IRANIANS WOULD NOT DEFEND THE REGIME AGAINST A FOREIGN ATTACK

IPS ^ | Friday, February 11, 2005 | Safa Haeri

[F14 Pilot]

LONDON 10 Feb (IPS) "Iranians would not rise in support of the present clerical regime in case it is attacked by a foreign power", travellers coming to Europe from different parts of Iran assured.

Western and Iranian experts, diplomats, political analysts and intelligence sources are in general on the view that a military intervention, like what the Americans did in Afghanistan and Iraq, would drew the population closer to the ruling ayatollahs, as it happened after former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980.

But the travellers, among them important dissident personalities and political observers not only refuted this argument, but say that "grounds for a regime change would be prepared within one year.

"After having crushed and killed the reforms, the Iranians had put all their hopes for a smooth change. After taking the control of the Majles (parliament) with dubious methods and now preparing to grab also the presidency, one can be sure that the Iranians would not raise in support of the regime they hate more than ever", the sources told Iran Press Service, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Reacting to recent declarations from American officials, including President George W. Bush, who, in his State of the Union Address, assured that America "stands by the Iranian people", the sources said the statements had had an important impact on the Iranians, seeking support for their "peaceful struggle".

In a speech pronounced on the occasion of the victory of the Islamic revolution, the embattled Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said, "the whole Iranian nation is united against any threat or attack. If the invaders reach Iran, the country will turn into a burning hell for them".

"This nation does not seek war, does not seek violence and dispute. But the world must know that this nation will not tolerate any invasion", the powerless President added in reaction to mounting international pressures over the ayatollahs plans for nuclear power.

Apparently, Mr. Khatami, who is serving his last months as president, has forgot that many Iranians did came out into the streets after a foul named Hakha, from his desk on a television station in Los Angeles, had promised to fly to Tehran with 50 planes to boot out the clerics from power.

"Even though they were laughing at the man and his pledges, yet many Iranians came out on the Hakha’s D-day, in a demonstration of their hate of the regime and the mullahs", one analyst observed.

During her first visit to European and Middle Eastern capitals, Ms. Condoleezza Rice, the new US State Secretary urged them, particularly the European Troika that is engaged with Tehran over its nuclear program to apply more pressures on the Islamic Republic to abandon its efforts for getting atomic power.

"Visibly, not only the ayatollahs are more and more aware of the dangers of a military action by the United States, but also fears the consequences of a rapprochement between Europe and the United States", the sources said.

In his last Friday sermon, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president, warned the United States against "any military adventurism" in Iran. "The Persian Gulf is not a region where they can have fireworks and Iran is not a country where they can come for an adventure", Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani, who heads the powerful Expediency Council, told worshippers in Tehran.

The cleric, who might run for the presidency, also argued why advanced industrial countries should have the right to generate "more than 70 per cent" of the needs in electricity from nuclear energy and at the same time use all their efforts to prevent Iran the same right?

"It is not acceptable that developed countries generate 70 or 80 percent of their electricity from nuclear energy and tell Iran, a great and powerful nation, that it cannot have nuclear electricity. Iran does not accept this", he said, not telling however where he got the figures.

Against France that produces close to 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, most major industrialized nations derive under 30 percent and some, like Germany, are closing down their present nuclear stations, U.S. Energy Information Administration data shows.

Asked about the sincerity of the mullahs about the nature of the Iranian nuclear program, one that they assure it is only for civilian purposes, all the sources questioned by IPS said they have a "clear sentiment that the ayatollahs are after the atomic bomb".

"After having crushed the reform movement, the clerics wants the nuclear power not only to assert their grip on the nation, but also their hegemony over the oil-rich region and at the same time to prevent any attack from Washington", Mr. Qasem Sho’leh Sa’di, a leading political dissident said in interviews with the Persian services of foreign-based radio stations.

[Bald Eagle777]

I see the potential for a lot of Stalingrad-esque house to house, CQB. Minus tanks (on the Iranian side) after we attempt to take out selected targets with PGM, etc; the whole country will have to be taken brick by brick, nail by nail. All soldiers should have a back up weapon, plenty of extra ammo, virtually a decade's supply of M-67 grenades and a K-Bar always at the ready. I would expect a long haul in Iran with a "forest fire" potentially rekindled in Iraq.

What many analysts may not foresee is that the insurgency in Iraq (and elsewhere) could in fact be fanned if we get bogged down in Iran. Insurgents and foreign fighters may be emboldened to come crawling out of the woodwork to a hitherto unforeseen extent (if we are perceived to be stretched too thin between Iraq and Iran). Hopefully all Iraqi security forces will stay the course.. We could have a modern day battle of the Teutoberg forest on our hands if we are not extremely careful.

Iran is no Romania/Nikolai Ceausescu. Finesse will not work, but brutal, sustained, up close in your face ops might, given enough men and materiel. PSYOPS will always be needed to help prepare the battle space and hopefully fan the internal opposition in Iran, but I am skeptical that they all want free, open democracy in Persia. I could be wrong and sincerely hope that I am if we have to go in.

