the side of democracy. The Shiite-dominated government is committed to Iraq's national identity and does not want Iraq to be dominated by Iran, Rice said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:39 pm    Post subject: Even Ahmadinejad Approves The Iraq Strudy Group Reply with quote


Source: http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/GaryVarvel/2006/12/4/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:30 pm    Post subject: Baker-Hamilton Lunacy Reply with quote

Baker-Hamilton Lunacy
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 15, 2006
Original article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26002


Much ink has already been spilled on the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report. Welcomed by liberals and condemned by conservatives, more importantly it has been rejected by just every public figure in Iraq.

Without a doubt, the report’s most controversial recommendation was the call for direct talks with the governments of Syria and Iran. What has gone unrecognized, however, are the stunning misconceptions underlying that recommendation.

(Note: the page references below all refer to the PDF version of the report, which can be downloaded here. All emphasis is my own).



Misconception #1: “Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.” (p7)

Neither Iran nor Syria has any interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq. On the contrary, their behavior shows that chaos and the collapse of the Iraqi government are in fact their goal. If they had been concerned with avoiding chaos in Iraq, they had many good opportunities to support the Iraqi government, to support the building of a national Iraqi army, and to strengthen border controls. Instead, they promoted insurgents whose goals were to ignite sectarian conflict.



Misconception #2: “In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available.” (p7)

Since the 1979 revolution, the United States has repeatedly attempted to “influence the behavior” of the regime, without success. The Baker-Hamilton proposal is a warmed rehash of the same failed policy we’ve been trying since 1979.

Following the seizure of US hostages in Tehran in 1979, the U.S. and its allies imposed sweeping diplomatic, economic, and political sanctions. Tens of billions of dollars of Iranian assets were frozen around the world. The new Iranian regime became an instant outcast. Oil output plummeted to one third the pre-revolutionary levels. Unemployment soared. Per capita income collapsed - and has still not regained pre-revolutionary levels.

Despite these “disincentives,” the regime persisted in the behavior we found objectionable.

One could draw similar examples from the 1980s, the 1990s, or the past few years. Again and again, the world community has sought to “influence the behavior” of the Tehran regime, and the regime has brushed off threats and incentives alike. On the contrary, this is a regime that has been willing to pay a tremendously high price in blood and treasure to pursue its murderous policies.

Recall that the only reason the regime ultimately released the U.S. hostages in January 1981 was out of fear that the incoming Reagan administration would join forces with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and bring about the collapse of the regime.

Short of an all-out U.S. military assault on Iran, U.S. support for regime-change is the only approach that can avoid a future Persian Gulf region dominated by a radical Iranian regime armed with nuclear weapons. Saying pretty-please, as the Baker-Hamilton group proposed, just isn’t going to work.



Misconception #3: “Several Iraqi, U.S., and international officials commented to us that Iraqi opposition to the United States— and support for Sadr—spiked in the aftermath of Israel’s bombing campaign in Lebanon. “ (p24)

This is pure mendacity, and is transparently false. It was the Feb. 2006 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra (possibly carried out on orders from Iran) that ignited all-out sectarian conflict, not an Iranian proxy war hundreds of miles from Iraq’s borders.



Misconception #4: “Iraq cannot be addressed effectively in isolation from other major regional issues, interests, and unresolved conflicts. To put it simply, all key issues in the Middle East—the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, Iran, the need for political and economic reforms, and extremism and terrorism—are inextricably linked.”

This is the type of nonsense the Saudis, their Washington lobbyists and others have been promoting for some time. Bombs are going off in Najaf? Hariri gets assassinated in Lebanon? It’s all the fault of the Jews. If there is logic here, it is not of the sort to make Americans proud.



Misconception #5: “…the Support Group should actively engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions.”

This is a prescription for transforming Iran into the superpower of the Persian Gulf. It’s no coincidence that following these encouragements in the Baker-Hamilton report, Iran announced it was installing 3,000 centrifuges in Natanz. Pay no price, pay no heed (or as my 13-year son would say, “No pain, no brain.”)

