![[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index](http://www.activistchat.com/images/ActivistChatStandsLogo.jpg) |
[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.
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:47 pm Post subject: ActivistChat Support For Azadegan |
|
|
IRAN'S CRITICAL GEO-STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT
http://afdii.org/azadegannew/GeoStrategic.asp
Iran, because of its size, population, cultural identity, resources and its location as a historical, geographic and an economic link between East and West, in addition to bridging two vital centers of energy, namely, the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf, assumes an importance greater than ever before. Today, the overarching significance of Oil in the global economy and the concomitant rise of nationalism and religious particularism has vividly added to Iran's importance not only as a passive link, but as a key player and indeed instigator and arbiter of events transpiring in the entire adjacent region. This "adjacent" region stretches from the shores of the Mediterranean to the semi deserts of Afghanistan, and Baluchestan in Pakistan, to the towering peaks of the Caucasus to the shores of the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. Iran in every sense of the word, is the center of this varied moment< - -Moreover, few important decisions among the regional states regarding political and economic interests can be made without considering the interests and reactions of Iran. From the foregoing, it is apparent that Iran's geo-strategic location in the region places an extra-ordinary prerequisite for adeptness and ability in domestic and foreign affairs, on the shoulders of its government leaders. Focus on Iran believes that the current Iranian government fails miserably in that requirement.
This leadership's behavior in the past decade reflects the cleric's inability and ineptness in dealing with the outside world and addressing the needs of its people. The burden thus, placed on the Iranian government is great and considering its inability and incompetence, so is the impelling necessity of replacing it with a government that is capable of meeting the present challenge and the future needs of the nation. An essential factor bearing on the reputation and effectiveness of any future Iranian government (as well as for any other democratic government) is its credibility. This credibility
must exist both in the minds of its people and the international community. Since the clerics in Tehran, rule without the consent and will of the Iranian people, therefore they lack that vital quality and credibility. All these failures of the current government of Iran, has contributed to its apparent irrational and self-destructive behavior. In response to such short-sighted policies, Iran's leadership has not only become a "pariah" government in die global community but it is also mistrusted and extremely unpopular in the eyes of the Iranian populace.
IRAN AS THE FOCAL POINT AND THE GEO-STRATEGIC CENTER OF THE MIDDLE -EAST AND THE ADJACENT REGION
In order to appreciate Iran's critical and important geo-strategic location as links between East and West (the Middle East and South Asia), North and South (the Caucasus-Central Asia and the Persian Gull) one only needs to look at the accompanying schematic diagram with its reference points (1-16) which are discussed in this issue. Perhaps, no other country in the world finds itself surrounded by as many nations and geographical points, bearing issues relevant to a nation's domestic and external security and/or survival needs. Reflecting on this geo-strategic reality, the imperative for a superior and credible national leadership for Iran becomes even more evident. Focus on Iran, will now illustrate this imperative by highlighting the impact of each of these 16 reference points on Iran's foreign and domestic security and national interests and how the current regime has failed to address these issues due to its incompetence, misunderstanding, lack of breath in foreign affairs or in pursuing its narrow self-interest rather than the national interest.
1- THE CASPIAN SEA:
The vital fishing industry on the southern beaches of the Caspian Sea is threatened in short term, with pollution from the Oil fields at Baku and others in the Western Caspian Sea and, in long tern, pollution from the Volga and Ural rivers. The current regime has not pressed for an environmental compact between itself, Azarbaijan. Russia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. The failure to do so will have significant economic consequences for the nation in the future.
2-TURKMENISTAN:
Relations with this nation at present is good. In fact, a railroad is planned to connect Ashkhabad with Mashad. The obvious conclusion upon inspection is that Mashad will be connected by Rail to Trans-Caspian Turkmenistan and by that means to points further east in the former Central Asia Republics. It would appear that the current regime hopes to reap political benefits through this rail linkage. More to the point, are the desired economic and strategic benefits, which are purchased at a price the nation most likely cannot afford, especially, the uncertain returns on this investment and the economic needs of the populace. Focus on Iran believes the price to be too high for the dubious future benefits.
3-AFGHANISTAN:
By its ineptness and lack of long range vision, the clerical leadership has become involved in the "Afghan Quagmire", namely by attempting to insinuate its influence in Kabul at the potential cost of deteriorating relations with Pakistan and a large emigre population of Afghans in the Khorasan province. The "Taleban" who became an important factor in Afghanistan's policy in the last two years, for political and strategic reasons, have been supported by Pakistan. It would be more prudent and rational, if not more to the nation's long term interests, if the ruling clerics remained aloof from the political turmoil in Afghanistan till "the dust settles."
4- PAKISTAN:
Relations with Pakistan which indeed as allies in CENTO in the height of the Cold War, had been close and cordial for decades, has significantly cooled within the past year. The clerics' support of the Kabul War Lords against the Pakistani supported Taleban Sunnis, along with the ostentatious rapprochement with India, has further exacerbated the distance between Tehran and Islamabad The consequences of this cooling relationship is yet to be seen both in terms of benefits for Iran from India and possible problems with the Baluchis in both Iranian and Pakistani Baluchestan. With all of its other external and domestic problems, Iran can ill afford to bring about a hostile Pakistan on its Southeastern frontiers.
5- OMAN:
Relations with Oman seem to be relatively on a friendly basis, with a mutual desire to maintain calm and unobstructed passage in the Strait of Hormuz , for the benefit of both nations. It should be emphasized that, this mutual interest is to permit the uninterrupted flow of Oil through the Strait -- an economic necessity for Iran, a strategic and political necessity for Oman.
6- THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ:
The current regime realizes the economic necessity of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open for its own Oil exports; its problem is how to deal with the Oil exports of states deemed hostile at present or in the future. The Tehran leadership must foresee that any attempt on their part to interfere with flow of Oil through the Strait would incur the military intervention of the U.S.A. and other major military powers. Focus on Iran believes that the present clerical regime would not be capable of dealing with a crisis involving the Strait of Hormuz.. Rather than pursuing a rational policy concerning an uninterrupted Oil flow through an internationally respected water-way, the current leadership is likely to pursue a course inimical to the national security interests of Iran. Islamic Republic's reputation as a "Pariah State" would most likely limit its ability to formulate an internationally acceptable policy in regards to the Strait of Hormuz which could concurrently be beneficial to Iran's security interests.
7 & 8 - THE PERSIAN GULF ISLANDS AND THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES:
The issue of Iran's sovereignty over the small Persian Gulf islands, namely the Lesser and the Greater Tumbs and Abu Musa, are intervened by the U.A.E. and hence, for the sake of our discussion, are considered collectively. The value of the Islands as a source of off-shore Oil deposits has greatly enhanced their political and economic importance. The issue here is not sovereignty but rather the ineptness of the Tehran regime in its handling of the Islands' recognized sovereignty. It should be noted that since November 1971, when Great Britain, the Sheikh of Sharja and Iran agreed on Iran's sovereignty over the Islands, the issue was tacitly recognized by the international community. For misguided reasons,-the clerics in --Iran have-possibly-re-introduced the-issue for domestic political purposes. By doing so they have not permitted the "sleeping dogs to lie" which, would have been the prudent and insightful course. Now it has become an issue of conflict with the U.A.E., with the international community not necessarily supporting the assumed uncontested sovereignty of Iran over these Islands. The dispute over the Islands need not have occurred. Once again Iran's national interest has been jeopardized by the incompetence of the clerical regime and their lack of comprehension of the international community's temper, especially in regards to a vital area such as the Persian Gulf.
9- QATAR:
Relations with Qatar are friendly since both countries share a common antipathy towards the Saudi Arabia, albeit for significantly different reasons.
The current regime has supported Qatar in its ..on again -- off again" border dispute. From Riyadh's point of view, this border dispute is but a minor distraction in its overall Persian Gulf foreign policy and strategic outlook. For the Islamic Republic to become involved in such a relatively minor problem, is to waste important diplomatic resources at a future time when Saudi Arabia's friendship and support might be needed, as for example, against a resurgent and belligerent Iraq. Once again this behavior reflects the short-sightedness and the shear level of misunderstanding of important and critical foreign policy matters by the Mullahs' regime in Tehran.
10- BAHRAIN:
Iran's relations with Bahrain are unnecessarily convoluted and seemingly Machiavellian. In the far distant past, namely from the time of the Sassanid Emperor Shapur 11 in the 4th century A.D. up until the time of Fat'h Ali Shah Qajar, "Persia" laid claim to the Island but, in the modern era, Iran along with the international community and the United Nations in 1971, has recognized Bahrain's independence. The current clerical leadership has, on several occasions hinted at its _reassertion of claims to Bahrain, perhaps to reinforce its sovereignty over the disputed Persian Gulf Islands. In this "tit - for - tat" game, Islamic Republic would not only lose all the historical credibility and control Iran has had over these Persian Gulf Islands but would become even more isolated in the international arena for undertaking such a scheme. The lesson of the Persian Gulf crisis of 1990 to 1991 over Kuwait should be borne in the minds of the clerics in Tehran. Bahrain like Kuwait has many powerful allies who, would not permit Islamic Republic's intimidations and threats to come to fruition.
11- SAUDI ARABIA:
It is not surprising and indeed understandable that Islamic Republic and Saudi Arabia would be rivals for hegemony over the Persian Gulf. The two nations represent centers of their respective Islamic sects (Sunni Saudi Arabia - Shiite Iran). They share economic supremacy with their respective petroleum production. Each shares world attention because of their economic and strategic importance. The small but significant number of Shiite workers (around 10 percent) in the Oil fields area, represent to the habitually reclusive and suspicious Saudi leadership, a security threat which became a reality with the abortive attempt to seize the great mosque at Mecca, after the Ayatollahs' accession to power. The need for amicable relations and cooperation between Iran and the Saudi regime would in many ways benefit Iran far more than-the Saudis-, especially strategically and economically. In the latter case, a cooperative relationship could have positive results in stabilizing, if not raising, the Oil prices in OPEC. Certainly, Iran would be a financial beneficiary of such a cooperative effort. Strategically, regional peace and political stability are vital to both nations. Islamic Republic's support of terrorism and interference in the region's national / domestic affairs can bring nothing but eventual harm to Iran. In this matter, the Saudis are most concerned and reactive to Tehran's foreign machinations, fearful that in the end their regime would be subject to religious or political undermining. This state of affairs has caused the Saudi government to invest billions of dollars for defense and the United States intervention in the Persian Gulf. Because of their misguided foreign policy, the clerics have brought about mistrust and anxieties in Riyadh along with the resultant arms race which is potentially detrimental to all nations of the region and perhaps more so for the Islamic Republic itself.
12- KUWAIT:
Iran's relations with Kuwait are at the most "friendly", much of it based on their mutual concern for Saddam Husain's future hostile intentions. It would seem that the clerical leadership missed a golden opportunity during the Persian Gulf crisis of 1990 - 1991 to lend its moral support, at the minimum, to Kuwait - the victim of Iraqi aggression which Iran itself experienced a decade earlier. Because of lack of "political foresight and knowledge of the international temper", it failed to react. In some quarters the charge of cowardice has been placed on Iran, a charge which the noble, enduring and courageous people of Iran do not deserve. If Tehran sought Baghdad's gratefulness and reward for its "neutrality" and for its objections over the United States involvement, the trophies earned have not yet been forthcoming.
