Posted on 01/24/2005 6:41:28 PM PST by F14 Pilot
Editor's Note: Iranian-American journalists warn that a U.S. attack on Iran would only give the repressive mullahs an excuse to crack down on the Iranian dissident movement.
SAN FRANCISCO--Iranian-American media are dismayed though not surprised by the news that the Bush administration is undertaking covert actions in Iran. They warn that an attack on Iran would not promote democracy there or in the Middle East.
Writing in the Jan. 20 issue of the New Yorker, leading investigative writer Seymour Hersh charged that the close circle of neoconservatives in the government have solidified their power by sidelining the CIA, launched covert intelligence-gathering within Iran through the Pentagon and developed a plan to attack and remove Tehran's nuclear capability.
The CIA had reportedly concluded, based on computer simulation and war games, that attacking Iran would not work, putting the agency out of step with the Bush administration. The administration attacked Hersh's story as inaccurate but did not deny the existence of a strike plan.
Prominent figures in the Iranian-American media found Hersh's story credible. Hossein Hedjazi, program director of KIRN-AM 670 in Los Angeles, says, "The neocons want to control the Middle East. They will not shy away from any action that gives them power and control." He says the neocons include Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Shahbaz Taheri, editor of Pezhvak of Iran, based in San Jose, California, says any military action against Iran -- even limited strikes against military bases and nuclear plants -- would be unwise.
"It would be very deleterious to the current Iranian struggle for democracy," says Taheri. "The U.S. would be essentially giving the Islamic regime a good excuse for suppressing all opposition within Iran and openly joining forces with international terrorist organizations."
He sees the next five months as critical period for the younger generation in Iran, mainly the students, who are trying to rally the Iranian public to demand an internationally monitored referendum to change the country's constitution.
More than 338,000 U.S. residents claim primary or secondary Iranian ancestry, according to the 2000 Census. Immigration to America from Iran increased sharply following the 1979 Iranian revolution.
Pari Esfandiari, editor of IranDokt in Los Angeles, finds common ground with the Bush administration in wanting to spread democracy to create a safer world. But she thinks the United States is going about it the wrong way.
"When we talk of imposing democracy, it is a contradiction in terms," she argues. "Democracy and force do not go together. You cannot bring about changes that conflict with the means used to bring it. The outcome of the Iraqi war is testament to my claim," Esfandiari adds.
She says the United States must learn from the history of the region, contending that the CIA's 1954 overthrow of nationalist leader Mohammed Mossadegh most probably prevented the development of a democratic and peaceful government in Iran.
Hedjazi and Esfandiari doubt that a U.S. invasion of Iran would succeed. Although the sentiments of the youth and many others in the country are with American democratic ideals, this sympathy would not translate into support for an invasion. Instead, the United States would face a formidable army of a million men fueled by nationalism.
Hedjazi says the Mullahs running Iran are not stupid, but are alert and smart and priming the people with propaganda that the United States is against Islam and wants to seize Iran's oil fields.
"It would be suicide to invade. It would be much better to go with strong diplomacy to help people find their own way," says Hedjazi.
Esfandiari also says the United States would find it difficult to convince allies and the U.S. public of the need for another war. A survey by the Opinion Research Corporation and released this week found that only 42 percent of Americans "would support the United States invading Iran to stop its nuclear program." Forty-seven percent would oppose such a move.
This week President Bush and Vice President Cheney refused to rule out military action against Iran. Meanwhile, Tehran announced in October that the range of its missiles has been raised to 1,200 miles, which would allow strikes against Israel and U.S. bases in the region.
Hedjazi says it is very likely that, given concerns over Iran's nuclear capability, the administration conducted spy missions in Iran. He doubts, however, that the missions could be done without help from allies in the region.
He believes Pakistan helped in exchange for the United States not pursuing Abdul Qadeer Khan, "the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb" who sold nuclear expertise to Iran and other countries.
Others believe the United States had help from the Mujaheddin-e Khalq, an Iranian dissident group, and from the Azerbaijan liberation movement, an ethnic minority within Iran. Both have ties with the United States.
Esfandiari believes the White House may be using the Hersh article to indirectly threaten the Iranians and get them to accept European pressure to curtail their nuclear program.
But Esfandiari also thinks the United States is not yet committed to any long-term plan. "The scene is ready for any action. The chess game has already begun. Only time will show the outcome."
PNS contributor Donal Brown, who taught journalism in California public schools for 20 years.
They're not very well informed, are they? Iran already cracks down on democratic movements as best it can, and already is openly aligned and giving material support to terrorists.
The primary goal is to eliminate the threat, which is the regime and their armaments. Once the regime is gone, what do you think the Iranians are going to do... reject what they've been working to achieve all these years? I doubt it.
I don't think those journalists have any comprehension of the capabilities of the US military. They probably think a war would look something like the Iran-Iraq clusterf$ck of the 1980s.
Exactly. Decapitate the regime is all we need to do, and let the people of Iran take it from there.
Nothing other than the usual bluster, I'm sure.
Help Persian people and they will finish the job
Bump!
The oppressive mullahocracy is so despised internally and so dangerous externally it will go down this year.
Ceaucescu II: Shock and Awe coming soon.
Some Persian radio talk show hosts usually work for Rafsenjani.
“The CIA had reportedly concluded, based on computer simulation and war games, that attacking Iran would not work, putting the agency out of step with the Bush administration. The administration attacked Hersh's story as inaccurate but did not deny the existence of a strike plan.”
And I thought there are computer simulations and war games on possible targets in even friendly nations.
It maybe true that US does not yet have a sensible Iran plan. With respect to Mr. Powel, maybe 4 years of his hesitation made it appear obvious, that he did not believe wholeheartedly as the president did in implementing terrorist policy and especially towards Iran. But Ms. Rice was firm and refreshing last week in contrast. I think just a little coordination between armed Iranian resistance and minimum external support can bring the rest of Iranian people out to finish the job, AS THEY SHOULD.
Thanks for the ping.
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.
