(From Iran) An Open Letter To Senator John Kerry

Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI) ________________ February 19, 2004

For the past few months we have listened and observed with apprehension and dismay to your statements and views regarding the terrorist theocracy in Iran. Yet, we had remained silent!

We have read how you refer to the theocratic regime in Iran as a "democracy;" we have heard how, if elected, as the president of the United States you intend to "engage" this barbaric regime; this very terrorist regime that your own State Department lists as the most active "State Sponsor of Terrorism."

Why is it, Senator, in all your statements, you don't, even once, mention the oppressed and suffering masses of Iran? Obviously, as long as there is such preoccupation with appeasing the regime the people of Iran don't even enter your equation!

For us, recognizing the political season in the United States, we had maintained our silence respecting the internal politics of the country. And, above all, we still believe that United States is cognizant that supporting terrorists regimes, such as the Islamic Republic, is contrary to the values of the nation and would gravely undermine her status as the champion of the democratic principles and the ideals that she stands for; the very foundation of America. And, naturally, we fail to see how a powerful nation could be safer or its national security interests better served by "engaging" and rewarding a terrorist regime!

Senator, those Mullahs in Iran know better than most that: "Money is the mother's milk of politics." After all, they bought a revolution with it and seized a country. Contrary to the cynics, we refuse to accept or entertain the idea that the millions of dollars that the Islamic regime is disbursing to the Democratic Party, through your supposed Iranian-American fundraisers or the so-called Iranian-American PACs or alleged charities, has anything to do with your comments. Sir, those duplicitous and cunning Mullahs in Iran are dangling the lure of other advantages, prior to the elections, to the other side as well.

How a corrupt gang of Mullahs intends to manipulate the internal politics of a superpower is beyond belief. Even so, call us fools or naïve, we like to believe that, perhaps, in this great democracy, the famous adage: "Politics stops at waters' edge" may still be true.

But, Senator, on February 8, 2004, Tehran Times, Mehr News Agency, as well the newspapers in the United States reported that: "The office of Senator John Kerry, the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary in the U.S., sent the Mehr News Agency an E-mail saying that Kerry will try to repair the damage done by the incumbent president if he wins the election." And, includes your statement: "... America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others." Adding further: "He believes that collaboration with other countries is crucial to efforts to win the war on terror and make America safer."

Once informed, obviously, we were outraged and disillusioned! Senator, by sending such a message directly to the organs and the megaphones of the dictatorial Islamic regime you have given them credibility, comfort and embraced this odious theocracy. You have encouraged and emboldened a tyrannical regime to use this as propaganda and declare "open season" on the freedom fighters in Iran. Sir, by so doing you have assaulted us directly and have insulted the honor and the dignity of the Iranian people.

Senator Kerry, this E-mail, this latest message has changed the dynamics completely; this elevates your statements and actions to another level; this takes it out of the internal politics of the United States and points it directly at us, the Iranian people. Senator, how does one "win the war on terror" by cuddling and pleasing the very terrorist State? This is beyond our comprehension! And, we fail to understand, how "collaboration" with a "State Sponsor of Terrorism" could be "crucial to efforts to win the war on terror and make America safer?"

Sir, diplomacy does not mean strengthening totalitarian regimes at the expense and the agony of the citizens of that country. Protracting the Islamic Republic's survival in Iran would only prolong our pain and suffering. Senator, for us, silence no more! And we repeat what we have been saying to all those who appease the Islamic regime: You are either with us, with the Iranian People, or with the regime!

Senator Kerry, why do you hold such contempt and disregard for the Iranian people?

Senator, in 1979, through deception and ignorance of the populace, intrigues and plots of Western powers, inept foreign policies of the United States, the support of hungry, backward, atrocious and alien terrorists groups such as Hezbollah and other Palestinian mobs our blessed land was handed on a silver platter to a gang of corrupt and illiterate Mullahs. It was during a Democratic Administration of the United States and, right or wrong, Iranians have never forgotten the bungling policies and the betrayal of that Administration.

Riding on the nationalists' sentiments the Islamists swindled and terrorized, and at the end hijacked a nation taking its population hostage under the sham of religion and their perverted brand of Islam. At the expense of Iran and Iranians they pulled the biggest hoax in this ancient land and consequently stained its history and civilization.

