Taking Down Tehran’s Mullahs: Help the Iranians Do It
I’ve been advocating this since strategy for over fifteen years. (Follow this link for background.)
The LA Times publishes an article on the new “US offensive” : a package of diplomacy and political support for Iranian opposition groups.
The lede:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a move to broaden pressure on Tehran’s theocratic regime, asked Congress on Wednesday to sharply increase spending to promote democracy in Iran, from $10 million to $85 million this year.
The money would be used to support political opposition and civil society groups in Iran, increase U.S. broadcasting into the country and underwrite more student study in the United States, Rice said.
“No one wants to see a Middle East that is dominated by an Iranian hegemony, particularly one that has access to nuclear technology,” Rice said, appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The move reflects the Bush administration’s recognition that diplomatic efforts to halt Tehran’s nuclear program face long odds and attempts to reform the regime from the inside may offer one of the best chances for keeping it free of nuclear weapons.
But Iranian officials, who are highly sensitive to signs of foreign influence, are likely to point to the effort as another example of U.S. meddling and try to use it to foster anti-Americanism and build support for the regime, analysts said.
Foster anti-Americanism? Pish. Yes, anti-Americanism is the mullahs agit-prop counter; what this does is scare the heck out of the thugs-in-robes.
UPDATE: There are many anti-mullah Iranian groups. That’s typical of nascent “resistance” movements– different people have different gripes and different motivations.
The National Iranian Council has the support of Senator Sam Brownback. Brownback introduced the Iran Democracy Act in 2003.
This BBC report discusses the various goals and backgrounds of Iranian opposition groups:
From the BBC report (June 14, 2005):
A major part of the opposition in exile follow more radical methods - but still believe that change needs to be made peacefully and without foreign intervention.
But part of the exiled opposition supports the toppling of the regime by any possible means…
Any means possible…harsh words, and potentially violent words.
The National Council of Resistance of Iran (now based in Paris) is one example of the “mixed bag” opposition group; it’s also a group with a checkered history. The organization was originally formed by former Iranian president Bani Sadr (that’s a name from the past, if you recall the US Embassy takeover). Former members of the Mujahideen-e Khalq Organization (MKO, aka the Khalq) are involved in the National Council of Resistance. The Khalq has Marxist roots and was propped up by Saddam (for years it had offices in Baghdad). The MKO was also declared a terrorist organization by the US in 1997; the State Department also considers the National Council of Resistance to be a terrorist organization. Here’s a BBC profile from 2003 on the organization’s leader, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi. The BBC profile is “fact rich.”
This website says Britain is reviewing the MKO’s status as a “proscribed organisation.”
Has the National Council of Resistance changed? Read Rajavi’s essay that appeared in the
International Herald Tribune in January 2005 and decide for yourself.
The National Iranian Council
The bottomline: Implementing a “pro-opposition” policy will take time. It entails careful “diplomatic sifting”.
It’s an interesting catch-22: “The money would be used to support political opposition and civil society groups in Iran, increase U.S. broadcasting into the country and underwrite more student study in the United States, Rice said. It simply isn’t possible to change the country’s government peacefully at the ballot box. The voters tried, and the mullahs threw out their candidates and faked votes. Any money spent towards peaceful change is wasted, or at most supplementing more “radical” methods; i.e. violent resistance, which has been occuring naturally and spontaneously. But here’s the catch: an organized campaign of violent resistance could itself be termed “terroristic” It certainly will be by the government. But what makes a group “terrorist”? Most would say “indiscriminate attacks on civlians or government officials. But by that definition, several early acts of the American Revolution were terroristic! It may seem like I’m arguing moral equivilency, but I’m actually arguing the opposite. Damn all the moralizing; just fund opposition groups, even if they call for the violent overthrow of the Iranian Mullahs, and call for putting them all against the wall and shooting them. Try to pick the “best” groups of course; ones that fight for self-determination and democracy, and fight relatively clean. (No asymmetric war is totally clean.) Don’t wring ands over the broken egss, just get the job done and get those lunatics out of power.
Comment by ubu — 2/16/2006 @ 10:05 am
But how will we be able to support a democratic revolution in Iran if the Mullahs develop nuclear weapons? Imagine Amadinejad holed up in his office with reformers at the gate and his thugs controlling the nukes. Anybody doubt if backed into a corner this guy would smuggle a nuke out and put it to work? If Iran does develop nuclear weapons our pragmatic interest becomes stability. Thats the best humanitarian reason to stop the program. Otherwise we will end up de facto propping up another fascist government, like it or not.
Comment by Mark Buehner — 2/16/2006 @ 10:10 am
$85 million isn’t enough. We give Egypt $2 billion a year for being an undemocratic state that routinely says very nasty things about us in their state-run media. I’d say a billion is about right. Let’s have 20 radio/TV/Internet broadcasts constantly streaming, and train a 100,000 or so dissident militia in Southern Iraq so we can wage an Afghan-style war to topple Iran if need be.
Comment by TallDave — 2/16/2006 @ 10:20 am
$85 million is a start, but it isn’t enough. We give Egypt $2 billion a year for being an undemocratic state that routinely says very nasty things about us in their state-run media. I’d say a billion is about right. Let’s have 20 radio/TV/Internet broadcasts constantly streaming, and train a 100,000 or so dissident militia in Southern Iraq so we can wage an Afghan-style war to topple Iran if need be.