13- IRAQ:
Since the 1988 cease-fire after an 8 year war with Iraq, Iran's relations with the latter have taken unpredictable and at times irrational turns. One is led to believe that Tehran has done its utmost to cant' Baghdad's favor at almost any cost and, without apparent benefits. Focus on Iran surmises that the clerical leadership believes (and erroneously so) that its reconciliation with Baghdad would possibly create an Anti-Western Axis which would ultimately include Syria. This axis would thereby threaten Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and certainly Kuwait. Tehran might calculate that a friendly relationship with Baghdad will solve the Kurdish problem redounding both countries. In either case, if indeed these are Tehran's motives for its friendly relations with Iraq, they are doomed to fail. In the first place, the likelihood of Damascus and Baghdad reaching an accord is null considering the irreconcilable split in the Baathist political environment and Syria's priority of negotiating the return of the Golan Heights for an Israeli quid-pro-quo, namely the suppression of the clerics' backed Hizbollah terrorists in Southern Lebanon. In this event Syria is likely to reach an accord with Israel and the United States, at the expense of its close relationship with the Islamic Republic. It should be noted these warm ties have cooled over the past few years which may further indicate Damascus jettisoning the Mullahs in Tehran for more favorable relations with the USA. Secondly, regarding the Kurdish issue, the Kurds of Iraq are under U.N. protection and are not likely to be entrusted to Saddam Husain's mercy. Iran's Kurds are different and their issues ought to be attended to in an alternative mode by a humane national Iranian leadership. Tehran's flirtation with the pariah regime in Baghdad could not bring long lasting benefits to the country other than further isolation from the international community. There is nothing to be gained by an alliance with an outlaw regime. If the current Tehran government should bring about a coalition or alliance with Iraq, it would indeed be the reincarnation of the sinister Axis of the World War II era.
14-TURKEY
Among all of Iran's neighbors, Turkey has the most powerful military force and is closest to the West (through NATO). Iran's relation's with Turkey, since the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, have been correct and for the most part friendly. They share, to a certain degree, the issue of the Kurds' and desire for stability in their adjacent regions. Over the years both nations have participated in mutually beneficial trade and commerce as well as uninterrupted cross border transit of people and goods. During the cold war both nations shared the concern and defense of their respective borders with the Soviet Union. Today the long standing amity may be threatened by Tehran's interference in Ankara's domestic affairs. The recent elections in Turkey, which has seen the defeat of the secular pro-Western "True Path" Party of Prime Minister Tansu Ciller and the slim victory of the Islamic fundamentalist "Refah - Welfare" Party. There is evidence that many Iranian financial and political resources are backing the "Refah" Party. It should be noted that to date, the "Refah" Party has been unable to form a coalition with the other pro-Western secular parties. The "Refah" has only 21 % of the Parliament seats, far less than the required ruling majority. It is of vital concern to regional peace, stability and the global democratic interest that, Turkey's government remain a secular democratic one, free of the radical influence and/or interference of the clerics in Tehran. Should the "Refah" Party succeed to form a coalition government in time, the coalition partners are likely to be destroyed resulting in a fundamentalist radical dictatorship.
15- AZARBAIJAN:
Since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, the Tehran leadership, instead of establishing a rational relationship which relies on historical and cultural ties, has pursued a policy of becoming involved in the domestic affairs of the newly created Republic at Baku. Since the population of Azarbaijan is predominantly Shiite, the task for the clerics in Tehran, on the surface, could not be an arduous one. The desire of any religious or political entity to wish for a neighboring state to share its values, is comprehensible. In this instance, however, the clerics' involvement in Baku will be eventually resented and anti-Iranian reaction would manifest itself. It must be remembered that Northwestern Iran has a large Azari community which could become a problem if a hostile regime in Baku should come to power. The Mullahs in Tehran should bear this in mind for the long term consequences, if their current policy fails in Azarbaijan.
16- ARMENIA:
The short 30 mile border with Armenia wedged in between the Azari enclaves of Nakhchevan and Azarbai jan, reflects some degree of importance of Christian Armenia to Iran. The border region is extremely rugged with no cross-border land routes. Economic and social interaction between the two nations are not substantial and therefore no forcible problems is likely by the clerical leadership.
From the foregoing, it is obvious that the current clerical regime has only a few points on its circumferential frontier where it maintains friendly and non-controversial relations (i.e. Oman, Kuwait, and Armenia). Among the other 13 points on its periphery, the clerical government finds itself risking ventures ranging from local domestic interference to threatening regional political stability and military security. In the latter case, even risking the military intervention of the Great Powers. In all these cases little benefit is seen for the Iranian nation and its people given the risks and costs to Iran. Focus on Iran is of the opinion that the current benighted leadership in Tehran, is either blind to the dangers facing Iran due to its vile policies towards its neighbors or, is taking calculated risks in pursuit of unwise and unrealistic goals. If past history were to be the guide, then it may be judged that this is the behavior of totalitarian regimes which ultimately causes their own downfall.
Last edited by cyrus on Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:51 pm Post subject: Group warns of WMD attack on Israel, calls for 'new Iran' |
|
|
Group warns of WMD attack on Israel, calls for 'new Iran'
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453936.1479166667.html
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
A Washington-based group said Hizbullah's ongoing rocket and missile attack is intended to "swamp regional defenses" so that Iran's strategic missiles can "deliver WMD against Israel."
In a full-page advertisement in today's Washington Times, the Azadegan Foundation, an exile group headed by former Iranian diplomat Assad Homayoun, urged "an end to clerical rule, and the introduction of representative government for all of Iran."
The current war between Israel and Hizbullah comes as no surprise, the statement said.
"We have know for some four years that Iran's clerical leadership has, mostly through Syrian and with active participation from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, been pouring thousands of Zalzal-2 and Fajr rockets and missiles into HizbAllah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) units in Lebanon's Beqa'a Valley, for use against Israel. Now they are being used. And, clearly, this is only the beginning. They are the mass barrages meant to swamp regional defenses so that Iran's strategic Shahab-3 ballistic missiles and other weapons can deliver WMD against Israel and other targets in the region."
The statement, titled "War in the Middle East will continue to escalate . . .", emphasized that "the small number of clerics who dominate Iran do not represent the Iranian population, or even Persian or Muslim traditions."
The advertisement charged that war is the key to the mullahs' ability to maintain their power (such as in the 1982 Iran-Iraq War), but offered "options." There is, it continued, "a viable, experienced team of leaders capable of re-shaping Iran." The only name mentioned in the statement was that of Dr. Assad Homayoun.
The statement emphasized what was not needed from the United States:
"No need for covert action";
"No need for U.S. funding or direct U.S. military action";
What is needed "from the international community is its enthusiastic, open and direct support of the Iranian people to establish democracy."
A separate vision statement released by Homayoun said the Azadegan Foundation "believes that the clerical rulers of Iran have lost the last vestiges of political, moral, and religious legitimacy."
Homayoun outlined a strategy for the "liberation of Iran" which included influencing world public opinion, forming a government-in-exile, cultivating sympathetic segments of the military and security forces, and culminating in a general uprising.
Among the bedrock principles for a new system of government in Iran, Homayoun's statement included the following:
"Separation of religion and state must be enshrined in the laws of the land so that the possibility of a recurrence of another episode of theocracy will be prevented forever."
"It is in the national interest of Iran for the transition of power to take effect in a peaceful manner. Bloodshed and vengeance must be prevented."
"Women must have their natural rights of full and equal participation in the political process and economic progress."
"Azadegan supports a free market economy compatible with he needs and realities of Iranian society, dedicated to the expeditious economic reform and rebuilding of the shattered economic infrastructure as well as the industrial and agrarian sectors."
"The foreign policy based on ideology promoting revolutionary Islam is against the national interest of Iran and its regional stability and world peace. Iran must pursue and independent foreign policy based on its national interests."
"Iran must denounce, repudiate and sever all relations with terrorist organizations and groups." |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
blank
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 1672
|
Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Ramin Etebar, MD"
Subject: Panel on House Resolution 942 commemorating the 100th anniversary of Iran's first Constitutional Revolution
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 05:20:56 -0700
PRESS RELEASE
July 31, 2006
For further information, please contact Kamran Beigi, 202-498-4375
PANEL OF IRAN EXPERTS TO DISCUSS H.RES.942, A RESOLUTION SUBMITTED BY REP. STEVE KING (R-Iowa) COMMEMORATING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF IRAN’S CONSTITUTIONAL REVOLUTION OF 1906
A panel of five experts on Iran will discuss H.RES.942, a resolution submitted by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) commemorating the 100th anniversary of Iran’s first Constitutional Revolution. The panel discussion will take place on Friday, August 4 in Room 1300 of Longworth House Office Building, from 10:30 am to 12:30 pm. Questions and answers will follow.
The resolution recalls that in the summer of 1906, thousands of Iranians, provoked by the corruption and oppression of their rulers, gathered in the public squares of Teheran in silent civil disobedience, intimidating the government with their quiet demand for a democratic constitution and a broadly representative congress. Finally, on August 5, 1906, Mozafaredin Shah issued an edict for the writing of a democratic constitution that would surrender power to the people. Although the subsequent history of that document was mixed, as a result of the intervention of the imperial powers and internal disagreements, it remains a model of democratic procedure for Iranians today who are seeking democratic freedoms from the present regime.
Included on the panel are Iraj Aryanpour, former undersecretary to the Iranian cabinet and staff member of VOA; Dr. William Royce, a producer at VOA, and former head of the Farsi service; Kamran Beigi, specialist on contemporary Iran; Dr. James P. Lucier, former staff director of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Professor Mansour Kashfi, President, Kashex International, a petroleum consulting firm.
The speakers are expected to present the historical background of the democratic revolution of 1906, and relate it to the aspirations of the Iranian people today and U.S. policy. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:26 pm Post subject: Azadegan’s Strategy for Change and Its Vision for a New Iran |
|
|
New
Azadegan’s Strategy for Change and Its Vision for a New Iran
http://www.azadeganiran.com/PDF/VisionEng.pdf
The Recent Past and the Contemporary Situation
Azadegan Organization
Leadership
Azadegan’s Strategy for the Liberation of Iran
A Synopsis of Azadegan’s Program for a New Iran
A. Domestic Policy
B. Economy
C. Defense and Security
D. Foreign Policy
The Three Main Sources of Support.
Post Script: Moral Support
![](http://activistchat.com/images/AzadeganOrg.jpg) |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: Time for Change in Iran? An Interview with Key Iranian |
|
|
Source URL and Better Format: http://www.azadeganiran.com/PDF/Time_for-Change.pdf
Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 1 of 6
Defense & Foreign Affairs
Special Analysis
Founded in 1972. Formerly Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily.
