|
Weekly Commentary
Crushing
the “outpost of tyranny” from within
During her Senate confirmation hearings, Secretary of
State-designate Condoleezza Rice expressed her views about
Iran's ruling mullahs, appropriately calling Iran one of the
“outposts of tyranny” in the world. Her comments were a welcome
sign that a sound and effectual Iran policy may be emerging in
the coming months.
Responding to questions from two Senators known for their
pro-appeasement views on policy toward Tehran, Dr. Rice flatly
rejected the inaccurate comparison between Iran under theocratic
rule of the clerics and the Chinese government of 1972. She
repeatedly emphasized that there were no “common ground” with
the regime in Iran.
"This is just a regime that has a really very different view of
the Middle East and where the world is going than we do"
including an "appalling" human rights record, Dr. Rice said.
No doubt, Iran is going to be the main foreign policy topic in
Washington in the months ahead. But as the new foreign policy
team begins its work on Iran, there is an urgent need for fresh
views. So far, most of the analysis has come from the old
schools of foreign policy with a heavy dosage of “realist”
policy suggestions.
It is time to have a deeper appreciation that the twin menace of
the international terrorism and nuclear proliferation, embodied
in expansionist worldview of Iran’s Islamic fundamentalists, has
introduced a new set of geo-strategic equations quite different
from those of the Cold War era.
National security considerations can no longer be a
justification for ignoring and dismissing indigenous movements
seeking freedom. In fact, it can be argued that experience of
Iran in the past several decades shows how the Cold War calculus
paved the way for the emergence of a religious tyranny by
ignoring the crackdown on democratic forces there.
Still, some foreign policy establishments such as the Council of
Foreign Relations have justified flirtation with Iran’s
terror-sponsoring tyrants under the pretext of “selective
engagement” with “authoritative interlocutors” who are “solidly
entrenched”.
Solidly entrenched? The ruling mullahs have been bestowed this
description by the CFR neither because they are running a
popular government nor because they have created a sound economy
and an open social, political environment.
Indeed, according to CFR’s report last summer, “Iran’s
theocratic system is deeply unpopular with its citizenry… across
a wide spectrum of age, class, and ethnic and religious
backgrounds.” “Iran’s public has become intensely disillusioned”
with the status quo. The report also stated that “Iran’s
economic woes pose direct, daily hardships for its population,
whose income measured on a per capita basis has fallen by
approximately one third since the revolution.”
The Islamic Republic seems to be “solidly entrenched” due to its
immense capacity to suppress political dissent. The CFR report
says Iran rulers “have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness
to preserve the regime by crushing anti-regime protests and
imprisoning or even killing their political opponents.”
This assessment would hardly make the ruling regime “solidly
entrenched”. After all, how “entrenched” is a regime, which
rules through a reign of terror? One cannot help but recall
President Carter’s depiction of the Shah’s regime as “an island
of stability” only a few months before the unraveling of the
monarchic rule began.
If anything, these facts make a compelling case that this regime
is vulnerable in the face of a popular uprising if its capacity
to crush anti-regime protests could be undercut. Considering the
limits of a military strike, the more viable and prudent
approach seems to be relying on indigenous forces seeking
freedom and popular sovereignty through regime change.
Rather than promoting dialogue with Iran’s loathed
“authoritative interlocutors”, we must reach out to the
anti-fundamentalist Iranian democratic opposition groups. A
meaningful first step would be to end the terrorist designation
of Iran’s main opposition group, the People’s Mujahedeen, which
has significant organizational discipline and capability as an
actor of change and is singularly dedicated to unseating
Tehran’s tyrants.
There is a great chance to crush this “outpost of tyranny” from
within. It should not be squandered. (USADI)
Return to Top
Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty
January 20, 2005
Bush Starts Second Term
Focused On Iraq, Iran, And 'Promoting Freedom'
Prague, 20 January 2005 (RFE/RL) -- Bush's foreign policy
priorities for his second term include Iraq, Iran and promoting
democracy around the world.
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, set to become
secretary of state, explained the administration's perspective
on 18 January when she appeared before a Senate panel.