People were fooled into believing they were getting the lesser of the two evils--forgetting that lesser of the two evils is still evil. And this, this regime is "Evil" personified!

In 1997, the regime presented three candidates for president, hand picked by an unelected and unselected cabal of twelve--known as the "Council of Guardians." This panel vets all candidates for president and parliament -- including so-called "reformers." Under this charade, that you and other sympathizers of the regime call "election" and "democratic," people voted for the lesser of the evils. This time they knew, they were looking the "Evil" directly in the eye, but they had no choice and so they opted for what seemed like the lesser of the evils. Mr. Khatami, at the time, seemed lesser of the evils. But lesser of the "Evil" is "Evil" still! Tragically, he turned out to be ineffective and incompetent as well!

Sir, we understand you, along with others, dislike referring to the terrorist regime in Iran as "Evil;" Senator, ask us, ask the people of Iran! Well, we dislike it when it is called otherwise! We know better and we have every right to shout and call the regime for what it is. We have known this "Evil" up close and personal; we have been in its grip for over two decades and we are its immediate victims!

This "Evil" regime in the span of twenty-five years has totally destroyed the socio-economic fabric of the country and has taken it to the abyss. In a nation rich with abundance of petroleum and natural gas: 57% of the population lives under the line of poverty; inflation is at 20%, unemployment at 30%, and per capita income 30% less than 1977. And, on and on and on.

Senator, as a supporter of women's rights, the next time those so-called Iranian-American PACs or charities contribute to your Campaign, distributing our treasure and our blood money trying to humanize that grotesque regime, ask them about the abuses of women and children by the regime; ask them about the rapes; ask them about the public stoning, flogging, public executions, child prostitution, ask them Senator, ask them, demand to know. As an admired and highly decorated war veteran, in the name of your revered "Band of Brothers," and in honor of soldiers throughout the world ask them how many innocent officers and soldiers had the regime executed of late? Ask them how many students had they maimed or dismembered that day? Senator, ask them. Senator, insist to know about the 700,000 of our compatriots who are languishing in secret prisons; ask them about the torture of the political prisoners. Ask them about the terrorists' camps, the weapons of mass destruction, and on and on and on!

Senator, the next time one of these Iranian-American fundraisers has a lavish reception in his estate in New York or in his mansion in Los Angeles, attempting to gain favors for the regime, demand to know about the rampant hunger and disease, about the soaring crime and abuse of drugs; the unpaid workers, about the lack of medical care for the elderly and children, and on and on and on. Demand it from them, Senator!

Above all, Sir, before embarking upon "engagement" and "collaboration" with the regime, insist that they would read you, line by line, the Constitution of this Islamic Republic. Senator, perhaps you would learn the basic tenets of this theocracy which are: Exporting of their perverse revolution; demolition of United States' interests in the Middle East and around the world; total annihilation of Israel; and to carry out their objectives: Funding, arming and training of Hezbollah, Hamas and others.

Yet, this "Evil" could not have sustained its grip on our nation without the help and absolute support of "Enablers." The European countries, Russia, China and others, which we have aptly dubbed as the "Axis Of Weasels," are the largest culprits. Blinded by their greed, they kowtow to the Mullahs and supply them with all their needs: From technology for weapons of mass destruction, to arms, to equipment for the torture and silencing of the Iranian population.

Torture and terror are regime's proven methods of control; that is how they have sustained their power over the populace for the last two decades. To carry on their inhumane acts, as usual, they have at their beck and call their pillars of support: The alien terrorists of Hezbollah and other foreign mercenaries. These conniving and treasonous Mullahs are shedding the blood of our beloved students by the hands of those foreign terrorists whom the regime has bought with the wealth of our nation and what rightfully belongs to the very students whose blood they spill!

Add to this mix the paid journalists, so-called experts, and, above all, a cluster of self-serving traitors, of Iranian origin with different adopted nationalities--mostly Americans -- who have amassed great fortunes at our expense.

Senator, our challenge is enormous, we not only have to face the "Evil" regime created among us, we, also, have to contend with these powerful and treasonous "enablers" as well!

And, you Senator, you call this regime "Democratic?" You intend to "Engage" this regime? "Repair Relations?" "Collaborate?"