Volume XXV, No. 49 Tuesday, June 19, 2007
© 2007 Global Information System. Contact: GRCopley@StrategicStudies.org
Special Report:
Time for Change in Iran? An Interview with Key Iranian
Opposition Leader, Dr Assad Homayoun
Time for Change in Iran? An Interview with Key Iranian
Opposition Leader, Dr Assad Homayoun
Interview. By Jason Fuchs, GIS UN Correspondent. Dr Assad Homayoun is one of the most
significant leaders of Iran’s exiled nationalist opposition, as head of the Azadegan Foundation
(http://azadeganiran.com/), an umbrella organization which supports democratic change in Iran.
Dr Homayoun, who appears regularly on Iranian radio and television — broadcast from abroad —
as well as in the US media, is a former senior Iranian diplomat currently residing in the United
States. He was in charge of political affairs at the Iranian Embassy in Washington DC for 12
years and, just before the 1979 revolution, was Minister and Chargé of the Embassy.
For the past 20-plus years, Dr Homayoun has provided advice and counsel to many opposition
groups in exile. He helped organize the Azadegan movement along with its founder, the late Gen.
Dr Bahram Aryana, who mounted a campaign to topple the clerical Administration in Tehran, but
died in exile. Dr Homayoun earned his PhD in International Relations at George Washington
University in Washington DC, and served as a professor there, as well. He is the author of many
articles on international, Middle Eastern and Iranian affairs including articles for this publication
among others. He is also a Senior Fellow at the International Strategic Studies Association
(ISSA) the parent organization of Defense & Foreign Affairs Publications.
What are the Bush Administration’s options for dealing with the Iranian Islamic Republic?
As far as I know, Washington is looking at several different options: diplomatic negotiations,
sanctions, and war (in the form of an airborne attack, or covert operations aimed at destabilizing
the Iranian Government). None of these will be successful.
The most important weapon at the disposal of the United States and the civilized world is the
people of Iran. The theocratic leaders in Iran is afraid of nothing but the Iranian people. In the US,
generally speaking, you have two groups with respect to Iran. There are the hardliners, who
reserve the military option, and include, most prominently, several Republican Senators, such as
Sen. John McCain (Republican, Arizona), and, most recently, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Independent,
Connecticut), and also the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney. And there are those in favor of
diplomatic engagement, such as the current Secretary of State, Dr Condoleezza Rice, and the
State Department at large. This group believes that if specific issues with the Iranian Government
can be resolved then perhaps some modus vivendi could be reached between Washington and
Tehran.
This second line of thought stems from the policy suggestions outlined by [former US Secretary
of State] James Baker and [former Congressman] Lee Hamilton in their Iraq Study Group (ISG)
report, which favored engagement with Iran and Syria.
Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 2 of 6
Why do you think negotiations between Washington and Tehran would fail to achieve
substantive results?
I don’t think negotiation with Iran will take the US, or the Iranian people, anywhere because it [the
clerical Administration] is not a normal regime. It is an apocalyptic regime whose leadership is in
favor of the advance of radical Islam around the world; what the clerics officially refer to as the
“export of the Islamic revolution”. And so there are no reformists; there are no radicals — not in
the context in which the West understands those terms — in Iran: the “reformists” and the
“radicals” are two wings of the same monster. This monster has terrorized the Middle East since
the so-called Islamic revolution in 1979 that brought Khomeini to power.
The “grand bargain” with Tehran which the US State Department has in mind — a proposal which
David Samuels wrote about in his June 2007 Atlantic Monthly article — will, I suspect, turn out to
be the “grand illusion” because, ultimately, the differences between Washington and Tehran are
not over policy nuances or even the projection of US strategic power in the Middle East. Make no
mistake, Tehran has very serious foreign policy disagreements with the Middle East and is
gravely concerned with the US presence in the region.
The issue, though, is far bigger from the Tehran’s perspective: it is an existential issue; it is a
matter of a civilizational conflict between, as they see it, the secular West and its regional allies,
and “true Islam”, of which they envision themselves to be the vanguard forces. On such an issue,
Tehran will not be able to compromise and so, as I see it, the rift between the theocratic regime
and the US is as wide as the Khyber Pass and cannot be crossed.
Would you say that the US and Iran then are looking at this conflict through very different
prisms, then?
The US foreign policy establishment looks at this as an issue between two nation-states with
differing agendas, and so they look for common ground upon which a foundation for better future
relations can be built. Unfortunately, as far as the Iranian leadership is concerned, this is not a
national issue, per se. They may use nationalism to rally the population, but it is worth
remembering what the regime’s founder, “Ayatollah” Ruhollah Khomeini, told a French journalist
in February 1979. Khomeini was onboard the Air France flight which was returning him to Tehran
from exile in Paris and the reporter asked the “Ayatollah” what he felt upon returning to his
homeland after so many years away. Khomeini responded, “Nothing.”
For him and for the regime he birthed, the issue is not Iran: Iran means nothing to these people,
nation-states themselves are merely a means to an end to the Khomeinists. As they see it, Iran
was and is a springboard for the so-called “export of the Islamic Revolution”, but nothing more.
You mentioned three other options aside from diplomatic engagement and said they were
all likely doomed to fail. What about sanctions? Why do you feel they are not an effective
tool?
Sanctions have brought some economic change to Iran, but they will not be decisive because
Tehran will be able to work around them, as did Iraq’s Saddam Hussein during the 1990s. And,
again, as in [the case of] Iraq, the victim will not be the Iranian regime, but rather the people.
Moreover, I doubt that China and Russia will agree to truly comprehensive sanctions against Iran
because, at the end of the day, they do not want to see change in Tehran. Whatever form
sanctions might take, it is important to remember that the pace of Iranian nuclear weapons
development will be — and is — much faster than the pace at which sanctions would take effect.
Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 3 of 6
Why will a war, presumably in the form of an air campaign, not prove effective?
There are no good war options. Presumably, the attack would come from US airborne and
seaborne forces, perhaps with US Special Forces coordinating on the ground. One can imagine
that Washington would take aim at Iranian nuclear research installations in Natanz and Arak and
Ishfahan and other places, against leadership targets, and certain select strategic military targets.
The problems with this option are many.
First of all, it is unlikely to achieve its primary aim of stopping the Iranian nuclear weapons
program. The Iranian nuclear weapons development program in 2007 is not like the Iraqi nuclear
weapons development program in 1981. The Iraqi program was, as you know, clustered around
one particular facility at Osirak, making it relatively easy for the Israelis to stop the Iraqi push for a
nuclear weapon in a strike at a single target. The Iranian program is quite different. It is
diversified, it is far flung, and it is redundant: designed specifically to prevent another Osirak.
Thus, even a massive air strike would not stand a good chance of stopping Iran’s nuclear
weapons program. The second problem is that some members of the Iranian leadership are
actually hoping for a US military strike against Iran. There is the belief in some regime circles,
particularly around Pres. Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad and his spiritual mentor, Ayatollah Mesbah
Yazdi, that the Iranian Islamic Republic’s domestic political situation is very similar now to what it
was in 1981. In 1981, it was already possible to see the cracks in Khomeini’s new Iran. Iranians
were beginning to see that this new Iran was not the one they had been promised, and so, only
two years after the 1979 revolution, you saw political unrest and all the indicators that Iranians
wanted change.
This political ferment, this burgeoning anti-regime sentiment, was quickly anesthetized when the
Iran-Iraq war began that year. For while Iranians were fast learning to detest their new masters,
they remained proud patriots, proud nationalists, and were not about to allow a foreign power to
defeat it on the battlefield. And so, Iranians rallied around the flag, as they say in America, and 26
years later they are still stuck with this regime.
Pres. Ahmadi-Nejad and his followers are hoping that a limited US military strike which leaves
them in power will have the same unifying effect and save them at a moment when Iranians are,
as they were in 1981, beginning to unify not for the regime, but against it. It would be a mistake to
force the people back into the hands of the mullahs just as they are again beginning to break ree
of their iron grip. In this respect, a military strike that leaves the regime in power will be laying
into the hands of the very regime Washington would be going to war against.
What if the military operation was conceived on a more massive scale, aimed at removing
the clerical Administration, not just the nuclear weapons program?
Well, assuming the US was willing to make the commitment in terms of blood and treasure to
enforce “regime change” on Tehran, the situation might not look much better. A massive strike
ight have the effect of fracturing the nation, contributing to the disintegration of Iran, which might
very well lead to the Balkanization of the strategically vital region that is the Middle East.
Washington must also be aware that a military strike that endangers the perpetuity of the Iranian
regime could result in serious military reprisals by Iran against Israel and the Persian Gulf states
allied with the US. Such a war could even lead to a tactical nuclear exchange. Big or small, the
military option is simply not a viable one. It isn’t in the American people’s interests; nor is it in the
interests of the Iranian people. It is as Sun-Tzu wrote in The Art of War: “The best victory is when
the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities. It is best to win
without fighting.” This is the sort of victory we should look for with regards to Iran.
You also mentioned covert operations. What might result from such a strategy?
Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 4 of 6
To a certain extent, this strategy is already being implemented. Not in earnest, but piecemeal.
There is already emerging a strategy of support for various so-called “anti-regime elements” by
the US through the Saudis and the Pakistanis. The problem with this is the nature of these
ntiregime forces. We have seen covert support through Pakistan for the Baluchi jihadist group
JundAllah. We have seen similar support for Iranian Kurdish militants like Abdullah Mohtadi’s
Komala. We have seen US and also British backing for Arab militants in Iranian Khozestan. And,
yes, these are all virulently anti-regime elements and, yes, they are capable of putting this funding
to use in limited asymmetrical strikes against the regime’s forces as we saw when JundAllah blew
up a bus full of Pasdaran officers last year [2006], but the issue is the following: the only thing the
Iranian people are more afraid of then their own government is that Iran will become the next Iraq;
that Iran will disintegrate into ethnic or sectarian defined entities at war with one another.
The Iranian regime is overwhelmingly unpopular within Iran, but the notion of the proud Iranian
nation being dissolved is universally unpopular. And so, when Washington or anyone else
supports groups that define themselves by their ethnic or sectarian banners, the Iranian people
fear that this will only lead to the dissolution of their homeland, not its long-overdue liberation.
Thus, such steps are counterproductive. Iran is just like a Persian carpet with different colors,
different designs, but all a part of the same carpet: just like Iran, one nation, indivisible. Those
who fan the ominous tunes of separatism/federalism are underestimating the resolve of the
Iranian people.
You earlier noted that the most important weapon at the disposal of the US against the
Iranian Government is the Iranian people. What do you mean by that?
The Iranian internal situation is dire, at levels of hardship and suffering unseen in recent memory.
Young people are unemployed; there is 25 percent unemployment nationally, inflation is at 22
percent, drugs and prostitution and hunger continue to eat away at the nation from the inside out
and all of this is because of the mismanagement and corruption of the regime. It is as much a
kleptocracy as it is a theocracy.
A report leaked to ABC News recently revealed a “covert” CIA program to “increase economic
pressure” on Iran. As far as I’m concerned, the Iranian Government does not need the help of the
CIA to wreck the Iranian economy: the mullahs appear to be accomplishing this well enough by
themselves. As the historian E. H. Carr wrote in What Is History?: “Politics begin where the
masses are not thousands, but millions.” Nowhere, then, could politics be more serious than now
in Iran where the people opposed to this regime are, indeed, in the millions. There are close to
50-million young people, possibly more, under the age of 25.