Note that the Saudis and their GCC partners are not the fools that Baker and Hamilton appear to be. The day after the Iranian nuclear announcement, the GCC announced that it would be studying a joint “peaceful” nuclear program, as I reported earlier this week.



Misconception #6: “…[T]he United States and Iran cooperated in Afghanistan, and both sides should explore whether this model can be replicated in the case of Iraq. (Recommendation 9 - p37)

Recommendation #9 is the core of the Baker-Hamilton argument for engaging Iran. Here they repeat Misconception #1 (that Iran actually wants to avoid chaos in Iraq) and Misconception #2 (that the U.S. can influence Iran’s behavior by offering incentives), to arrive at Misconception #6, a historic misreading of what actually happened in Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks on America.

It should be noted that nowhere in the report does the ISG ever describe how Iran cooperated with the United States in Afghanistan. In television interviews, Baker has referred to multi-lateral talks on Afghanistan’s future that included an Iranian government representative.

But for the Iranians, the Afghan talks were a no-brainer. Once the United States had smashed the Taliban regime and demonstrated its dominance in Afghanistan, of course the Iranians wanted to have a stake in crafting Afghanistan’s future. No one else was going to protect the Hazara community (Afghanistan’s Shiite population). Iran felt a historic responsibility to step up to the plate.

It’s a safe bet that the Islamic regime in Tehran will take part in international groupings that include U.S. representatives if they believe that is the only way of meeting their interests. But this is simply not the case in Iraq.

Beyond that, however, is an omission of tremendous significance. Far from opposing al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as the Baker-Hamilton report suggests, the Iranian regime provided material and logistical support to al Qaeda before 9/11, and opened a rat line to evacuate top al Qaeda operatives to Iran in the weeks after the U.S. assault on Afghanistan began, as the 9/11 commission report reported.

Even today, Iran harbors several hundred top al Qaeda terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden’s eldest son Saad and al Qaeda military leader Saef al-Adel, whom they claim to be holding under “house arrest.”



Misconception #7: “…Worst-case scenarios in Iraq could inflame sectarian tensions within Iran, with serious consequences for Iranian national security interests.” (p37)

Iran’s leaders don’t fear “sectarian tensions,” they have been stoking them. And should Saudi Arabia or others start to provide support for Azeri, Baluchi, or other separatists groups inside Iran, don’t worry: the Rev. Guards will crack down in a hurry, and Amnesty International won’t be invited to the party.

Like several other “incentives” listed by the Baker-Hamilton group, this is a straw man. (Other “incentives” they cite include things the Iranians know we will do anyway, such “preventing the Taliban from destabilizing Afghanistan.”) The Iranians certainly aren’t going to change their behavior to get what’s being given to them for free.



Misconception #8: “Further, Iran’s refusal to cooperate [with the Support Group] would diminish its prospects of engaging with the United States in the broader dialogue it seeks (p38)

This statement combines two separate misconceptions: first, that Iran actually seeks a broader dialogue with the United States (it does not: it merely seeks an end to perceived U.S. support for regime change), and second, that the United States might actually hold Iran accountable if it refuses to adhere to U.S. conditions for our cooperation.

The record of U.S. negotiations with Iran has been crystal clear: the minute the United States begins making concessions to Iran, we are already have way down the slippery slope to capitulation. For proof, re-read my cautious welcome in these pages to Condoleeza Rice’s offer of a straight-up, black-and-white offer to Iran in May to give up its nuclear program. Anyone who thinks for an instant the Iranians aren’t aware of our dismal negotiation record has never tried to buy a Persian carpet.

Glimmers of truth occasionally make it through the smokescreen of this absolutely abysmal report. “Proposed talks between Iran and the United States about the situation in Iraq have not taken place. One Iraqi official told us: ‘Iran is negotiating with the United States in the streets of Baghdad.’” (p25)

Given that no one is making the Iranians pay a price for “negotiating” with the United States by setting off shaped-charge IEDs that murder Iraqis and U.S. troops, why should they sit with us and agree to make concessions?