So we are left to ask: Why, Senator? Why and how could a man of your honor and valor disregard the suffering people of a nation and appease a brutal regime? We are left to ask: Why Senator, why do you despise and hold in such low esteem the Iranian people? Why, Senator, why are you bent on prolonging our suffering by sustaining this wicked regime?

What gives you the right, Senator, to judge Iranians less than human beings by calling that mockery of a government a "democracy?" Why do you believe that the Iranian people deserve anything less than any other human being--their freedom? Senator, what gives you the authority to deny the Iranian people their basic human rights by "engaging" this greatest abuser of human rights? In our ancient land, in this one of the oldest civilizations, almost three thousand years ago, Cyrus the Great decreed the first Declaration of Human Rights. We are the proud and nationalist inheritors of that legacy. Sir, today, the children of Iran have to go begging, for their most basic rights as a human being, to that pathetic Human Rights Commission of the United Nations, the same Human Rights Commission with Libya as its Chair, which, of course, exonerated a number of biggest abusers f human rights and among them the Islamic Republic as well.

Senator, like you, we respect and admire President John F. Kennedy and we, too, cherish his eloquence. We have been led to believe that his words have special meaning for you; don't these words apply to the Iranian people as well? And we quote: "The same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." Freedom, liberty, and justice are our God-given rights too, Senator!

Sir, you have often cited the first few lines of the well-known passage by President Kennedy and they are: "Let the word go forth from this time and place to friend and foe alike that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans born in this century ..." But, Senator, the most powerful words are in the remainder of that quote: " ... unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."

"Around the world!" "Around the world," Senator! Why, then, what makes you willing "to witness or permit" the violations of human rights and dignities against us, the Iranian people--the very rights to which United States has always been committed? What do you hold against the civilized, decent, hard-working and oppressed people of Iran, Senator? Why do you intend to "engage" and "collaborate" with a tyrannical regime at the expense of its citizens?

For over two decades, the European countries have embraced and under the pretext of dialogue, to strengthen the so-called "moderates" and instigating "reforms," have "engaged" the regime. The end result has been: Sustaining the regime in power, enriching the personal coffers of the Mullahs and their brood. And, total desolation and poverty of the Iranian masses. More importantly, to protect their own interests, the members of the "Axis Of Weasels" have consistently and deliberately fed the beast.

Yet, in the United States, there are those who persist in the failed policy of "engaging" the oppressive regime and insist that talks will yield tangible results and in turn empower the so-called "reformers," the very ones who are handpicked by the Mullahs in the first place and are nothing but puppets.

There are those who believe that they need and must secure the assistance of the Islamic Republic for success in Afghanistan and Iraq. Don't these advocates know anything about the ambitions of this repulsive regime? Isn't it about time that the policy of the United States is based on reality rather than wishful thinking?

The warlords in Afghanistan are Mullahs' lackeys; armed and funded by the Islamic Republic, and though the theocracy had no affection for the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, they loathe the presence of the coalition forces on both borders. If they seem compliant, for now, it is because the might of the United States Armed forces is within heartbeat. It would be a grave mistake to believe that they are allies for the United States in Iraq or Afghanistan. For the tyrannical theocracy to survive they have a vested interest in the failure of the United States in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the greatest delusion is to believe in the efficacy of Mr. Khatami. He is ineffective and has no support among the people. His doctrine is: Military and support for terrorists first, people last! Rather than implement reform, the Khatami dogma is "speak softly, while Iran builds a big stick." And it was put succinctly in the Telegraph-Opinion: " ... Mr. Khatami has rendered the mullahs great service: opening dialogue with the West without altering the basis of their power. It is a potentially far greater failure of Western intelligence than the inability to find WMD in Iraq."

To those who refuse to accept the true "Evil" nature of this regime, we recommend judging it on its actions and not just on its rhetoric. Isn't it about time that the United States seeks real change in Iran and not tolerate regime's usual shell games any longer?