[Bald Eagle777]

"..Invasion would alienate most Iranians .."

This is my assessment also.

[expat_panama]

IMHO, more and more Iranians, and others elsewhere for that matter, are getting plenty of outside news.  Human beings by nature are smart.  It may not seem that way, but that's because (exppan theory #42) the smarter ones tend to be quieter.

[F14 Pilot]

People of Iran are not brainwashed. It is not fair to compare such a bright nation with Cubans or Syrians.

President Bush does separate the Iranians from the regime though.

They don't watch the state run TV Channels.

Indeed, they watch western media and Iranian TVs which based in LA, California.

[Khashayar]

We are any thing but BRAIN WASHED and fortunately, we do not have leftist media who may brain wash some. ;-)

[familyop]

"Iranians would not rise in support of the present clerical regime in case it is attacked by a foreign power."

Then Persia it will be.

[familyop]

RightOnline wrote:
"the Shah was anything but perfect"

F14 Pilot replied:
"I disagree!"

Ahah! Old man!

[smile from an almost old man]

[F14 Pilot]

Was he not perfect?

;-)

[Veto!]

Question is, would democracy in Iran actually change the regime? Iranians brought the mullahs on themselves and quite gleefully with their '79 "revolution."

[F14 Pilot]

Yep!

Cause this current regime in Iran is totally anti-freedom, anti-democracy!

[familyop]

Forgive my lack of knowledge of Farci and some concepts of perfection. But if I remember correctly from study, "Shah" means "best." Some of the Shahs were described to have had perfect ceremonial behavior. But later, Khomeini described himself as being the perfect guide, somewhat ruining the concept for the sake of propaganda.

Correct me on whatever is erroneous above.

[familyop]

So, in a sense, did his title, itself (Shah) mean "perfect?"

[F14 Pilot]

Oh Okay!

Shah in PERSIAN language means KING!
The language of Iran is Persian (Not Farsi). Actually there is no difference between them but Persian is the name of their language in English language. Parsi is what the Iranians themselves call.

And you were right about that ba$tard, Khomeini, he claimed that he is the best leader and guide for the ummah (nation in Arabic) and he ruined Iran and its alliance with the western countries.

[F14 Pilot]

He has a title

HIM Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, SHAHANSHAH OF PERSIA.

He was the Shah of Pahlavi Dynasty!

[familyop]

Thank you.

[familyop]

Thanks again. The keywords you provided yield much history in English through the search engines, for any who want to learn.

[F14 Pilot]

You are welcome

[windchime]

Bump!

[sionnsar]

Question is, would democracy in Iran actually change the regime? Iranians brought the mullahs on themselves and quite gleefully with their '79 "revolution."

They don't have a democracy now, so on that basis the question is moot. However, there is a lot more behind your question so I hope you won't mind my bringing others more qualified to speak to this, able to correct my errors.

The first part "quite gleefully," glosses over a lot of history that led up to the revolution. I won't really go as far back as the installation of the Shah after Mossadegh (sp?) in the early 50s, when the latter was going to nationalize the oil industry. (The coup was, *IF* I understand right, engineered by British & CIA.)

But at least by the 60s there were factions who wanted the Shah out. (I'm relying on the autobiographical "The Hard Awakening" by Dehqani-Tafti, the first Iranian Anglican Archbishop of Iran.) There were at least the fanatic Muslims, and the socialists, and the Soviet Union was in there stirring the pot.

By the 70s the trouble-making was becoming more serious and the Shah started cracking down using SAVAK, the secret police. Matters escalated, unsurprisingly. Then Jimmy Carter pulled the rug out from under the Shah and the revolution got underway.

One of the Iranians on FR recently posted about that time, noting that what the self-professed "mainstream" media showed us was not an accurate image of the time, but what showed best on TV and what was most anti-American. (There being no Internet as we know it there, they had a virtual lock on the news.)

The revolution was achieved mainly by the leftists, the students, who wanted a socialist/communist country. (I knew some of them in college here, '77-'78, and that is definitely what they wanted!)

But that revolution was hijacked by the mullahs. (I do not know how; I hope someone can enlighten me.) Now it is my understanding that the mullahs, and certainly their "enforcer" thugs, are not Iranian but Arab. There's a long dislike of Arabs by the Iranians, I gather, and this just exacerbates the current situation. My Iranian friends tell me the almost all the people hate the mullahs.

There's another factor. Most of the Iranian population today is too young to remember the revolution; all they've ever known are the mullahs.

Look at a couple snapshots, cost of living and demographics (from FarsiNet News:

I think that if the Iranians are able to topple the mullahs, they will have no problem with maintaining a democracy. I suspect it will look a bit more like the Israeli democracy than the somewhat more sedate American practice, but I think they could make it work.