If the Baker-Hamilton report had been written by high school freshmen who had never left the American suburbs, one would give them a pat on the back and suggest that they will change their tune once they encounter the real world, where America’s enemies are numerous, determined, and deadly.

But Baker and Hamilton don’t have that excuse. Their report, which offers little more than U.S. capitulation, is based on lies and misconceptions these veteran practitioners of U.S. foreign policy are smart enough to understand.

The President should respond to it just as Baker demanded when he told Congress not to consider it “like a fruit salad and say, 'I like this, but I don’t like that. I like this, but I don’t like that.'” He should send the report back to its authors with a Donald Trump cover note: “You’re fired!”

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.


Last edited by cyrus on Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To those concerned.....

With respect to how America has proceded in strategic and tactical methods to win the war on terror (as is commonly refered to, but is in fact a war on extremist political ideology, with extremist religious mindset driving that policy), and whether there is some misunderstanding on the part of the US of where the threat lies...vis a vis IRI....please keep in mind that:

Afghanistan was first on the "regime change" list primarily because the mastermind of 9/11 (UBL) was based there, planned the op from there, and was given safe haven by the Taliban. And as a direct response to being attacked, that situation was permanently altered, much to the Afghan people's hopes for a brighter future.

After 12 years, multiple UN resolutions, military intervention in 1991, 1998 , and still no compliance....Saddam was removed. It was no mistake, the mass graves lend mute testimony to that neccesity. It is still a work in progress to get it right, but the Iraqi people will do so...with a little help from their friends.

Now I understand why many Iranians feel...for want of a better way to put it....left out.
However, rather than a mistake...the strategy involving the changing of parameters by removing Saddam and the Taliban has lead to a number of interesting facts.

One may well argue that by removing two enemies of the IRI, the US has made the regime stronger.....Aha!, but what has transpired in fact is that the IRI has become totally exposed for the crimes it commits....no longer can it cover its tracks, and of late has not even bothered to.
This has had profound effect on the mindset of the rest of the international community as it has been in the process of realization of exactly what the IRI intent and agenda is.

In fact, this exposure was deliberate and calculated as a result of an irresistable temptation being created for the IRI to do exactly what it has been doing, and had been doing to a lesser degree in years prior throughout the region.

The IRI has overplayed its hand to the point where there can be no question of intent...not even in the minds of the Arab governments of the region, or those nations that have supported the regime actively or passively over time. And it took time for that to come about, and it is essential that it has become self-evident for it is not for the US alone to provide global peace and security, foster free societies, or defeat tyrany and extremism on a global scale...that is all free nation's task...and the continued task of those becoming free.

It is an old American Cowboy diplomatic tradition to give one's antagonist exactly enough rope to hang himself with, and the IRI has willingly obliged.....Antar himself has put the noose around the Iranian people's neck....but it's not the Iranian people we, the "global constituancy".... "have a beef with". The Iranian people themselves are a part of that "global constituancy" I speak of in my letter below.

One can say that America has made mistakes in the past...abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew for one....leaving Saddam in power after the first Gulf war...as another....or discuss the Carter Admin's involvement in the rise of Islamic fundementalism as a political power in Iran.....but what one cannot fail to note is that America in particular has stepped up to the plate in recent years to correct those past mistakes....in concrete terms....and continues to do so.

Now we have here at this point in time, the inflection point between what has been known as "behavior change" vis a vis US foreign policy towards the IRI , and "next steps".....

..but I will not waste virtual ink commenting on the Baker/ Hamilton report, it is what it is, and it is only one of many studies and series of recommendations that the President has to draw from, including this humble citizen's.

Words like "engagement" become cannon fodder for pundits simply because it is totally non-specific as to policy implementation....one can "engage" in dialoge....or "engage" militarily.....and all points in between, by the litteral definition of the word.