The reality is that the regime is in worse shape than ever, and the people are ready to rise and
need only be galvanized.
What needs to be done to galvanize the people and why have they yet to be sufficiently
galvanized if, indeed, the domestic situation is as bad as it appears to be?
The Iranian people are ready but they need the financial means and the political leadership. Just
like gasoline for a car, without money you cannot move an organization. However, I do not
believe that money from the US Government will be very useful. The Iranian people, since 1953,
are very sensitive to the involvement of US funding in Iranian politics and so I have always been
against receiving money from Washington and, indeed, I have not and never will.
The Iranian expatriate community controls $600-billion to $800-billion outside of Iran, however,
and we need the expatriate community to be energized and active in building a better, stronger,
free and democratic Iran, and to this end some of this wealth could be put to excellent use. In
fairness to them, until now, their support for the Iranian opposition movement has been limited
because there has not been an Iranian opposition organization with the contacts and grassroots
support inside Iran, with the complimentary and necessary support structure outside Iran. And,
Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 5 of 6
perhaps most important, an opposition leadership untainted by ties to either the ruling mullahs or
Western governments has not been visible to them.
Where does Azadegan come into this equation?
The Azadegan Foundation is an organization dedicated to change in Iran; change from the
tyranny of theocracy to the liberty of secular democracy. The organization has supporters within
many different social strata in the Iranian political and cultural scene, including members in the
student movement, intellectuals, the noble and proud Iranian Armed Forces and even within the
Pasdaran, which is home to a degree of anti-regime sentiment which might surprise many
observers of the Iranian political scene.
The [Azadegan] goal is removing the clergy from power and preparing the ground for free and fair
democratic elections to let the people of Iran decide their own future. Azadegan envisions a
strong Iran dedicated to peace and stability in the region. We envision an Iran at peace with its
neighbors, including Israel with whom we have no interest in being enemies. Why is Iran an
enemy of the Jewish state? We share no borders with Israel. We have no conflict over natural
resources with Israel. So, then, why is the regime preoccupied with Israel’s destruction while they
allow their own nation to selfdestruct?
How can the regime justify paying the killers of HAMAS and HizbAllah and the Jaish al- Mahdi in
Iraq and even now — as US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns noted last week [early June
2007] — the Afghan Taliban all the while Iranian children go hungry, while Iranians can’t find jobs
to support their families? Instead of paying for schools to be blown up in lands far from home,
should not a truly patriotic Iranian government instead pay for schools to be built up here in our
own home?
So Israel would not be an enemy of a free Iran in Azadegan’s vision?
Absolutely not. History, geography, and culture have always brought the Jewish and Iranian
communities together since the time of Cyrus the Great when he ended the Babylonian captivity
of the Jewish people and allowed them to return to their homeland, modern-day Israel. Israel
knows no greater friend, no truer ally, then the people of Iran.
There is a reluctance in Washington today to deal with exiles and opposition leaders such
of yourself because of what many call the “Chalabi Syndrome”. That is, that after the Bush
Administration’s experience with the Iraqi National Congress (INC) leader, Ahmad Chalabi,
the US Government will forever more be reluctant to work with dissident leaders. How do
you convince policymakers that you are not the Iranian Chalabi?
Ahmad Chalabi received money from the US Government, for one thing. I have never asked for
US Government money and I have never received US Government money. I will never ask for US
government money nor will I ever accept US Government money. Am I friend of the United
States? One hundred percent. And rest assured the US government is well aware of my
activities. However, it is important that I remain untainted. Chalabi could not make a similar claim
as he received money through the CIA and/or DOD throughout the 1990s, particularly after the
1998 Iraq Liberation Act passed by the US Congress. And, of course, Chalabi deceived the US at
the same time he was receiving money from them.
As importantly, I think that people need to understand that just because Washington had a
negative experience with Chalabi does not mean that all opposition leaders from here to eternity
are all bad men with ulterior motives antithetical to their publicly stated beliefs and objectives.
Does this mean that from now on, any leader in exile from their homeland who dares stand
against oppression and tyranny will be tarred as the “next Chalabi”?
Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 6 of 6
Perhaps we should now retroactively apply the same label to earlier dissidents, like Poland’s
Lech Walesa or the Czech Republic’s Vaclav Havel. In light of the Chalabi situation, do we now
need to reappraise them, as well? Of course not. Men like Walesa and Havel were men of
bravery and courage and vision the likes of which our region is in desperate need of today.
Should Washington be discerning in whom it chooses to work with? Absolutely. The American
people, like any people, deserve to have their tax dollars spent in a way that reflects the national
interest. At the same time, it is important not to allow the Chalabi debacle to prevent an
unequivocal American stance in favor of Islamic liberals and Islamic democrats who are
America’s truest allies in its war against Islamist-jihadism.
What is it, then, that you need from the US Government?
From Washington, we ask for clear-cut, unequivocal and vocal support. Washington must not
underestimate the power of words. Words matter. When the State Department meets with their
counterparts of the Iranian Foreign Ministry and speaks with them about Iraq, the message to
Iranians is that lofty rhetoric about freedom for Iran is just that—rhetoric. The message is that
Washington wishes Iranians the best, but that ultimately if Tehran is forthcoming with a deal they
find worthwhile, then the United States will leave the Iranian people to their captors.
The Iranian people must know that the US Government and the American people stand with them
in their quest for freedom. When the President of the United States, the leader of the Free World,
speaks to the Iranian people, on the other hand, and demands they be treated with respect and
dignity, when he demands that they be granted the freedom that only God can give and that
these false “men of God” have stolen, Iranians know that when they stand for their freedom, they
will not stand alone. We know the names of so many Iranians who now languish in Iranian jails
only for saying what they believed, but rest assured there are others who languish unknown. And
it is to that unknown prisoner, that unknown Iranian man or woman or child, who sits alone at
night in his pitch-black cell in Evin Prison, that America and the Free World must shout loud and
clear that even in the dark you are not alone and you are not forgotten and you never will be.
![](http://activistchat.com/images/AzadeganOrg.jpg)
Last edited by cyrus on Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:30 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
blank
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 1672
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:39 pm Post subject: Re: Time for Change in Iran? An Interview with Key Iranian |
|
|
cyrus wrote: | Source URL and Better Format: http://www.azadeganiran.com/PDF/Time_for-Change.pdf
Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 1 of 6
Defense & Foreign Affairs
Special Analysis
Founded in 1972. Formerly Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily.
Volume XXV, No. 49 Tuesday, June 19, 2007
© 2007 Global Information System. Contact: GRCopley@StrategicStudies.org
Special Report:
Time for Change in Iran? An Interview with Key Iranian
Opposition Leader, Dr Assad Homayoun
Time for Change in Iran? An Interview with Key Iranian
Opposition Leader, Dr Assad Homayoun
Interview. By Jason Fuchs, GIS UN Correspondent. Dr Assad Homayoun is one of the most
significant leaders of Iran’s exiled nationalist opposition, as head of the Azadegan Foundation
(http://azadeganiran.com/), an umbrella organization which supports democratic change in Iran.
Dr Homayoun, who appears regularly on Iranian radio and television — broadcast from abroad —
as well as in the US media, is a former senior Iranian diplomat currently residing in the United
States. He was in charge of political affairs at the Iranian Embassy in Washington DC for 12
years and, just before the 1979 revolution, was Minister and Chargé of the Embassy.
For the past 20-plus years, Dr Homayoun has provided advice and counsel to many opposition
groups in exile. He helped organize the Azadegan movement along with its founder, the late Gen.
Dr Bahram Aryana, who mounted a campaign to topple the clerical Administration in Tehran, but
died in exile. Dr Homayoun earned his PhD in International Relations at George Washington
University in Washington DC, and served as a professor there, as well. He is the author of many
articles on international, Middle Eastern and Iranian affairs including articles for this publication
among others. He is also a Senior Fellow at the International Strategic Studies Association
(ISSA) the parent organization of Defense & Foreign Affairs Publications.
What are the Bush Administration’s options for dealing with the Iranian Islamic Republic?
As far as I know, Washington is looking at several different options: diplomatic negotiations,
sanctions, and war (in the form of an airborne attack, or covert operations aimed at destabilizing
the Iranian Government). None of these will be successful.
The most important weapon at the disposal of the United States and the civilized world is the
people of Iran. The theocratic leaders in Iran is afraid of nothing but the Iranian people. In the US,
generally speaking, you have two groups with respect to Iran. There are the hardliners, who
reserve the military option, and include, most prominently, several Republican Senators, such as
Sen. John McCain (Republican, Arizona), and, most recently, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Independent,
Connecticut), and also the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney. And there are those in favor of
diplomatic engagement, such as the current Secretary of State, Dr Condoleezza Rice, and the
State Department at large. This group believes that if specific issues with the Iranian Government
can be resolved then perhaps some modus vivendi could be reached between Washington and
Tehran.
This second line of thought stems from the policy suggestions outlined by [former US Secretary
of State] James Baker and [former Congressman] Lee Hamilton in their Iraq Study Group (ISG)
report, which favored engagement with Iran and Syria.
Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 2 of 6
Why do you think negotiations between Washington and Tehran would fail to achieve
substantive results?
I don’t think negotiation with Iran will take the US, or the Iranian people, anywhere because it [the
clerical Administration] is not a normal regime. It is an apocalyptic regime whose leadership is in
favor of the advance of radical Islam around the world; what the clerics officially refer to as the
“export of the Islamic revolution”. And so there are no reformists; there are no radicals — not in
the context in which the West understands those terms — in Iran: the “reformists” and the
“radicals” are two wings of the same monster. This monster has terrorized the Middle East since
the so-called Islamic revolution in 1979 that brought Khomeini to power.
The “grand bargain” with Tehran which the US State Department has in mind — a proposal which
David Samuels wrote about in his June 2007 Atlantic Monthly article — will, I suspect, turn out to
be the “grand illusion” because, ultimately, the differences between Washington and Tehran are
not over policy nuances or even the projection of US strategic power in the Middle East. Make no
mistake, Tehran has very serious foreign policy disagreements with the Middle East and is
gravely concerned with the US presence in the region.
The issue, though, is far bigger from the Tehran’s perspective: it is an existential issue; it is a
matter of a civilizational conflict between, as they see it, the secular West and its regional allies,
and “true Islam”, of which they envision themselves to be the vanguard forces. On such an issue,
Tehran will not be able to compromise and so, as I see it, the rift between the theocratic regime
and the US is as wide as the Khyber Pass and cannot be crossed.
Would you say that the US and Iran then are looking at this conflict through very different
prisms, then?
The US foreign policy establishment looks at this as an issue between two nation-states with
differing agendas, and so they look for common ground upon which a foundation for better future
relations can be built. Unfortunately, as far as the Iranian leadership is concerned, this is not a
national issue, per se. They may use nationalism to rally the population, but it is worth
remembering what the regime’s founder, “Ayatollah” Ruhollah Khomeini, told a French journalist
in February 1979. Khomeini was onboard the Air France flight which was returning him to Tehran
from exile in Paris and the reporter asked the “Ayatollah” what he felt upon returning to his
homeland after so many years away. Khomeini responded, “Nothing.”