Senator Kerry, last month when Senator Biden was "engaging" the terrorist ex-hostage- taker Mr. Kharrazi in Davos and the honorable Congressmen: Senator Specter, Representative Nye and Snyder, among others, were hosting and praising the other ex-hostage-taker Mr. Zarif as a special guest of the Congress, on February 7, 2004, World Net Daily under the title of: "Iran Hosting Global Terrorist Conference" reported: "Just as the U.S. State Department approves wider contact with Iran and as members of Congress begin planning the first official trips in 25 years, Tehran is sponsoring a 10-day conference of major terrorist organizations beginning next week. The purpose of the conference is to discuss anti-U.S. strategy. Among the groups headed to Iran to participate are: Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida allies Ansar Al Islam. The conference, dubbed 'Ten Days of Dawn,' is ordered by Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei, marks Iran's investment in sponsoring Islamic insurgency groups in the Middle East, Asia and South America."

Yes, Senator, Islamic Republic's "investment in sponsoring Islamic insurgency groups in the Middle East, Asia and South America." We wonder if Senator Biden, Senator Specter and the other distinguished Congressmen or the State Department Officials are paying attention!

Sir, "engagement" has a long record of failure, unless you consider support for Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist groups as signs of success! Senator, You mean to "Repair" relations with this regime?

What do you intend to mend Sir? What has the United States done to the theocratic regime that you find necessary to "repair" and to put right? The fact that for the first time a government, a signatory of all the international laws, terrorized 52 diplomats as hostages for over 444 days while the United States watched helplessly; or, the CIA officers who were kidnapped and murdered? Or, the mass murders at Kobar Towers, and others and others and others? Or, perhaps, funding and arming of the Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian terrorists in order to harm American interests throughout the world?

Should the United States apologize again for what the terrorist Islamic Republic has done to her? Sir, Shouldn't it be the other way around? It is a topsy-turvy world, indeed!

Senator, "repair" seems to have a special meaning for you and your Party. Few years ago, the since exposed, American-Iranian Council, whose members are now in those so-called Iranian-American PACs and working closely with the Democrats, arranged for President Clinton's Secretary of State, Madam Albright, to apologize to the theocratic regime for America's role regarding the events of 1953 in Iran.

We were appalled: It was the wrong apology, wrong time, and to the wrong regime!

Senator Kerry, you refer to yourself as an "internationalist;" you are well traveled, cultured and you have extensive knowledge of the history and politics of other nations. Sir, you must know that: The events of 1953 involved the Late Dr. Mossadeq, a revered and respected nationalist leader of Iran. He despised the Mullahs, considered them backward and a grave impediment to Iran's progress.

Although, the theocratic regime seized power, on the back of those nationalists who betrayed Dr. Mossadeq's secularists ideals, they too dislike Dr. Mossadeq; for to them the nation of Iran has no meaning and anything that has to do with the history of the land prior to 1979 doesn't exist. Dr. Mossadeq must be turning in his grave for what has been done to his beloved Iran and in his name!

By such an inane apology to the theocratic Islamic regime United States had directly desecrated a nationalist icon and insulted the Iranian people. If any apology is to be given is due to the Iranian citizens not to those corrupt and illiterate Mullahs. We were disgusted and outraged and at the same time felt humiliated and ashamed for the United States for what was done on her behalf. Senator, who are these ignorant Iranian-Americans that have the confidence of the Democratic Party? Sir, you are being ill served. Senator Kerry, humility in foreign policy for a superpower is magnanimous, being humiliated for the wrong reason is another matter!

Collaboration, Senator? You intend to "Collaborate" with the terrorist Islamic Republic?

In your Foreign Policy address, you stated: "As President, I will be prepared early on to explore areas of mutual interest with Iran. Iran has long expressed an interest in cooperating against the Afghan drug trade. That is one starting point."

Senator, that is the biggest misconception and a ruse. The Mullahs in Iran, with their lust for money, are partners in the drug trade with the warlords in Afghanistan. The theocratic Islamic Republic, by its notorious and unending duplicitous and conniving manner, is counting on gaining a number of advantages through "exploring areas of mutual interest" and "cooperating" with the United State--unfortunately, all to the detriment of the people of Iran.

Sir, we implore you, do not insult our intelligence, give the people the "Real Deal!" The truth is that: The Islamic regime has bankrupted the country and is in desperate need of foreign investment and economic assistance. On the other hand, there are the greedy American companies, and the Iranian-American operatives, who seek to create friendly and lucrative business relationships with the medieval theocratic dictatorship in order to enrich themselves by further enriching the power-mad Mullahs ruling Iran.