The question then becomes what are the proper terms of "engagement", to be effective in countering the threat the IRI poses to global peace and security....period.

...to be effective....being the opperative parameter.

And so, as I have been told that the following comments and "citizen's letter" were received with "deep appreciation" by a senior administration official ( Who I will not name, but assuming it has been reviewed by the NSC as logical concequence) , I can now make this public. Please keep in mind that "Oppie" has been noted for his keen sense of humor, and for deadly serious and accurate analysis by "the powers that be" for some time now...."to be effective"....being the opperative parameter in this citizen's efforts in the war of ideas.

Too much is at stake not to be.


----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Jette
To: comments@whitehouse.gov
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: A citizen's NIE for the NSC


Dear Mr. President, V.P, JCS, Cabinet members and all the good folks otherwise known as the "powers that be" by the little guy...that's me...the citizen....otherwise known as the constituant....(chuckle)...

I would like to first take a moment to sincerely thank Mr. Rumsfeld for taking Al Quaida to the mat as it were...and I...the citizen consider this a "tag team" match....rather than "The long war"...no offense...but I , speaking only for myself as an individual, find the concept of "the long war" wholy unacceptable for one basic fundamental reason, it will be my kids and their kids who'll have to win it.

If I may pre-empt the history writers for a moment, I'd say Mr. Rumsfeld will be held in high regard for his honorable service to "we the people" and 55 million other folks, more memorable quotes than Winston Churchill, and for being generally a pretty stand-up guy, as his desk will lend testiment to ; and if he called it as he saw it...and invariably did....foreign militaries grasped his common sense. A word of thanks is due.

As is to Mr. Bolton for his exemplary diplomacy. Folks compare dealing with issues in congress like "herding cats" I've been told. In the UN's case, it seems to me to be like herding the entire zoo.
Personally, I could envision him heading up the IAEA, and it would be better for it. And it's sad to see someone work for "we the people" so hard and so succesfully in all that was asked of him, not to have the approval of those "we the people" elected to represent us.

And if I may, a lot of folks have "tagged up" prior, and it's the same on the international stage....change is inevitable.....peacefull change is desirable.....and democracy R US, sayeth the people.

So please accept this citizen's National Intelligence Estimate in the spirit of mindset that the war on terror is evolving struggle, but not neccesarily pre-determined to be of a generation or more's duration.

Having read Sun Tzu, and understanding one of his basic military precepts was that one never allows the enemy to dictate the place or timing of battle.
The Admin and Al Quaida are in public agreement on one thing, "Iraq is the central front in the war on terror"...and unless we change that parameter, we have allowed the enemy to dictate the terms.

So then, in the interests of global peace and security, we must not remain in static defense of freedom, but place the war on terrorism in its proper place, not in the streets of those we have liberated, but on the home turf of our enemy.

No offense do I mean to anyone in saying this....wish I knew a better way to articulate what I see as "the bottom line" as it were.

We have failed to tap the greatest ally in the war on terrorism, which is the Iranian people and their thirst for freedom. Half measures and underfunded, lack of global moral support, and continued hand-wringing as to proper international measures , when it is self-evident that it would be criminally negligent to support the Islamic Republic of Iran one day longer via trade or diplomatic ties, our allies also face a clear choice, and the Iranian people will remember who supported their freedom after the inevitable fall of the regime in Tehran.

As long as the leading sponsor of terrorism exists as safe haven next door to the flegling democracies we've helped establish over the last 5 years, no amount of troops, no amount of diplomacy, and no amount of money spent in nation building will change the dynamics of the instability created by those who want, and have been engaged in war with the US over several decades.

That said, I am in full agreement with the President when he said,

"And the Shia extremists have achieved something that al Qaeda has so far failed to do: In 1979, they took control of a major power, the nation of Iran, subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny, and using that nation's resources to fund the spread of terror and pursue their radical agenda."
(Excerpt from speech-President Discusses Global War on Terror
Capital Hilton Hotel ,Washington, D.C.)