"America and the free world are once again engaged in a
long-term struggle against an ideology of hatred and tyranny and
terror and hopelessness," Rice said. "And we must confront these
challenges with the same vision and the same courage and the
same boldness that dominated our [post-World War II] period."
Reuel Gerecht is a former Middle East specialist with the U.S.
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). As director of the
Washington-based think tank Project for a New American Century,
he helped develop the argument for going to war in Iraq. Gerecht,
now with the American Enterprise Institute, said he believes
Rice's words point to an ongoing shift in U.S. foreign policy
that will only accelerate in the second Bush administration.
That change, he said, involves a new push for democracy around
the world -- particularly in the Middle East. Earlier American
support for dictators there is now seen as having helped spawn
disaffection and radical Islam -- and so contributed to the
terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001.
Will Washington stick to diplomacy and dollars to prod
autocratic societies to open up not only in the Middle East, but
also the former Soviet Union? Or will it again see force as a
possible tool for change?
"If you compare that to previous American administrations which
largely were unconcerned about the relationship between
dictatorship, autocracy, and Islamic extremism, then the answer
is clear: I think there has been a fundamental shift in American
foreign policy and they [the Bush administration] will continue
to move down that path," Gerecht said. But how?
Will Washington stick to diplomacy and dollars to prod
autocratic societies to open up not only in the Middle East, but
also the former Soviet Union? Or will it again see force as a
possible tool for change?
The devil is in the details -- nowhere more so than in Iran…
"I would say that you will start to see more people in the
administration begin to think about -- reluctantly begin to
think about -- a preemptive military strike because the
diplomatic avenues, particularly the European effort, has so far
shown so little promise," Gerecht said. But not all
conservatives see it that way.
Raymond Tanter is an Iran expert who served in the National
Security Council for former President Ronald Reagan. He said
some in the administration argued for a policy of long-term
"regime change" in Iran that supported the political opposition
while avoiding for now any military action:
"They will first take the main Iranian opposition group, the
Mujahedin e-Khalq, off the State Department
foreign-terrorist-organizations list and return the weapons to
that group -- that group is now lodged in Iraq -- and start
putting pressure through the Iranian opposition on the regime in
Tehran so that Tehran cannot simply be on the offensive with
respect to its nuclear weapons program and its state sponsorship
of international terrorism," Tanter said.
Whatever Washington decides to do with Iran, it remains a
possible stumbling block to improving relations with the
European Union. So does the Israeli-Palestinian conflict…
Return to Top
The Wall
Street Journal (Editorial)
January 17, 2005
No Sticks, No Carrots
Where the European Union's revived trade talks with Iran will
lead is anyone's guess. What's more certain is that the process
shouldn't inspire confidence in the union's ability to defuse
international crises.
Negotiations resumed last week, 18 months after the EU broke off
earlier talks and two months after Britain, France and Germany
struck a bargain in which Tehran agreed to suspend its uranium
enrichment activities while the two parties discussed a new
trade accord. The deal by the so-called EU-3 was hailed by
multilateralists worried the U.S. and possibly Israel would take
military action to keep the mullahs from developing nuclear
weapons.
All the back-slapping -- if not the trade talks themselves --
should have ended Wednesday when Hasan Rowhani, Tehran's top
nuclear negotiator, said, "Suspension of enrichment is for a
limited period to win the confidence of the international
community." In other words, as soon as Tehran has secured
more-favorable trade terms, it sees no reason to continue with
its cooperative charade. Tehran has made no bones about its
nuclear intentions in the past, but this might have been its
most brazen avowal yet.
The negotiations, of course, went on -- not least because the EU
has gone to great lengths to explain that the trade talks are
not linked to developments in the nuclear deal. If the EU-3
become dissatisfied with progress on the uranium-enrichment
front, they'll have to petition the entire bloc to have the
trade talks halted…
We're no fans of economic sanctions for reasons both
philosophical and pragmatic. But neither do we favor trade
concessions to rogue states that promote terrorism and have
nuclear ambitions. Whatever Europe thinks it is doing, we can
only guess. But whatever it is, the problem of Iran is coming no
closer to a solution. And it is important for everyone to know
that the penalty for failure could be very high, a nuclear-armed
radical regime making big trouble for both Europe and the U.S.
Return to Top
|