For him and for the regime he birthed, the issue is not Iran: Iran means nothing to these people,
nation-states themselves are merely a means to an end to the Khomeinists. As they see it, Iran
was and is a springboard for the so-called “export of the Islamic Revolution”, but nothing more.
You mentioned three other options aside from diplomatic engagement and said they were
all likely doomed to fail. What about sanctions? Why do you feel they are not an effective
tool?
Sanctions have brought some economic change to Iran, but they will not be decisive because
Tehran will be able to work around them, as did Iraq’s Saddam Hussein during the 1990s. And,
again, as in [the case of] Iraq, the victim will not be the Iranian regime, but rather the people.
Moreover, I doubt that China and Russia will agree to truly comprehensive sanctions against Iran
because, at the end of the day, they do not want to see change in Tehran. Whatever form
sanctions might take, it is important to remember that the pace of Iranian nuclear weapons
development will be — and is — much faster than the pace at which sanctions would take effect.
Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 3 of 6
Why will a war, presumably in the form of an air campaign, not prove effective?
There are no good war options. Presumably, the attack would come from US airborne and
seaborne forces, perhaps with US Special Forces coordinating on the ground. One can imagine
that Washington would take aim at Iranian nuclear research installations in Natanz and Arak and
Ishfahan and other places, against leadership targets, and certain select strategic military targets.
The problems with this option are many.
First of all, it is unlikely to achieve its primary aim of stopping the Iranian nuclear weapons
program. The Iranian nuclear weapons development program in 2007 is not like the Iraqi nuclear
weapons development program in 1981. The Iraqi program was, as you know, clustered around
one particular facility at Osirak, making it relatively easy for the Israelis to stop the Iraqi push for a
nuclear weapon in a strike at a single target. The Iranian program is quite different. It is
diversified, it is far flung, and it is redundant: designed specifically to prevent another Osirak.
Thus, even a massive air strike would not stand a good chance of stopping Iran’s nuclear
weapons program. The second problem is that some members of the Iranian leadership are
actually hoping for a US military strike against Iran. There is the belief in some regime circles,
particularly around Pres. Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad and his spiritual mentor, Ayatollah Mesbah
Yazdi, that the Iranian Islamic Republic’s domestic political situation is very similar now to what it
was in 1981. In 1981, it was already possible to see the cracks in Khomeini’s new Iran. Iranians
were beginning to see that this new Iran was not the one they had been promised, and so, only
two years after the 1979 revolution, you saw political unrest and all the indicators that Iranians
wanted change.
This political ferment, this burgeoning anti-regime sentiment, was quickly anesthetized when the
Iran-Iraq war began that year. For while Iranians were fast learning to detest their new masters,
they remained proud patriots, proud nationalists, and were not about to allow a foreign power to
defeat it on the battlefield. And so, Iranians rallied around the flag, as they say in America, and 26
years later they are still stuck with this regime.
Pres. Ahmadi-Nejad and his followers are hoping that a limited US military strike which leaves
them in power will have the same unifying effect and save them at a moment when Iranians are,
as they were in 1981, beginning to unify not for the regime, but against it. It would be a mistake to
force the people back into the hands of the mullahs just as they are again beginning to break ree
of their iron grip. In this respect, a military strike that leaves the regime in power will be laying
into the hands of the very regime Washington would be going to war against.
What if the military operation was conceived on a more massive scale, aimed at removing
the clerical Administration, not just the nuclear weapons program?
Well, assuming the US was willing to make the commitment in terms of blood and treasure to
enforce “regime change” on Tehran, the situation might not look much better. A massive strike
ight have the effect of fracturing the nation, contributing to the disintegration of Iran, which might
very well lead to the Balkanization of the strategically vital region that is the Middle East.
Washington must also be aware that a military strike that endangers the perpetuity of the Iranian
regime could result in serious military reprisals by Iran against Israel and the Persian Gulf states
allied with the US. Such a war could even lead to a tactical nuclear exchange. Big or small, the
military option is simply not a viable one. It isn’t in the American people’s interests; nor is it in the
interests of the Iranian people. It is as Sun-Tzu wrote in The Art of War: “The best victory is when
the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities. It is best to win
without fighting.” This is the sort of victory we should look for with regards to Iran.
You also mentioned covert operations. What might result from such a strategy?
Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 4 of 6
To a certain extent, this strategy is already being implemented. Not in earnest, but piecemeal.
There is already emerging a strategy of support for various so-called “anti-regime elements” by
the US through the Saudis and the Pakistanis. The problem with this is the nature of these
ntiregime forces. We have seen covert support through Pakistan for the Baluchi jihadist group
JundAllah. We have seen similar support for Iranian Kurdish militants like Abdullah Mohtadi’s
Komala. We have seen US and also British backing for Arab militants in Iranian Khozestan. And,
yes, these are all virulently anti-regime elements and, yes, they are capable of putting this funding
to use in limited asymmetrical strikes against the regime’s forces as we saw when JundAllah blew
up a bus full of Pasdaran officers last year [2006], but the issue is the following: the only thing the
Iranian people are more afraid of then their own government is that Iran will become the next Iraq;
that Iran will disintegrate into ethnic or sectarian defined entities at war with one another.
The Iranian regime is overwhelmingly unpopular within Iran, but the notion of the proud Iranian
nation being dissolved is universally unpopular. And so, when Washington or anyone else
supports groups that define themselves by their ethnic or sectarian banners, the Iranian people
fear that this will only lead to the dissolution of their homeland, not its long-overdue liberation.
Thus, such steps are counterproductive. Iran is just like a Persian carpet with different colors,
different designs, but all a part of the same carpet: just like Iran, one nation, indivisible. Those
who fan the ominous tunes of separatism/federalism are underestimating the resolve of the
Iranian people.
You earlier noted that the most important weapon at the disposal of the US against the
Iranian Government is the Iranian people. What do you mean by that?
The Iranian internal situation is dire, at levels of hardship and suffering unseen in recent memory.
Young people are unemployed; there is 25 percent unemployment nationally, inflation is at 22
percent, drugs and prostitution and hunger continue to eat away at the nation from the inside out
and all of this is because of the mismanagement and corruption of the regime. It is as much a
kleptocracy as it is a theocracy.
A report leaked to ABC News recently revealed a “covert” CIA program to “increase economic
pressure” on Iran. As far as I’m concerned, the Iranian Government does not need the help of the
CIA to wreck the Iranian economy: the mullahs appear to be accomplishing this well enough by
themselves. As the historian E. H. Carr wrote in What Is History?: “Politics begin where the
masses are not thousands, but millions.” Nowhere, then, could politics be more serious than now
in Iran where the people opposed to this regime are, indeed, in the millions. There are close to
50-million young people, possibly more, under the age of 25.
The reality is that the regime is in worse shape than ever, and the people are ready to rise and
need only be galvanized.
What needs to be done to galvanize the people and why have they yet to be sufficiently
galvanized if, indeed, the domestic situation is as bad as it appears to be?
The Iranian people are ready but they need the financial means and the political leadership. Just
like gasoline for a car, without money you cannot move an organization. However, I do not
believe that money from the US Government will be very useful. The Iranian people, since 1953,
are very sensitive to the involvement of US funding in Iranian politics and so I have always been
against receiving money from Washington and, indeed, I have not and never will.
The Iranian expatriate community controls $600-billion to $800-billion outside of Iran, however,
and we need the expatriate community to be energized and active in building a better, stronger,
free and democratic Iran, and to this end some of this wealth could be put to excellent use. In
fairness to them, until now, their support for the Iranian opposition movement has been limited
because there has not been an Iranian opposition organization with the contacts and grassroots
support inside Iran, with the complimentary and necessary support structure outside Iran. And,
Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 5 of 6
perhaps most important, an opposition leadership untainted by ties to either the ruling mullahs or
Western governments has not been visible to them.
Where does Azadegan come into this equation?
The Azadegan Foundation is an organization dedicated to change in Iran; change from the
tyranny of theocracy to the liberty of secular democracy. The organization has supporters within
many different social strata in the Iranian political and cultural scene, including members in the
student movement, intellectuals, the noble and proud Iranian Armed Forces and even within the
Pasdaran, which is home to a degree of anti-regime sentiment which might surprise many
observers of the Iranian political scene.
The [Azadegan] goal is removing the clergy from power and preparing the ground for free and fair
democratic elections to let the people of Iran decide their own future. Azadegan envisions a
strong Iran dedicated to peace and stability in the region. We envision an Iran at peace with its
neighbors, including Israel with whom we have no interest in being enemies. Why is Iran an
enemy of the Jewish state? We share no borders with Israel. We have no conflict over natural
resources with Israel. So, then, why is the regime preoccupied with Israel’s destruction while they
allow their own nation to selfdestruct?
How can the regime justify paying the killers of HAMAS and HizbAllah and the Jaish al- Mahdi in
Iraq and even now — as US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns noted last week [early June
2007] — the Afghan Taliban all the while Iranian children go hungry, while Iranians can’t find jobs
to support their families? Instead of paying for schools to be blown up in lands far from home,
should not a truly patriotic Iranian government instead pay for schools to be built up here in our
own home?
So Israel would not be an enemy of a free Iran in Azadegan’s vision?
Absolutely not. History, geography, and culture have always brought the Jewish and Iranian
communities together since the time of Cyrus the Great when he ended the Babylonian captivity
of the Jewish people and allowed them to return to their homeland, modern-day Israel. Israel
knows no greater friend, no truer ally, then the people of Iran.
There is a reluctance in Washington today to deal with exiles and opposition leaders such
of yourself because of what many call the “Chalabi Syndrome”. That is, that after the Bush
Administration’s experience with the Iraqi National Congress (INC) leader, Ahmad Chalabi,
the US Government will forever more be reluctant to work with dissident leaders. How do
you convince policymakers that you are not the Iranian Chalabi?
Ahmad Chalabi received money from the US Government, for one thing. I have never asked for
US Government money and I have never received US Government money. I will never ask for US
government money nor will I ever accept US Government money. Am I friend of the United
States? One hundred percent. And rest assured the US government is well aware of my
activities. However, it is important that I remain untainted. Chalabi could not make a similar claim
as he received money through the CIA and/or DOD throughout the 1990s, particularly after the
1998 Iraq Liberation Act passed by the US Congress. And, of course, Chalabi deceived the US at
the same time he was receiving money from them.
As importantly, I think that people need to understand that just because Washington had a
negative experience with Chalabi does not mean that all opposition leaders from here to eternity
are all bad men with ulterior motives antithetical to their publicly stated beliefs and objectives.
Does this mean that from now on, any leader in exile from their homeland who dares stand
against oppression and tyranny will be tarred as the “next Chalabi”?
Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 6 of 6
Perhaps we should now retroactively apply the same label to earlier dissidents, like Poland’s
Lech Walesa or the Czech Republic’s Vaclav Havel. In light of the Chalabi situation, do we now
need to reappraise them, as well? Of course not. Men like Walesa and Havel were men of
bravery and courage and vision the likes of which our region is in desperate need of today.