We don't want to give them the war they want nor expect....on their terms. We give them the war they are neither prepared for nor able to fight...on our terms.

Some sixty-five years ago we faced a lot of challenges, and I think of my granddad's work with Oppenheimer. Back then we were trying to end a war different than any war prior to it, and I think this brief note he wrote back in WW2 speaks volumes about the outspoken "can do" attitude of those that helped win it.

--------------------

To: Sidney Newberger
From: Eric R. Jette

Subj: Security Clearances

I have recently learned that the average time for security clearances
on a large number of cases was 63 days. This is the gestation period
for a dog. Do you suppose that you might get it down to a rabbit?

E.R. Jette

----------------------

An impatient patriot? Aye, he knew what the stakes were.

And as change is inevitable, and peacefull change is desirable....as of yesterday....I offer the following response ( link to article ) to the Iranian regime's public disinformation, and if it serves as the American people's answer to Ahmadinejad's letter, let it serve as food for thought to the Iranian people, and all of you as to how this war may be won sooner, rather than later.

Thank you for listening....We the people must ask the hard questions and provide perspective to those with the burden of responsibility for the future of mankind, having a vested interest in the matter.
Mine is but one small voice in the global constituancy trying to help others find their’s.
Although...(chuckle).....I have been known on occasion to thoughtfully mangle the English language in the process...perhaps it's simply a genetic trait.

Best Regards,

Eric R. Jette


To:
"Tehran born and raised" -

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/ali_ettefagh/2006/11/a_change_towards_institutions.html

It is hard for me to fathom how persecuting a cleric (whether credible scholar or not) speaks well of the strength of political institutions in Iran.
If indeed the man is a "charletan" as you say, would it not be the action of a strong system of government to either laugh it off as the words of a "charletan" or simply engage in honest debate if what he said..."I believe people are fed up with political religion and want traditional religion to return," ...has a following, which in fact it does....not all Shiite sects aprove of political Islam.
In fact it is a sure sign of fear and institutional weakness that disallows debate and opposing viewpoint within Iranian society.
Condemned some 50 times in the UN for human rights violations, leaders and former leaders of your nation now face inditement (Argentina's for one), lawsuits, sanctions and increasing pressure on multiple fronts from the international community, as well as from the Iranian diaspora's thirst for freedom.

After almost 30 years, what has political Islam given you? Khomeni's "Utopia"?

A hemoraging stock market, the flight of capital and the "brain drain" of intellectuals and the highly educated, the continued repression of centers of higher learning, teachers, students, and anyone else that is in any way seen as non-conformist to the mindset in power.

All the promise of the future traded for a plastic key to paradise, given to the children ( not even adults) of Iran that the leaders of your nation used to penetrate minefields in the Iran/Iraq war.

Not to mention attempting to be "more Palestinian than the Palestinians" in using that tragic conflict as an excuse to distract from the regim's own failures at home and in international relations.

Whether the press is good or bad, if it be accurate, it is not "blown out of proportion", but exists in context to what a majority of Iranians already know...the "revolution" has failed them.

What I see from their words today(the mullahs and supporters)is threats shrouded in niceties, the essential intellectual hypocracy of arrogent rightiousness in claiming to have any understanding of absolute truth, as manifest by a political sect of Islam wholy incapable of having an open and honest dialoge within its belief structure, let alone a "dialoge among civilizations"; and a pattern of criminal and sociopathic behavior that has been elevated to an "art form" by the leadership of Iran since the '79 revolution.

http://www.iranfocus.com/uploads/video.jpg

My answer to Ahmadinejad's wrong thinking-ness is that raising a family, growing old and watching your kids thrive and prosper in peace, and knowing the joy of this over time, having contributed to its manifestation , having created one's reality , a new generation, ....is the ultimate artistic endeavor.

La Familia, Solidarity, .....no question a man (or woman) would give their life to save one's family, but that would not be art, rather shear and tragic neccessity in extreme circumstance.