Which is it Senator, you either honor your own words: "We need ... collective action to end terrorist funding," or help finance a dying decaying terrorist regime? You can't have it both ways!

If, indeed, you mean to "end terrorist funding" in your "efforts to win the war on terror," then, why not take action to halt the existing sources of funds for the terrorist Islamic regime, before rushing to supply it with new resources?

Even with sanctions in place, there are, already, U.S. companies that are helping drive the economies of terrorist regimes, like the Islamic Republic. "These companies help to underwrite and support terrorism." As CBS' 60 Minutes put it: "Just about everyone with a 401(k) pension plan or mutual fund has money invested in companies that are doing business in so-called rogue states." The terrorist Islamic Republic is one of the greatest beneficiaries of these U.S. companies, Senator.

Given the fact that hundreds of New York City's police and firemen tragically died in the World Trade Center as the result of a terrorist attack, after September 11th, they were outraged when they learned where their retirement money was going. At their request, New York City Comptroller has opened an investigation.

Senator, since you enjoy the support of those courageous and beloved firefighters, shouldn't their wishes be respected instead of planning to collaborate with the State that could be contributing to the very next attack on them? Sir, is that how you intend to honor your own words and "to end terrorist funding;" by backing such regimes? Senator, the "most potent tools in changing the environment which sustains terrorism" are: Not to feed the beast but to starve it!

Moreover, Senator, if you mean to "make America safer" then why not a closer look at what the Islamic Republic is doing within America's borders? Especially, since you assert that you wrote the "international anti-money laundering legislation that is now the law of the land." Isn't Homeland Security paramount in making America safer? Sir, why don't you insist on an investigation of the Islamic Republic's funded so-called Foundations or supposed Charity Organizations like the Alavi Foundation, in New York City? Benefiting from exemptions and protections accorded to charities, through these hypothetical Foundations, the regime provides financial and other means of support to: Numerous fundamentalist causes, different terrorist objectives, other nefarious activities, alleged Religious Associations, the supposed Iranian-American PACs and schools that teach anti-American rhetoric while spreading regime's distorted religious ideology--all within the very shores of America.

Senator, you claim you want to "win the war on terror and make America safer," at the same time you intend to "collaborate" with the most active "State Sponsor of terrorism." Which is it, Senator Kerry?

All we can say, Sir, is: We hope and ask that: You, Senator Biden, Senator Specter, Representative Nye and others who are determined in prolonging the life of this repulsive regime would have the humility and the honesty: To stand up and look the next victims or survivals of this deceitful regime in the eye and say: Yes we "Engaged," and, indeed, we "Collaborated!" Senator, you all, will have to live with your own conscience!

Senator Kerry, "engaging" those corrupt Mullahs and the leaders of the terrorist regime, in any way, is a tacit acknowledgment of legitimacy, particularly when their very basis for rule is being challenged from within. The Mullahs, in their attempt to demoralize the Iranian opposition, have always maintained, and counted on the fact, that the Europeans may talk about freedom, but the reality is that democracy is the least of their concern when it comes to making deals. We have always known they will do business with whoever is in power in Iran; we are well familiar with their hypocrisy. What is new, and different, to us is to learn about your vision of America's foreign policy as president.

Senator, you have said: "As President, I will chart a new course rooted in our enduring values." Sir, we have already heard enough to know what the shape of that course might be but we were unaware of the new definition of the "enduring values" of the United States!

Senator Kerry, by your statements and actions you have made your position perfectly plain. We heard you loud and clear! So be it, Senator!

What has been imposed upon the people of Iran, for the last twenty-five years, is utterly against the Iranian heritage and every fiber and grain of their being. Contrary to your understanding the two factions in Iran are: People versus the entire Islamic Republic! The tyrannical Islamic regime is reviled with a passion; discontentment in Iran cuts across the spectrum and the opposition to the regime is wide and deep.

Iranians have come to despise the European Union that has sustained the theocracy; they recognize these and others for the greedy, self-serving, hypocrites that they are. Moreover, they know that the nonsense of "engagement" has only enriched the EU members and filled the coffers of the Mullahs while pushing Iran further into chaos.