Comment by TallDave — 2/16/2006 @ 10:36 am
Quite soon, probably, the crunch will come. Knowing full well that Iran’s Mullah-ocracy is able and more than willing to lay nuclear eggs, and that within a radius of (say) 1,500 - 2,000 miles of Teheran there has purposedly been mounted no defense, will Near East or European governments sit back and wait for the Big Hit to land somewhere, or take pre-emptive action as one George Bush has been advocating since June 2002? Since no one politician, no one country, can believe that, first, this will happen, or second, that the blast will level them, our best guess is that, yes– they will do nothing. Follows the accusations, breast-beating, mutual recriminations… and STILL the vulnerable polities will sit paralyzed, lightening their bladders in anticipation of demise. At what point will reality, in terms of simple life-or-death, self-defense or die, take hold in Europe or elsewhere? The short answer is, Not before Neville Chamberlain is excreted from Whitehall. Absent “regime change” in the broad socio-cultural sense of frog-marching Boomer PC types into the nearest wood-chipper, there ain’t gonna be no “reality”, come what may. Inconceivable that analogues of Howard Dean, Al Gore, Kerry and MzBill, would ever, under any circumstances, undertake to rise from multi-culti grovelling to defense of free enterprise, free markets, free thought– free anything. As certified collectivist Statists, they are fully invested in just the opposite. Unfortunately, the nihilist component of these views guarantees that, when Teheran’s time comes, their “masses”, “movements”, et.al. will cease to exist. Oh well, we never did have much use for Life and Liberty, in any case. Too bad you have to die.
Comment by John Blake — 2/16/2006 @ 10:47 am
Baloney, pure baloney. The same thing was said about the Iraqis. When push comes to shove, Nationalism always trumps; irrespective of how much the “moderate” Iranians may despise their leaders. Just my two cents from Baghdad.
Comment by LTC John Burson — 2/16/2006 @ 11:23 am
Iran presents a real challenge. They are not Arab, per se, but seek to regain influence they once held throughout the region. The book All the Shah’s Men provides a glimpse (albeit a fragmented and potentially biased one) into the lead up to the rise of the Shah and our involvement as well as Britains. I concur with the LT Col. However, there is still a strong tendency in Persia to tribalism and the present reign of the mullahs is relatively young. It can be undone. But there must be active work on our part and the remainder of the world.
Comment by Citizen Deux — 2/16/2006 @ 1:28 pm
“softly softly catchy monkey” is the way to go. A well conducted play in the arena of supporting and encouraging democratic aspirations among the Iranian people will pay off. The worst case is if we manage to back another “winner” like Chalabai in Iraq. I hope Senator Brownback looked at the Chalabai affair very closely before he signed on with his pet Iranian group.
Comment by Bill Gross — 2/16/2006 @ 1:49 pm
Are you conservo bloggers going to give France its due for pinning Iran to the wall on its nuke program today? Anybody? Anybody? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/16/international/middleeast/16cnd-iran.html?hp&ex=1140152400&en=a188f376bab8f5e5&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Comment by Frenchman — 2/16/2006 @ 3:17 pm
At this point in time the funding of internal dissent (and even of direct action) and a program of sanctions are too little and too late. Their primary function is to mask a failure of nerve. The revolutionary guards and baseej have the will and means to crush their internal enemies. Sanctions, even with sufficient teeth, would be unenforceable along Iran’s northern border.
Comment by mark justin — 2/16/2006 @ 5:32 pm
I agree that a propaganda campaign against Iran is way too late. The mullahs have “elected” a terrorist as their head bully and the populace is well bullied. The UN Security Council has taken up the issue in their own glacial time, which puts our option to bomb nuclear sites on hold. What’s to be done? A troglodite friend of mine suggest we invade Iran. He suggests we get China as an ally by promising them a share of the oil. Isn’t that awful?
Comment by Edward Perline — 2/16/2006 @ 6:21 pm
This gambit likely means that Bush & Co are building a fall back story. Direct military action is required in the face of their token nuclear deterrent. The Iranians are now stepping down the road to hydrogen bombs. Tritium production is the rationale for their gambit. Iran has had heavy water production capacity for years. With it Plutonim production capacity without much further ado. India, Pakistan, Israel have all gone this route. None has enrichment capability.
Comment by blert — 2/16/2006 @ 7:56 pm
I never believe what BEAUTIFUL WOMEN or the LA TIMES says to me!
Comment by Basil Doughty — 2/16/2006 @ 11:22 pm
All of Rice’s ideas make sense - assuming that Iran has not slipped into a Hitler state with nuclear weapons. In which, case $85 million it will be of little to use to the Chinese because of Iran’s huge oil revenues, the players who want to control it and certain other extremists who what to control said revenues. I would suggest that the $85 million be spent on modern materials to remove President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his totalitarian thugs. A viable counterinsurgent forces would be a good step. But, I doubt that will do the trick. I suspect that both economic and military force will be necessary to dislodge Ahmadinejad and his totalitarian regium. To reiterate, the quicker Ahmadinejad is gone the better for all of us.
Comment by Ledger Man — 2/17/2006 @ 2:45 am
It’s a great idea to aid peaceful opposition - although a long term strategy - but care should be taken not to get into a situation like Bush I, calling on the oppressed to rise up, and then when they do leaving them all to be slaughtered. Do you think the Mullahs would take a rebellion lying down?
Comment by Kip Watson — 2/17/2006 @ 3:08 am
We need to make sure most of that money buys us intellegence that we will need when we start the bombing and Special Operations. Of course there is no guarantee that money spent will get reliable or true intellegence but it may be better than none. Papa Ray
Comment by Papa Ray — 2/17/2006 @ 10:20 pm
A year ago I read Teheran was very scared we were going to invade. I think France, Rice et al are doing a very good job of making pronouncements to increase their apprehensions.
Comment by Claire W. Solt, PhD — 2/18/2006 @ 9:50 am