Antar (Ahmadinejad) is putting a cause above family to the extent that it appears that the leadership of a nation advocates national suicide on an artistic basis, for meglomaniacal ends, and those who advocate such lack of respect for life and Islam itself should be given a one way ticket to a padded cell in hell....the Islamic version of hell that is.....at the hands of the global umma itself.

This is the bit that really convinces me that he is a taco shy of a combination plate....Islam is already global....What exactly is this guy's major malfunction?....unless of course he is advocating a global purge of all non-Muslim people, then that is public advocation of Genocide on a global scale and will not be permitted to occur.
The incitement , inducement, rational, however you wish to characterize Antar's advocacy of Martyrdom in the context of this video... is in and of itself, evidence of, and grounds for inditement on charges of intent to commit mass murder, in an international court of law.

It is apparent to me that many supporters of this regime are sitting on a gaping hole in the carpet of their rhetoric.

Those of the Muslim faith, as well as those Iranians who read this have my great sympathy and support for the choice that you must now make in favor of freedom....as individuals, to preserve your families, nation and the umma itself from those who lead a great nation and people over oblivion's cliff.


--------end -----------

http://www.onejerusalem.org/blog/archives/2006/12/video_exclusive_6.asp


The food for thought offered in my letter above is a case in point of parallel thinking from a different point of origin than the link I provide herein as follow-up. Inditement is not a "new idea" nor exclusively Israeli thinking, as the Iranian opposition has been calling for the members of the IRI to be held accountable for some time, years in fact. Now is that time.

Best Regards to all Activistchat members,

Eric Jette


P.S. One last thing....If Antar and the mullahs don't like hearing the truth from a Bhuddist "infidel" let them issue all the fatwas they like...and die of their anger....I'll still be here when they've been relegated to the dustbin of history....in the service of freedom.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:59 am    Post subject: Draft Petition: Reject Iraq Study Group (ISG) Surrender Reply with quote

Draft Petition: Reject Iraq Study Group (ISG) Surrender Recommendations To Enemy Of Freedom and New Vision Of Future For Victory



We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned regarding The Iraq Study Group’s call for negotiations with Islamic Fascists Occupiers Of Iran … as surrender to enemy of freedom . Negotiating, appeasing, détente with Islamic Fascists (Terror Masters) and looking the other way are recommendations from ISG and Blood Oil Lobbyists.


To avoid a return to before September 11 thinking, recommending the new set of optimal rules and test cases.

Due to the fact that the U.S.A. was founded as a secular government, based on the authority of "We, the People," not a god, or dictator. and was the first nation in history to separate church and state therefore any new foreign policy and strategy must reflect the vision of American founding fathers and not short term interest of any single group with hidden agenda.


Our future expectations from policy makers and leadership are defined with new set of test cases for foreign policy evaluation criteria to be able to measure success and failure results more easily. Our recommended test cases and criteria are based on the American founding fathers vision, spirit of freedom, US constitution and defined as follows:


1- Have a secular democracy purpose

2- Have a Human Rights purpose

3- Have a Free Society purpose

4- Have a primary effect to increase freedom at global level.

5- Have the element of War Of Ideas to expand public awareness, education and expansion of truth.

6- Applying the U.S.A. Supreme Court accepted "Lemon test," to foreign policy decisions, strategy and conduct. According to the "Lemon test," in order to be constitutional, a law or public act must: a) Have a secular purpose. b) Have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. c) Not result in excessive governmental entanglement with religion.



The ISG recommendations did not pass the above standard test and expectations therefore should be rejected and any new future foreign policy strategy from Right or Center or Left should pass the above test and United We Stand Victory strategy to be acceptable.



No compromise and nothing less than total victory against Islamic Fascists can be acceptable from leadership. This Internet petition is from YOU to leadership to hear YOU with clarity, please feel free to add your enhancements and suggestions to comment section of this petition for possible leadership review and consideration.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eski



Joined: 20 Jun 2004
Posts: 157
Location: Washington State, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:31 am    Post subject: The Iraq war was doomed before it got started Reply with quote

First of all, I am extremely disappointed in the citizens of America and our leadership. With that said, there are several factor as to why this war was doomed to fail from day 1 and will be a failure if some people don't pull their heads from their asses.