It is no accident that the Iranian people are not simply pro-Western, but overwhelmingly pro-American. After all, while the United States has stood on principle, the European Union has for a decade engaged in dialogue with Iran. In view of their experience with these European countries, Iranians esteem and look to the United States for standing firm and not cooperating with the regime. At this juncture, United States is in a unique position indeed! It would be a grave tragedy to squander this wellspring of good will by following misinformed and misguided policies.

To be sure, any relations or associations with the present regime that would, in any way, extend its life and its hold on power could bear crucial consequences for relations with the future generations of Iran.

While the future of Iran will be decided, solely, by its people and the ultimate responsibility to free the nation is with the Iranians, all we ask is the moral support of the United States. All we expect is that the United States will remain true to its principles of liberty, justice, and its ideals of democracy.

Senator Kerry, you may very well be the next president of the United States and since your overriding concern seems to be appeasing the terrorist regime at our expense, it is evident, you will "engage" and even "collaborate" with the "Tyrants in Tehran." You may prolong our suffering and jeopardize our position. We may have to bear the brunt a while longer, but we promise this: You will not silence us! To paraphrase President Kennedy's Poet-Laureate, Robert Frost: "… We have promises to keep, and miles to go before we sleep…" And, Senator, as an American citizen you must know that the true power rests with the people.

Senator, we will not be silenced! And we feel confident that our plight resonates with this nation above all; for, this country is held as the shining beacon of hope for freedom-loving people throughout the world.

We believe, our cause is just; for it is the cause of freedom. Our mission is clear and sacred, for it is to regain our blessed land. Our determination is strong and our resolve is steeled as well.

Sir, we are the future of Iran. We are the 70% of the population that is under the age of 30, and the rest are, simply, our mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers. The Iran of tomorrow is ours! Senator Kerry, we will have the power! In the words of beloved Senator Robert Kennedy and as echoed by you: "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'why?' I dream things that never were and ask, 'why not?'" Indeed, "why not?" We will not merely dream our free, secular and liberated Iran of tomorrow we will make it a reality; this we pledge and more!

We will reclaim our sacred land, our national identity, pride, heritage, our proud history and our civilization.

> Would be nice to have some details on this!!!

Interesting indeed. How to go about looking into this? Might trace it forward from whoever influenced Jimmy Carter's anti-Shah policy, perhaps? Here's an aside on that for those interested:

From Kai Bird, The Chairman: John McCloy: The Making of the American Establishment, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992, 643:

"As late as May 1978, Carter's ambassador in Tehran had reported that the regime was firmly in place, but by the autumn William Sullivan had changed his mind. On November 9, 1978, he wrote a cable entitled 'Thinking the Unthinkable', and recommended that private talks be opened with the Ayatollah Khomenei's entourage in an attempt to broker a peaceful transition to a new coalition government composed of moderate elements in the opposition. Sullivan was not alone in this view. Henry Precht, one of the Foreign Service's most knowledgeable Iran experts, believed the shah was completely isolated."

http://www.workmall.com/wfb2001/iran/iran_history_the_bakhtiar_government.html

Following Khomeini's arrival in Tehran, clandestine contacts took place between Khomeini's representatives and a number of military commanders. These contacts were encouraged by United States ambassador William Sullivan, who had no confidence in the Bakhtiar government, thought the triumph of the Khomeini forces inevitable, and believed future stability in Iran could be assured only if an accommodation could be reached between the armed forces and the Khomeini camp. Contacts between the military chiefs and the Khomeini camp were also being encouraged by United States general Robert E. Huyser, who had arrived in Tehran on January 4, 1979, as President Carter's special emissary. Huyser's assignment was to keep the Iranian army intact, to encourage the military to maintain support for the Bakhtiar government, and to prepare the army for a takeover, should that become necessary. Huyser began a round of almost daily meetings with the service chiefs of the army, navy, and air force, plus heads of the National Police and the Gendarmerie who were sometimes joined by the chief of SAVAK. He dissuaded those so inclined from attempting a coup immediately upon Khomeini's return to Iran, but he failed to get the commanders to take any other concerted action. He left Iran on February 3, before the final confrontation between the army and the revolutionary forces.