Should Washington be discerning in whom it chooses to work with? Absolutely. The American
people, like any people, deserve to have their tax dollars spent in a way that reflects the national
interest. At the same time, it is important not to allow the Chalabi debacle to prevent an
unequivocal American stance in favor of Islamic liberals and Islamic democrats who are
America’s truest allies in its war against Islamist-jihadism.
What is it, then, that you need from the US Government?
From Washington, we ask for clear-cut, unequivocal and vocal support. Washington must not
underestimate the power of words. Words matter. When the State Department meets with their
counterparts of the Iranian Foreign Ministry and speaks with them about Iraq, the message to
Iranians is that lofty rhetoric about freedom for Iran is just that—rhetoric. The message is that
Washington wishes Iranians the best, but that ultimately if Tehran is forthcoming with a deal they
find worthwhile, then the United States will leave the Iranian people to their captors.
The Iranian people must know that the US Government and the American people stand with them
in their quest for freedom. When the President of the United States, the leader of the Free World,
speaks to the Iranian people, on the other hand, and demands they be treated with respect and
dignity, when he demands that they be granted the freedom that only God can give and that
these false “men of God” have stolen, Iranians know that when they stand for their freedom, they
will not stand alone. We know the names of so many Iranians who now languish in Iranian jails
only for saying what they believed, but rest assured there are others who languish unknown. And
it is to that unknown prisoner, that unknown Iranian man or woman or child, who sits alone at
night in his pitch-black cell in Evin Prison, that America and the Free World must shout loud and
clear that even in the dark you are not alone and you are not forgotten and you never will be. |
A good article by Dr. Assad Homayoun. However I strongly disagree with the notion that "we do not need financial aid from the US" & other countries. After world war II it was the U.S. Marshall plan that helped the European countries to be able to stand on their own feet. Same thing with Japan, & later with Poland & others. It is very unrealistc of Mr. Homayoun to think that the millionaires of Beverly Hills or other places are going to give enough money to the opposition groups to fight the raghead billionaires. If he really thinks that will happen, then I think he is in the land of Oz. The workers and moderate people, not the separatist, Communists, Tudehees, Jebhe Melis, & so called reformed islamist i.e. Ganji & Sazagara etc. should not have any financial support. The only way there would be a feasible nationwide strike that would bring this regime to its knees, is to have enough financial assisstance from abroad to pay all the workers, teachers, shop-keeprs, bus dirvers, train conductors etc. so they can go on strike, knowing they will get "paid" even when they're not receiving their salaries from the Mafia regime. How do you think the Polish workers got paid, when they went on strike and their Commi bosses would not pay them?? yes, a lot of money & communication tools came from the outside with the help of the U.S. and the Pope! So, my advice to Mr. Homayoun is, let's not be 'so proud' to miss financial opportunities that will help free our country... and I disagree with the people that think if we get financial help from the U.S., then we are obligated "to give something back"! I don't see Japan, Poland, and Europe giving anything back to the US... |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:59 pm Post subject: Re: Time for Change in Iran? An Interview with Key Iranian |
|
|
Dear Blank,
This is Dr. Assad Homayoun clarification to your question and concern:
Dr. Assad Homayoun wrote: | What i mean, Iranian Oppositions must not receive money from US, since money comes with conditions and after 1953, Iranian people are very sensitive to US money that comes in Covert way |
Agree with Dr. Assad Homayoun clarification.
Regards,
Cyrus
blank wrote: |
A good article by Dr. Assad Homayoun. However I strongly disagree with the notion that "we do not need financial aid from the US" & other countries. After world war II it was the U.S. Marshall plan that helped the European countries to be able to stand on their own feet. Same thing with Japan, & later with Poland & others. It is very unrealistc of Mr. Homayoun to think that the millionaires of Beverly Hills or other places are going to give enough money to the opposition groups to fight the raghead billionaires. If he really thinks that will happen, then I think he is in the land of Oz. The workers and moderate people, not the separatist, Communists, Tudehees, Jebhe Melis, & so called reformed islamist i.e. Ganji & Sazagara etc. should not have any financial support. The only way there would be a feasible nationwide strike that would bring this regime to its knees, is to have enough financial assisstance from abroad to pay all the workers, teachers, shop-keeprs, bus dirvers, train conductors etc. so they can go on strike, knowing they will get "paid" even when they're not receiving their salaries from the Mafia regime. How do you think the Polish workers got paid, when they went on strike and their Commi bosses would not pay them?? yes, a lot of money & communication tools came from the outside with the help of the U.S. and the Pope! So, my advice to Mr. Homayoun is, let's not be 'so proud' to miss financial opportunities that will help free our country... and I disagree with the people that think if we get financial help from the U.S., then we are obligated "to give something back"! I don't see Japan, Poland, and Europe giving anything back to the US... |
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
blank
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 1672
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject: Re: Time for Change in Iran? An Interview with Key Iranian |
|
|
cyrus wrote: | Dear Blank,
This is Dr. Assad Homayoun clarification to your question and concern:
Dr. Assad Homayoun wrote: | What i mean, Iranian Oppositions must not receive money from US, since money comes with conditions and after 1953, Iranian people are very sensitive to US money that comes in Covert way |
Agree with Dr. Assad Homayoun clarification.
Regards,
Cyrus
blank wrote: |
A good article by Dr. Assad Homayoun. However I strongly disagree with the notion that "we do not need financial aid from the US" & other countries. After world war II it was the U.S. Marshall plan that helped the European countries to be able to stand on their own feet. Same thing with Japan, & later with Poland & others. It is very unrealistc of Mr. Homayoun to think that the millionaires of Beverly Hills or other places are going to give enough money to the opposition groups to fight the raghead billionaires. If he really thinks that will happen, then I think he is in the land of Oz. The workers and moderate people, not the separatist, Communists, Tudehees, Jebhe Melis, & so called reformed islamist i.e. Ganji & Sazagara etc. should not have any financial support. The only way there would be a feasible nationwide strike that would bring this regime to its knees, is to have enough financial assisstance from abroad to pay all the workers, teachers, shop-keeprs, bus dirvers, train conductors etc. so they can go on strike, knowing they will get "paid" even when they're not receiving their salaries from the Mafia regime. How do you think the Polish workers got paid, when they went on strike and their Commi bosses would not pay them?? yes, a lot of money & communication tools came from the outside with the help of the U.S. and the Pope! So, my advice to Mr. Homayoun is, let's not be 'so proud' to miss financial opportunities that will help free our country... and I disagree with the people that think if we get financial help from the U.S., then we are obligated "to give something back"! I don't see Japan, Poland, and Europe giving anything back to the US... |
|
Dear Cyrus:
If we don't change our mentality from 1953, as they say in Persian, it would be 'hamoon aasho hamoon kaaseh'
We need to learn from Polish people, Japanese & others that used the outside help to their own benefit. As I mentioned above I disagree with the word that we have to accept any 'Condition' or be obligated to give 'something in return' because US has given us a helping hand to free our country from the Mafia Baboons... None of the European or Eastern European countries that took the US money, did that under certain "Condition". We really need to educate our people to get rid of the false pride & the mentality that we have to accept any "Conditions". As a nation we have to learn that we have the right to say if there is any "Condition" it would on our terms. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject: Re: Time for Change in Iran? An Interview with Key Iranian |
|
|
blank wrote: | cyrus wrote: | Dear Blank,
This is Dr. Assad Homayoun clarification to your question and concern:
Dr. Assad Homayoun wrote: | What i mean, Iranian Oppositions must not receive money from US, since money comes with conditions and after 1953, Iranian people are very sensitive to US money that comes in Covert way |
Agree with Dr. Assad Homayoun clarification.
Regards,
Cyrus
blank wrote: |
A good article by Dr. Assad Homayoun. However I strongly disagree with the notion that "we do not need financial aid from the US" & other countries. After world war II it was the U.S. Marshall plan that helped the European countries to be able to stand on their own feet. Same thing with Japan, & later with Poland & others. It is very unrealistc of Mr. Homayoun to think that the millionaires of Beverly Hills or other places are going to give enough money to the opposition groups to fight the raghead billionaires. If he really thinks that will happen, then I think he is in the land of Oz. The workers and moderate people, not the separatist, Communists, Tudehees, Jebhe Melis, & so called reformed islamist i.e. Ganji & Sazagara etc. should not have any financial support. The only way there would be a feasible nationwide strike that would bring this regime to its knees, is to have enough financial assisstance from abroad to pay all the workers, teachers, shop-keeprs, bus dirvers, train conductors etc. so they can go on strike, knowing they will get "paid" even when they're not receiving their salaries from the Mafia regime. How do you think the Polish workers got paid, when they went on strike and their Commi bosses would not pay them?? yes, a lot of money & communication tools came from the outside with the help of the U.S. and the Pope! So, my advice to Mr. Homayoun is, let's not be 'so proud' to miss financial opportunities that will help free our country... and I disagree with the people that think if we get financial help from the U.S., then we are obligated "to give something back"! I don't see Japan, Poland, and Europe giving anything back to the US... |
|
Dear Cyrus:
If we don't change our mentality from 1953, as they say in Persian, it would be 'hamoon aasho hamoon kaaseh'
We need to learn from Polish people, Japanese & others that used the outside help to their own benefit. As I mentioned above I disagree with the word that we have to accept any 'Condition' or be obligated to give 'something in return' because US has given us a helping hand to free our country from the Mafia Baboons... None of the European or Eastern European countries that took the US money, did that under certain "Condition". We really need to educate our people to get rid of the false pride & the mentality that we have to accept any "Conditions". As a nation we have to learn that we have the right to say if there is any "Condition" it would on our terms. |
Dear Blank,
Financial Times wrote: | Dr. Rice also told the Financial Times that the Bush administration is not looking for a regime change in Iran but to "have a change in regime behavior." |
As long as the Bush Administration does not have regime change policy discussing about financial support for Iranian people does not make sense.
Based on what Dr. Rice stated their past 7 years policy was based on "have a change in regime behavior." and we know they have failed so far ….
Do we know for sure whether they have new official policy to change the regime or not ?
Regards,
Cyrus |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
blank
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 1672
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject: Re: Time for Change in Iran? An Interview with Key Iranian |
|
|
cyrus wrote: | blank wrote: | cyrus wrote: | Dear Blank,
This is Dr. Assad Homayoun clarification to your question and concern:
Dr. Assad Homayoun wrote: | What i mean, Iranian Oppositions must not receive money from US, since money comes with conditions and after 1953, Iranian people are very sensitive to US money that comes in Covert way |
Agree with Dr. Assad Homayoun clarification.