1. America should have never gone begging to the UN to prosecute the war on Iraq. During the time of begging, Iraq shuttled all WMDs out of the country to Bakaa (sp) Valley via Syria with Russian help.

2. When our troops rolled through to Bagdad they should have kept fighting a war instead of becoming policemen. They should have maintained a high intensity war that would absolutely paralyze the Islamist and not given them room to catch their breath.

3. Embedded Media should never have been allowed. With a liberal media that is anti-war and anti-American they were able to sway public opinion by skewing the news to reflect it as a failure, a quagmire, George Bush's Viet Nam. All of the positive things that happen there never get reported, only the bad. Our enemies couldn't have bought a better propaganda machine.

4. We should not allow seditious statements by American citizens and especially our government officials during a time of war. Many in our government have conducted themselves with treasonous behavior. We've had Senators and Congressmen call our troops Nazi's, Terrorist, Murderers and an assortment of other evil things. We have also had Senators and Congressmen leak secrets to the media of our tools in use against terrorists. The loyal opposition is anything but loyal. They are, for the most part, treasonous scum that care nothing about America except for how much power they wield over us. During WWII many of our elected officials would have been arrested, tried and convicted for the things that they have done just to make the Bush Administration look bad. Our liberal, leftist, Senators and Congressmen and their cronies in the liberal press have effectively delivered all of the enemies wildest dreams to them at our expense. Why else would the Islamist scum and our other enemies be so happy that Democrats are in control of both houses of Congress and delivered Bush as a lame duck President?

5. We should have immediately cut all foreign aid to countries that were against us, especially the ones with ties to Islamist scum. Just doing that would cover the costs of the war. People would not be able to ***** about the mounting costs of the war.

Those are a few of the factors that have doomed us to failure.


Americans have had it too good for too long and as a result we have become soft and unwilling to make any sacrifices for our country. Not all of us but way to many. It will take an attack on the United States that makes 9/11 look like a firecracker to wake these selfish, lazy malcontents up from their pampered lifestyle. That goes double for Europe. Unless Americans start making sacrifices for our country, we are going to get hit hard. The enemy isn't afraid of us anymore. They know that our government and many of our citizens don't have the stomach to fight a protracted war against terrorist. And we have a government that is so worried about offending the enemy that they trip over themselves to kiss their ass. The prisoner at Gitmo live better than many our our own citizens and certainly better that the people in our prisons. We get attacked by Islamists and the first thing we hear from our leadership is how great a religion Islam is and how it's a religion of peace and love. They send our troops to sensitivity training so as not to offend Muslims while we fight them. We increase the amount of Visas to Islamic countries after we get attacked by Islam. Our President has an Islamic Cleric over to the White House for Ramadan. Our borders are as wide open as they ever were. Oh.. I forgot.. Now we have to have a Passport to fly to Canada or Mexico. That is our leaderships way of stopping terrorist from getting into America Shocked I could probably write a book on the stupid things that our leadership has done during the fight of our lives, to undermine our country at every turn. It seems like every day I read something new or hear something new that our leaders have done that leaves me to shake my head in astonishment. It never seems to end and then our citizens elect the very people to power that were undermining our country during a time of war. It is absolutely astonishing.

In the end we won't have a choice but to fight to win. The goal of Islam is to convert the whole world to their psychotic religion or kill all the infidels. They won't give us a choice but to fight like our lives depend on it, like the very survival of our country depends on it. When that happens, I would not want to be on the receiving end of that wrath.

_________________
Liberalism is NOT a political philosophy.
It IS a MENTAL DISORDER! (Michael Savage)
Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very well said Eski, I agree with everything you said....
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 -> General Discussion & Announcements 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