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2000/Vol26_4/8.htm

The key players were Carter, Cyrus Vance and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Harold Brown did not play a key role because he did not have as much access to Carter compared to Vance and Brzezinski.55 Brzezinski was thought to be more aggressive and innovative than Vance but Vance was believed to be more skilful than Brzezinski in assessing the feasibility of policy options.56 Carter had different expectations from both men due to their different strengths. "Carter believed he would benefit from hearing both the cautious, bureaucratic considerations of Vance and the more action-oriented and abstract considerations of Brzezinski."57

Brzezinski was the more hawkish of the two. He was convinced of the need to maintain a pro-American regime in Iran. He established close contact with the Iranian ambassador to America, Zahedi, who sought to get American support for the Shah through Brzezinski.58 Brzezinski was painting a more optimistic picture of the Shah to Carter and was determined to keep the Shah in power.59 He was a strong advocate for a military clampdown on the opposition.60 Later, he even advocated a military coup but Carter was not in favour of a military crackdown or coup.61

Brzezinski manipulated the advisory process. When Henry Precht (Department of State Desk Officer for Iran) proposed that the US remove the Shah and seek contact with Khomeini's forces for a coalition government, Brzezinski excluded Precht from SCC meetings.62 On 24 October, the State Department had produced a memo on how to deal with the situation in Iran. As he disagreed entirely with the memo, he shelved it permanently.63 Later, he attempted to change Carter's policy subtly by calling the Shah on the telephone on 3 November and stated American support for "any actions that the Shah considered necessary",64 thus implying a military crackdown. He also tried to encourage the Shah to crackdown on the opposition through Zahedi.65 On the other hand, William Sullivan, the US ambassador to Iran, told the Shah that the US would not be responsible for such actions.66 Hence, the Shah was confused by these conflicting messages.

On the other hand, Vance argued that the US could not assume responsibility for a bloodbath in Iran67 and recommended large-scale political reforms.68 He sought a broad-based coalition government that included forces from Khomeini's camp.69 There was a possible move by Vance to move Carter towards his views. The Carter administration had commissioned George Ball, the former Deputy Secretary of State, as an independent consultant. Ball recommended a civilian coalition government.70 A SCC meeting was convened on 13 December to discuss Ball's proposal. On the same day, Sullivan sent a cable recommending the same policy.71

It was plausible that the Ball episode was "a clever and sophisticated move to bring Carter around to Vance's view".72 Initially, everyone, including Brzezinski, liked the idea of appointing an independent consultant. Later on, Brzezinski regretted this move when he realised that Ball was a good friend of Vance's. This move eventually failed because Carter insisted upon a coalition government without Khomeini.73 While Vance was telling the Shah through Sullivan to swiftly establish a civilian government,74 Brzezinski was encouraging a military government.

Finally, to shed more light on the compromise message drafted for Carter while he was away at Camp David, we should examine how each player attempted to manipulate the information presented to Carter. At the meeting on 28 December, Brzezinski took the lead in drafting the message for Carter. He tried to ensure that the message was subtle enough to include the military option.75 The message first stated that the US preferred a coalition government. "If there was uncertainty about the underlying orientation of such a government or its capability to govern, or if the army was in danger of being fragmented" , 76 "then a firm military government under the Shah may be unavoidable".77 Vance was in charge of bringing the message to Carter. At Vance's urging, Carter changed the language to ensure that the military option would not be considered.78 Instead of "a firm military government", the message now advised "a government which would end disorder, violence and bloodshed".79 The Shah failed to see any guidance in this message.

http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/08/15/p12s3.htm

Israel and the US role in the Mideast

The Aug. 9 opinion piece by Henry Precht ("Doing the lock step on Israel") resorts to the tactic of blaming the Jewish community for many Middle Eastern problems. It willfully ignores many aspects of the Middle East situation in order to claim that Jews control Washington and the American media. In fact, media coverage is more balanced than Mr. Precht is willing to admit.

Moreover, he underestimates the importance of US involvement in the ongoing peace process to American interests, instead claiming that the US government's role in the peace negotiations is solely due to the strength of the "Israel lobby." What the article calls a bias in the media is merely a recognition that Israel is America's best friend in the region, is the lone true democracy, and has longed for peace for decades.

It is a shame that at a time when Israel is making far-reaching concessions for peace, and when Palestinians and Syrians are once again missing opportunities to make the lives of their people ones of hope and progress, all Henry Precht can contribute is the old canard of Jewish control.