Regards,
Cyrus
blank wrote: |
A good article by Dr. Assad Homayoun. However I strongly disagree with the notion that "we do not need financial aid from the US" & other countries. After world war II it was the U.S. Marshall plan that helped the European countries to be able to stand on their own feet. Same thing with Japan, & later with Poland & others. It is very unrealistc of Mr. Homayoun to think that the millionaires of Beverly Hills or other places are going to give enough money to the opposition groups to fight the raghead billionaires. If he really thinks that will happen, then I think he is in the land of Oz. The workers and moderate people, not the separatist, Communists, Tudehees, Jebhe Melis, & so called reformed islamist i.e. Ganji & Sazagara etc. should not have any financial support. The only way there would be a feasible nationwide strike that would bring this regime to its knees, is to have enough financial assisstance from abroad to pay all the workers, teachers, shop-keeprs, bus dirvers, train conductors etc. so they can go on strike, knowing they will get "paid" even when they're not receiving their salaries from the Mafia regime. How do you think the Polish workers got paid, when they went on strike and their Commi bosses would not pay them?? yes, a lot of money & communication tools came from the outside with the help of the U.S. and the Pope! So, my advice to Mr. Homayoun is, let's not be 'so proud' to miss financial opportunities that will help free our country... and I disagree with the people that think if we get financial help from the U.S., then we are obligated "to give something back"! I don't see Japan, Poland, and Europe giving anything back to the US... |
|
Dear Cyrus:
If we don't change our mentality from 1953, as they say in Persian, it would be 'hamoon aasho hamoon kaaseh'
We need to learn from Polish people, Japanese & others that used the outside help to their own benefit. As I mentioned above I disagree with the word that we have to accept any 'Condition' or be obligated to give 'something in return' because US has given us a helping hand to free our country from the Mafia Baboons... None of the European or Eastern European countries that took the US money, did that under certain "Condition". We really need to educate our people to get rid of the false pride & the mentality that we have to accept any "Conditions". As a nation we have to learn that we have the right to say if there is any "Condition" it would on our terms. |
Dear Blank,
Financial Times wrote: | Dr. Rice also told the Financial Times that the Bush administration is not looking for a regime change in Iran but to "have a change in regime behavior." |
As long as the Bush Administration does not have regime change policy discussing about financial support for Iranian people does not make sense.
Based on what Dr. Rice stated their past 7 years policy was based on "have a change in regime behavior." and we know they have failed so far ….
Do we know for sure whether they have new official policy to change the regime or not ?
Regards,
Cyrus |
Dear Cyrus:
I agree, that Bush Administration has become the "Useful Idiot" regarding the dealings with Iran! However, we have every right to announce to the world that Iranian opposition, accepts nothing but a total regime change. Having said that, we also need to let the world know, that we cannot do it alone we need their support both moral & financial.
I have heard from so many opposition "leaders" saying 'we don't need anybody's help we can do it on our own'. Obviously, their words would be taken into consideration, say if a senator or representative was trying to ask for financial assisstance. Some leftist senator will say, they don't need any financial assisstance, here is the statement from so & so....
All I am trying to say is that, rather than pretending we don't need anybody's help, especially financially, we have to do the opposite, if we really want a massive strike in Iran. People cannot go on strike if they cannot feed their children, because the criminal regime is withholding their paychecks in retalition. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: A warning to the West: Both Iran strategies being debated in |
|
|
For Better Format and all related links please visit source of this article:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/me_iran_10_10.asp
Dr. Assad Homayoun wrote: |
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Dealing With Iran
A warning to the West: Both Iran strategies being debated in Washington would lead to disaster By Dr. Assad Homayoun
Source:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/me_iran_10_10.asp
Excerpted from remarks to the National Security Roundtable in New York on Oct. 9, by Dr. Assad Homayoun, a member of the WorldTribune.com Advisory Board, are reprinted courtesy of Defense & Foreign Affairs.
You all, this past month, heard Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak in New York. You implicitly understood from his speeches that he and his clerical colleagues — who now so tenuously control Iran — are the enemy of the West, and that they are also the enemy of the Iranian people. The war which they have begun against the West is designed, first and foremost, to consolidate their illicit control over Iran itself.
The clerics do not represent the Iranian people or the historical Persian nation. And my task here today is to ensure that the United States does not commit either of the two great strategic mistakes which are currently being promoted in Washington, DC.
Those mistaken paths are, firstly, the desire of one part of Washington to “normalize” relations with Iran by treating the clerical administration as though it were legitimate. This would consolidate the clerics’ power over the people of Iran, who overwhelmingly despise clerical rule, and who overwhelmingly see the United States and the West as their allies. The second mistaken path being advocated by part of the Washington, DC, establishment is that the U.S. should take military action against “Iran”.
The clerics in Iran — who, by the way, are not legitimate Shi’a clerics; they are largely self-appointed in their clerical titles — would be happy with either U.S. strategy. Both serve their purposes of legitimizing and strengthening their control over Iran, and allowing them to extend their strategic hegemony over the Middle East and into Central Asia and the Indian Ocean regions.
But let me go further in discussing my concerns about the U.S. pursuit of a military solution to the challenge being thrown down by the clerics. And later I will discuss with you the “third path”: one which would greatly enhance U.S. prestige, security, and influence, without the dangers attendant to military operations or legitimizing the clerics through the Baker Plan’s proposed “normalization” of relations.
Bombing Iran would be militarily ineffective, and would lead to enormous, and protracted difficulties for the U.S., including possible loss of any substantial U.S. influence in the region. It would almost certainly lead to a much more virulent conflict in Iraq, and a full-scale war against Israel. Moreover, a major series of attacks by the U.S., or the West, or Israel against Iran opens the potential for damage to the Iranian people, who are not the enemies of the West or of Israel. Also bombing Iran could disturb unity of the country which will certainly contribute to balkanization of the Greater Middle East that is already volcanic.
Ruhollah Khomeini — I will not call him an Ayatollah, because, in truth, he was only called an Ayatollah to avoid being prosecuted for treason in the time of the Shah — when he was the self-styled “Supreme Leader” of Iran, in 1982, was about to be removed from office by the groundswell of public outrage against the clerics. Khomeini embraced war with Iraq — a war which could have easily been avoided — so that the Iranian people would be distracted, and would be forced, as patriots, to rally around the government of the day.
The clerics in Tehran and Qom once again seek to force the Iranian public to put aside their political hatred of them to fight a foreign aggressor. Thus, by taking the bait, the West saves them. Khomeini did not care if the war cost a million Iranian lives; the dead of Iran were a small price to pay for his, and his colleagues’, survival in power. Ahmadinejad and the other clerics — who are by no means unified, except in the need to survive in office — are trying the same trick.
Do we once again save the clerics, at the cost of God knows how many Iranian, Israeli, and American lives?
You will recall that Ahmadinejad said, when he opened his remarks at Columbia University in New York in September. He said: “Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those to attest to his rightfulness ...” This call for the arrival of the 12th Imam was a call for Armageddon, because that is what the arrival of the 12th Imam is supposed to mean.
We should make no mistake: the clerics are hoping by their direct challenges to the U.S. to force a national security crisis, which they hope to survive, even if it means presiding over an Iran reduced to rubble. Did we not see the same messianic selfishness in Hitler?
You do not need me to remind you that the Middle East — or the Greater Middle East — is the center of an array of different religions: Zoroastrian, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is the original cradle of civilizations and the deep-seated origin of much within the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman cultures which in turn gave us the modern world. You have witnessed that the region is also a center of clashes between East and West.
History is geography in motion, Geography is energy, energy is economics, economics is security and security is geopolitics.
And the geography of the Middle East, not only in ancient times but in the present, is becoming more and more important politically and economically. Nor is it all about oil and gas, although this will remain very important for the next few decades. The geography of the region shows it as the crossroads of trade, communications, and cultural exchange between East and West, and North and South. The sea lanes across the Mediterranean and through the Suez/Red Sea lines of communication are one thing; the opening of the revived Great Silk Route across the Caucasus, and possibly through Iran, is another part of the equation and one which could be the economic driver of the 21st Century. And there is also the growing network of oil and gas pipelines, and much more.
Much of the world’s progress has been jeopardized by conflicts which have suspended this strategic nexus in the past. The Great Silk Route was buried for more than two centuries of Russian and then Soviet rubble, inaccessible to the trade which had once begun to energize both Europe and Asia.
All this is once again jeopardized because of an essentially delusional group which seized power in Iran, and which are literally holding up the traders along the path, like gatekeepers and highwaymen of old, blocking a vital pass through the mountains. The blackmail they hold against us all today, including the people of Iran, is their ability to cause a great war, most probably nuclear one.
The United States has legitimate vital interests in the Greater Middle East. And there is no question that Iran — even though the clerics have robbed it of its position as a great regional power — is the center of gravity or lynchpin state of the region. To me, it is clear that none of the current problems in the Middle East and Islamic world can be solved unless there is change in Iran.
And this change is not best achieved either by bowing to the clerics’ demand that the U.S. and the West kowtow to them and legitimize them and their greatness, or by bombing Iran.
Before we move on, let me say that the Iranian command and control system, and the missiles and strategic warheads available to the clerics, are exceptionally sophisticated, and there exists a clear capability in Iran and its surrogate, Syria, to withstand a major incoming strike, and to retaliate with strategic weapons and major attacks on Israeli and Western targets. We know that there exist, ready, within the HizbAllah, Syrian, and Iranian arsenals may tens of thousands of tactical, battlefield, theater, and strategic missiles already in place to overwhelm Israeli ballistic missile defenses.
We also know that Iran has acquired a dozen or more nuclear warheads since 1993, and that, in all probability, North Korea attempted to deliver and mount at least one nuclear weapon on a Syrian missile just recently. We can also expect that, when the time comes — and it may come very, very soon — North Korea, as a major treaty ally of Tehran and Damascus, will begin major strategic moves to cause the U.S. to be militarily distracted in the Pacific as Iran, Syria, and HizbAllah begin their escalation in the Middle East.
This is a global war, and Tehran and Pyongyang have rehearsed it for many years. Moreover, Iran’s conventional warfare capability, with cruise missiles and very, very quiet Kilo-class submarines operating in the Arabian Sea, pose a danger to the three U.S. Carrier Battle groups there. If this war does erupt, do not expect the U.S. to have the same low losses of human life which we have seen in the Iraq War.
The question now may not, in fact, be whether the U.S. should attack Iran militarily, but whether Iran will give it no choice but to respond militarily to an attack by Iranian forces against Israeli or U.S. targets.
The reality is that the U.S. should already have been following the “third path” toward victory over the clerics, which would immediately stabilize the region. The third path, the option which I have always advocated, is a comprehensive psychological strategy which would empower the Iranian people to seize the situation. The clerics know how vulnerable they are to their own people, which is why they have always taken the offensive, to create a sense of siege within Iran, and to keep the U.S. at bay.
When the Reagan White House wanted to end the Cold War, the National Security Council mounted an intense psyops ) Psychological operation ( campaign which derailed Soviet decision making, and paralyzed it, often sending it off on false trails. It was the Reagan campaign which, without a shot being fired, caused the Soviet Union to collapse. And yet no such campaign has, in any realistic sense, been mounted against Iran. We should ask why not? Part of the answer lies in the fact that, historically, the State Department has been charged with seeking diplomatic solutions, opening legitimate lines of communications with foreign powers. Hence, they favor the Baker Plan. The Defense Department is charged with finding military solutions, and they plan accordingly. But, outside of the White House, no-one is charged with thinking outside the box, and with developing truly strategic maneuver, which is what psychological strategy entails.
