Editor: Tom Barry, IRC available online at: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rwnews/3255
IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org
AEI Scholars Call for Iran Regime Change and Possible War
As tensions with Iran increase, many of the neoconservatives who laid the ideological and strategic frameworks for the invasion of Iraq are calling on the Bush administration to prepare for a preventive war against Iran and to immediately implement a "regime change" strategy.
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI), along with the Project for the New American Century, provided the Bush administration with many of the key members of its foreign policy team. In a January 2003 speech at AEI, President Bush noted that 20 AEI associates had joined his administration. Today, AEI scholars Reuel Marc Gerecht, David Frum, Michael Rubin, and Michael Ledeen are beating the drums for a preventive war against Iran or for a "regime change" strategy that rests on additional U.S. aid to select Iranian dissidents. We have included excerpts from their recent essays to provide readers a quick overview of the neocon arguments for expanded U.S. intervention in the Middle East.
Stephen Zunes, Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus (a joint project of the IRC and the Institute for Policy Studies) and professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, was among the leading critics of the pro-war arguments for preventive war against Iraq. In a recent analysis from FPIF, Zunes argues for a less bellicose U.S. foreign policy toward Iran and a more even-handed policy on nuclear proliferation issues. FPIF's military affairs analyst and senior fellow on military affairs at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Dan Smith, contends in his latest article, "it's time for the administration to sit down with the Iranians . and resolve the differences without threats of armed conflict." We include excerpts from both, as well as one from the Middle East experts' Open Letter to President Bush.
"To Bomb, or Not to Bomb-That is the Iran Question" http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24230,filter.all/pub_detail.asp By Reuel Marc Gerecht | April 14, 2006
"The opponents of military strikes against the mullahs' weapons facilities say there are no guarantees that we can permanently destroy their weapons production. This is true. We can't guarantee the results. But what we can do is demonstrate, to the mullahs and to others elsewhere, that even with these uncertainties, in a post-9/11 world the United States has red lines that will compel it to act. And one nonnegotiable red line is that we will not sit idly and watch a virulently anti-American terrorist-supporting rogue state obtain nukes. We will not be intimidated by threats of terrorism, oil-price spikes, or hostile world opinion. If the ruling clerical elite wants a head-on collision with a determined superpower, then that's their choice.
"No matter what happens, it is long overdue for the Bush administration to get serious about building clandestine mechanisms to support Iranians who want to change their regime. This will take time and be brutally difficult. And overt democracy support to Iranians-which is the Bush administration's current game plan-isn't likely to draw many recruits. Most Iranians probably know that this approach is a one-way invitation to Evin prison, which isn't the most effective place for expressing dissent. However we go about assisting the opposition, the prospects for removing the regime before it acquires nuclear weapons are slim.
"So we will all have to wait for President Bush to decide whether nuclear weapons in the hands of Khamenei, Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad, and the Revolutionary Guards Corps are something we can live with. Given the Islamic Republic's dark history, the burden of proof ought to be on those who favor accommodating a nuclear Iran. Those who are unwilling to accommodate it, however, need to be honest and admit that diplomacy and sanctions and covert operations probably won't succeed, and that we may have to fight a war-perhaps sooner rather than later-to stop such evil men from obtaining the worst weapons we know."
"Maybe the Mullahs Don't Want War" http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24241/pub_detail.asp By David Frum | April 18, 2006
"If there is to be any hope of avoiding a U.S.-Iranian war, the U.S. and its friends have to act now to stop the confrontation from working for the mullahs-and start making it work against them.
"That would begin with recognizing that the Iranians do fear the United States and do fear war-and that the more credible the threat of an American strike is, the better the hopes for a negotiated end. Which in turn means that America's friends must applaud, not criticize, when the Americans take a tough line-when, for example, they position their forces in a more menacing way, or test 'bunker-busting' bombs, or fund anti-regime Iranian groups.
"There are nervous days ahead, and the winner will be the side better able to keep its nerve. And if anyone finds this confrontation too scary, please keep in mind: The confrontations will only get scarier after the Iranians go nuclear."
"Nuclear Hostage Crisis" http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24232/pub_detail.asp By Michael Rubin | April 14, 2006
"It is comforting but dangerous and naive to believe a magic formula of incentives and guarantees can defuse the Iranian nuclear crisis. The cost of diplomacy alone is high. The Islamic Republic did not construct its centrifuge cascade overnight. Mr. Ahmadinejad may want glory, but the credit for Iran's nuclear enrichment lies with his reformist and pragmatist predecessors. That Iran is now enriching uranium is a testament to years of diplomatic insincerity.
"There is little to negotiate. Either Iran agrees to open its sites-both declared and undeclared-to unfettered inspection, or it does not. Either Tehran details its dealings with Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, or it does not. While the National Intelligence Estimate says Iran is five to 10 years away from building a bomb, this assumption rests on an entirely domestic program. If Iran purchases weapons-grade material from outside suppliers, all bets are off. North Korea, partner in Washington's last Grand Bargain, would be happy to sell.
"The cost of any military strike on Iran would be high, although not as high as the cost of the Islamic Republic gaining nuclear weapons. The Bush administration is paying the price for more than five years without a cogent, coordinated Iran policy. Each passing day limits policy options. Engaging the regime will preserve the problem, not eliminate it. Only when the regime is accountable to the Iranian people can there be a peaceful solution. To do this requires targeted sanctions-freezing assets and travel bans-on regimes officials, coupled with augmented and expedited investment in independent rather than government-licensed civil society, labor unions, and media. It may be too late, but it would be irresponsible not to try."
"Iran is at War with Us" http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24123/pub_detail.asp By Michael Ledeen | March 28, 2006
"It's time to take action against Iran and its half-brother Syria, for the carnage they have unleashed against us and the Iraqis. We know in detail the location of terrorist training camps run by the Iranian and Syrian terror masters; we should strike at them, and at the bases run by Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guards as staging points for terrorist sorties into Iraq. No doubt the Iraqi armed forces would be delighted to participate, instead of constantly playing defense in their own half of the battlefield. And there are potent democratic forces among the Syrian people as well, as worthy of our support as the Iranians.
"Once the mullahs and their terrorist allies see that we have understood the nature of this war, that we are determined to promote regime change in Tehran and Damascus, and will not give them a pass on their murderous activities in Iraq, then it might make sense to talk to Khamenei's representatives. We could even expand the agenda from Iraqi matters to the real issue: we could negotiate their departure, and then turn to the organization of national referenda on the form of free governments, and elections to empower the former victims of a murderous and fanatical tyranny that has deluded itself into believing that it is invincible."
Updated Right Web Profiles Another neoconservative institute that is pushing policy that takes us ever closer to war with Iran is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. FDD has a special project called "Ending Iran's Genocidal Threat." See Right Web's profiles of FDD and its president Clifford May.
Voice of Neocons' Fast-Rising Institute: In mid-March, FDD president Clifford May commended President Bush's dedication to protecting the "free world," and Bush congratulated the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies for "making a difference." See Right Web Profile: Clifford May
Bush Gives Neocon Institute Credit for Iraq: President Bush commends the work of the fastest-growing neoconservative think tank, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is focused on U.S.-Israeli policy, counterterrorism, and working with "democracy activists" in the Middle East, including Iran. See Right Web Profile: Foundation for Defense of Democracies