Abraham H. Foxman New York

National Director, Anti-Defamation League

Anyone wondering why State Department Arabists have gained such a bad reputation need only read retired Foreign Service officer Henry Precht's Aug. 9 opinion piece. Talk about "going native"! He sounds more Arab than the Arabs. Only a mentality such as his could perceive Washington and "lock step" media having "heavy bias in support of Israel." As for Israel "learn[ing] to live with its neighbors," he has that reversed. It is the neighbors who have waged continuous economic, propaganda, and periodic actual war against her, and who have yet to come to terms with her existence. That's a reality that can't be erased by his tendentious appeal to history and citizens.

Richard D. Wilkins

Syracuse, N.Y.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0822-03.htm

Published on Thursday, August 22, 2002 in the Christian

Science Monitor

Think Before Leaping Into War

by Henry Precht

BRIDGTON, MAINE – There should be little mystery about the outcome of an American war on Iraq. History and the neighborhood teach us the necessary lessons. Let us consider two possible scenarios for an attack:

First, the fighting may be bloody on both sides and prolonged. When the US sent troops into Lebanon in 1982 against the Arab consensus, more than 200 Marines and diplomats fell victim to terrorism. The region was enraged against the US. This time, the psychological buildup in the region opposing a war with Iraq is even more intense and widespread, owing in great part to our association with Israel's repression of the second intifada. We can anticipate anti-American acts of terrorism worldwide.

When the 1991 coalition forces fought to free Kuwait, the price of oil shot up but subsided after a quick victory. Allies paid the bills. This time, a longer war will inflate oil prices and the US budget deficit and deflate the world economy. Despite the patriotic drama that will be played out under President Bush's war leadership, his political future will be dimmed by the distress of many families.

Let us assume a second, rosier scenario that goes according to the Pentagon's plans: Fighting is short and free of serious casualties, Saddam Hussein disappears and is replaced by a congenial coalition of our choosing, Iraqis welcome American troops as the Afghans did and only a relatively few troops remain to ensure order. In a few months, the appointed Iraqi leaders hold free elections and a new coalition takes power.

What kinds of policies will the new regime be expected to pursue? Will they serve the interests of American liberators? How will they affect the region?

First, the fresh faces in Baghdad will want to begin the work of reconstruction. That will mean maximizing income from oil production. Decent relations with Saudi Arabia and Iran will be important; all OPEC will share Iraq's interest in keeping oil prices high.

Second, the new regime will have to establish nationalist credentials. There will be little tolerance for breakaway Kurds or Shiites. (If, somehow, Kurdish autonomy is confirmed by the newcomers, won't Turkey's Kurds see an attractive model and Ankara, a threatening one?) Will the new regime yield Iraq's historic claim to Kuwait? Not if it wishes to remain consistent with historic Iraqi nationalism. Further, for Mr. Hussein's first successors, rebuilding conventional military and internal security forces will be a priority. Before long, a truly national regime will have to oppose the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil.

Third, democratically chosen rulers will naturally conform to the Arab consensus on the Arab-Israel conflict, an attitude bound to estrange them from Washington and bring Baghdad closer to Tehran, Damascus, and Cairo.

Fourth, if democracy is seen to work in Iraq, most Arabs will ask, why not in our land as well? The internal pressures on Washington's dependent friends in Amman, Cairo, and Riyadh will mount to open up their prisons and voting booths. Washington won't relish the prospect of Islamic radicals taking power in those capitals.

Fifth, with Iraq liberated, the Bush administration's Middle East agenda will be obliged to focus on an Israel-Palestine solution. That will mean either applying unaccustomed pressure on Prime Minister Sharon or continuing the close support of his policies, abhorred by Arabs. Either way, Washington will have a crisis in its relations with the region.

What is the alternative to these two depressing scenarios? Not an easy one, for it will mean climbing down from the rhetorical heights scaled by Mr. Bush and his war party. Indirect and multilateral diplomacy must be given an honest chance to work. The UN, the Europeans, and the regional Arab states are eager to weigh in with Baghdad to find ways to resume and guarantee truly effective weapons inspections. Baghdad just might be persuaded – given the prospect of yet another devastating defeat.

Bush should also be persuaded – by the danger that either a bloody or rosy regime-change scenario in Iraq could lead to regime change in this country.

Henry Precht is a retired Foreign Service officer with experience in the Middle East since 1964.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.