It is not too late to begin this process. But what is critical is that we cannot allow the clerics to dictate the rules of engagement, or the field of battle. The first rule of strategy, whether you read Clausewitz or Sun-tsu, is that you must command the field, and determine the time and method of battle. And all agree that to win without firing a shot is the acme of strategic skill.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower was quoted as saying in 1951 that there was no region in the world which was geopolitically more important than the Middle East. It was true in 1951 and is even more truly profound today. The outcome of the war on terrorism and the efforts at preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — particularly nuclear weapons — are key elements which will determine the success or failure of the U.S. policy in the Middle East. The future security of the region is dependent on its successful outcome, and the stability of the region and international order is crucial to the flow of energy which is vital not only for the U.S. but for Europe and Japan as well.
The region was dominated by Great Britain for nearly three centuries, and challenged constantly by Russia and later the Soviet Union. The core of British policy was to keep other foreign powers as well as local forces from changing the balance of power or sharing in the domination. This lasted until World War II when the U.S. gradually and steadily replaced Great Britain as the dominant force in the Middle East, and continued essentially the same policy, with Great Britain as a complementary player.
Let’s face it: no-one was prepared for Germany to rise so quickly from the ashes of World War I to challenge the entire world in 1939. And no-one in the West has been prepared to understand that Iran — forgotten for centuries — could rise so quickly to provide a challenge to the U.S. and the West. We forget, too, that Iran has a number of key allies on the Eurasian landmass, helping the clerics in varying degrees for their own purposes. Iran has some very sophisticated weaponry from Russia and North Korea, including nuclear weapons. It has some support from China. These countries cannot, for their own geopolitical reasons, ignore Iran.
Thus the Great Game for the region has begun again. It is not just about Shi’ism and mainstream Sunni Islam. It is very much about geopolitics, about groups seeking to grasp or retain power, and about how people respond to threats and other stimuli. We have to be careful that the West is not going to let itself be managed by the Iranian clerics. For the sake of the Iranian people and the entire Western world, we need to start understanding, and controlling, the strategic agenda.
The Azadegan Foundation — my organization — is in a unique position to provide a sound ground for the concerted and unified psycho-political effort which is necessary for the emergence of leadership needed to transform Iran. It has the vision, background, experience, knowledge, with untainted record and also contacts — both inside and outside Iran — which will enable it to play a decisive role.
From Washington we ask for clear-cut, unequivocal, and vocal support for the Iranian people. The Iranian people must know that the U.S. Government and the American people stand with them in their quest for freedom. When the President of the United States — the leader of the Free World — speaks to the Iranian people, and demands they be treated with respect and dignity; when he demands that they be granted the freedom that only God can give and the false “men of God” have stolen: then the Iranians know that when they stand for their freedom, they will not stand alone. America and the free world must shout loud and clear. I am certain that Iranians will rise, since they vowed to fulfill the task of cleansing Iran from the pestilence, and saving the land of Cyrus the Great — and the world — from the new Dark Ages.
If we do not take this path, then a major war will disrupt the Middle East very soon, and we will all lose what we hold dear: the Iranian people will lose their lives, their land and their history; the West will lose its energy and the vital trade links with all the promise they hold for the future; and the world will see the final great end to the 3,000 years of cultural partnership between Persian culture and Western civilization. And, as with any great nuclear outcome, all that will survive will be the cockroaches.
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: Iran and US Interests in the Middle East |
|
|
Iran and US Interests in the Middle East
An address by:
Dr Assad Homayoun
President of the Azadegan Foundation
to the National Security Roundtable
New York: October 9, 2007
Source: http://www.azadeganiran.com/USInterestIran.asp
For English Version click here
For Parsi Version Click on the title below
برای نسخه پارسی به روی عنوان زير
کليک کنيد
![](http://www.azadeganiran.com/images/NationalSecurityTable.jpg) |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:13 am Post subject: Essential reading: A fresh look at Sun Tzu by, his descendan |
|
|
Defense and Foreign Affairs Daily
Sep 21, 2004
Essential reading: A fresh look at Sun Tzu by, his descendants
http://www.azadeganiran.com/AfreshLook.asp
Sun Tzu’s Art of War: The Modern Chinese Interpretation. By Gen. Tao Hanzhang.
Translated by Yian Shibing. New York, 2000: Main Street, a division of Sterling Publishing Co., Inc. ISBN:1-4027-1291-X.176pp, hardcover.
Review by Dr Assad Homayoun, Senior Fellow, International Strategic Studies Association.
SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
Many translations and commentaries have been written and published about the Chinese Strategic philosopher Sun Tzu’s book, The Art of War. Among them, the translation and interpretation by Samuel B. Griffith, with a foreword by B. H. Liddell Hart; and the translations and commentaries by Ralph D. Sawyer and the 19th Century volume by Lionel Giles are important.
War and politics are inseparable and complement each other. War has been always instrument of policy and has unfailingly been used throughout history for the attainment of political purpose. As Mao Zedong, who much benefited from the teachings of Sun Tzu, says, politics is war without bloodshed and war is politics with bloodshed. Many books have been written of War and politics, including the great manuals:
· The Artashastra, of Kautalya, the 4th Century BCE treatise from India, on art and science polity, ruling and war;
· A Mirror for the Ruler (Ghabus-Namah), by Amir Kaikawos Woshmgir, of Persia; 11th Century;
· On the Art of Ruling (Siyasat-Namah), by Persian statesman Nizam al-Mulk, the Grand Vizier of Seljuq, a Sultan of the 11th Century who was assassinated by Ismailites;
· Fatwa-i-Jahandari (Guidebook for the King) by Indian historian Zia Barrani; 14th Century;
· The Prince, as well as The Art of War, and The Discourses, by Niccolò Machiavelli, the 15th Century Florentine; and
· On War, by the 19th Century German Strategist, Carl Von Clausewitz, who unified the philosophy of politics with the philosophy of war; as well as the great works of Liddell Hart, Mahan, and others
As Machiavelli’s The Prince is the “Grammar for Power” so is Sun Tzu’s The Art of War a “Grammar for War”. And, both — but especially Sun Tzu’s book — are vitally important and applicable for the kind of war the world is now facing and calling asymmetrical warfare, or non-conventional warfare, such as terrorism, information, knowledge warfare, and cyberwar.
For thousands of years, terrorism has been used to promote religious, political, social and linguistic causes. But as was demonstrated in the cataclysmic events of September 11, 2001, by using commercial airliners as explosive missiles to cause indiscriminate civilian death and destruction, terrorism has been elevated to a strategic level of violence, both in range and scope. Today, terrorists have access to internet. They get money and support of some isolated governments, and are essentially invisible, without geography of their own, and they pose a serious threat to international order and civilization. What we can expect in the future with a great degree of certainty is that the terrorists will employ chemical, biological and possibly nuclear means to produce mass casualty. As CIA Director John McLaughlin recently said: “In the September 2001, we had ample warning of an attack ... We had the conviction that something big was coming at us. We have that same conviction now.”
This does not portend well for the future in political, social or economic terms.
The goal in every war is victory and attaining political result. The world will come soon to the conclusion that victory over international terrorism must come at any price.
As geo-strategic thinker and analyst Gregory Copley, in his masterpiece, The Art of Victory, put it, victory is the principal goal of a society and first responsibility of the state, because only in victory is the survival possible of a people, its civilization, values, language and freedoms. According to Gregory Copley, war is the most common and successful catalyst through which victory is commenced. What must be understood is whether victory is more greatly jeopardized by war, or by the avoidance of war.
Victory is always the main object of war, and it is much preferable to be attained without resorting to force.
Here is the importance of Sun Tzu’s philosophy to contain terrorism; all warfare is based on deception, surprise and dissimulation. The morale of the enemy is a target of high priority. Man is the decisive factor in war and it is man’s directing intelligence which counts most. The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. Warfare is a way of deception. The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy’s plan. Next to attack their alliance, next to attack their army. There has been never a protracted war from which a country has benefited. When troops attack cities, their strength will be exhausted, because, when the army engage in protracted war the resources of state will not suffice. In a nutshell, Sun Tzu’s basic strategy focuses on manipulating the enemy, creating the best opportunity for an easy victory trough deception, surprise and simple coercion, and using bribes covertly.
Today we are witnessing of new kind of war with forces who have no regard for values of human life. The asymmetric warfare is a new threat to humanity and it is much different from conventional warfare. The theories and principles of German strategist von Clausewitz are mostly applicable to conventional war fighting and kinetic warfare, whereas the principle theories of Sun Tzu are equally applicable to conventional as well as asymmetric warfare. Although it has been written centuries ago, Sun Tzu in his masterpiece teaches us how to deal with deception, maneuver and knowledge. Deception is most important in every war and, according to Sun Tzu, to deceive we must know ourselves as well as to know the enemies.
The new version and interpretation of The Art of War by Chinese General Tao Hanzhang, translated by Yuan Shibing, is a considerable contribution to the understanding of the philosophy of Sun Tzu. It is clearly written and presented. It is also colorful and analytical, and explains the theories of Sun Tzu with valuable comments. He combined the theories of Sun Tzu with the theory of modern war accordance to strategy and doctrines of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). He explains how the philosophy of Sun Tzu embraces all aspects of war, such as military force, politics, diplomacy and economics, and the relationship between war and politics. Sun Tzu, like Clausewitz, believes that war is the continuation of politics. The Art of War emphasizes that it is vital to overcome the enemy by wisdom and to disrupt the enemy’s alliances and subdue him without fighting.
Tao Hanzhang, a general of Peoples Liberation Army (PLA), in the appendix gives his interpretation of The Art of War with valuable comments.
As we witnessed in Chechnya in early September 2004, international terrorism is the number one threat posed by Islamists to world peace and international equilibrium. Victory in the war against terrorism will be possible only with the defeat of the fountainheads of international terrorism: those states which provide sanctuary to terrorists and provide financial, training, logistical and support to them.
The study of strategy and particularly the theories of Sun Tzu in this age of cyber war, is critical to extirpate the roots of international terrorism. Students of war and politics must study The Art of War carefully. Gen. Tao’s new interpretation of Sun Tzu is, therefore, a valuable addition to any strategic and military library |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:19 pm Post subject: Dr. Assad Homayou Speech Iranian Cultural Organization New Y |
|
|
Dr. Assad Homayou Speech Iranian Cultural Organization New York
Please Visit the source:
http://www.azadeganiran.com/SpeechNov0407.asp
سخنرانـی دکتر اسد همايون
در انجمن فرهنگی ايران زمين- نيو يورک
The Audio Files are heavy and big, please be patient util completly downloaded
فايل های صدا بزرگ و سنگين هستند تامل کنيد تا همه فايل دانلود شود
Welcome Message, and introduction
خوش آمد گوئی و شرح شناساندن سخنران
Full Audio file of Dr. Assad Homayoun Speech
کامل سخنزانی -دکتر اسد همايون-
Questio & Answer
پرسش و پاسخ
اين سخنرانی و پرسش و پاسخ به بسياری از پرسش های مربوط به همبستگی گروه ها و مسئله رهبری پاسخ هوشمندانه می دهد. شنيدن همه فايل ها را به همه ايرانياران توصيه می نمايد
This is a must heard speech, question and answer, that answers many question of unity as well as leadership
خبر مربوط به اين سخنرانی در مجله پيام
Speech at Iranian Cultural Organization - New York - Sum-up text |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
|
|
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
|