Jerry Corsi's remarks on "Atomic Iran" at the Heritage Foundation (transcript)

"I think this is wholly untrue."

Are you aware that Israel's President is Persian and that Israel sent military equipment to Iran during their war with Iraq in the '80's? That help has not been forgotten. It's a complicated relationship.
The animosity toward Jews and Christians is a regime 'thing'. The people live side-by-side with very few problems.

IT, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the timetable for regime change in Iran. I've heard guesses from various pundits that the summer will the crunch time for the diplomatic process. Do you think that is correct? Do you think that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Bolton et al have much faith in a diplomatic solution? Is it when, not if, we resort to the military option? Will it be sub-contracted to Israel or will it be a US show? Is the US public ready for it? What are the scenarios for how the region will look after a successful airstrike? What will happen in Iran?

Any informed opinion on this stuff greatly appreciated.
Thanks
BB

I have to say, I do agree with some of the sceptics here that the situation in Iran is a little more complex than just "bad mullahs, friendly populace", especially when it comes to the country's stance on nuclear power and weapons. Yes, the majority of the people are sick of the mullahs and want democratic freedoms, but they are also patriotic Iranians who are proud of their country's nuclear programme and see it as a symbol of Iran's technological advancement and burgeoning modernity. The problem with airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities is that instead of being seen as a blow against the mullahs' grip on power, it could have the opposite effect of driving moderates into the arms of the mullahs against a 'common enemy' - the US and Israel.

The situation is hardly simple, of course, but the difference between the "Death to America" mullahs and the generally pro-America populace is nevertheless striking, and presents a real opportunity. The problem with Iran's nuclear program is that it is clandestine, and that it's in the hands of murderous fanatics. That's a far different proposition than a transparent, inspected program used for peaceful energy generation. I agree that airstrikes on the nuclear facilities, either by Israel or the US, would almost certainly solidify public support for the regime.

Taken together, these points seem to indicate that supporting reform within Iran is the best path.

IT, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the timetable for regime change in Iran. I've heard guesses from various pundits that the summer will the crunch time for the diplomatic process. Do you think that is correct? Do you think that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Bolton et al have much faith in a diplomatic solution? Is it when, not if, we resort to the military option? Will it be sub-contracted to Israel or will it be a US show? Is the US public ready for it? What are the scenarios for how the region will look after a successful airstrike? What will happen in Iran?

I suspect that, regardless of the Administration's views, Israel isn't going to sit on its hands once its intelligence community is convinced that a nuclear Iran is imminent. If that doesn't happen, I'd expect the Administration to continue on the diplomatic track at least until after the June 17 elections.

My understanding is that although there are some 300 nuclear facilities in Iran, only a dozen or so are critical. Since these are mostly buried, hardened facilities, it seems likely that US bunker-busting technology would be required to do the job right. I'd expect such a strike to be quick, intense, and immediately followed by disclaimers that any further action is contemplated.

What would the Iranian regime do in response? That's difficult to say...

I hope the US can also put the same pressure on Iran over its poor human rights record

I hope the US can also put the same pressure on Iran over its poor human rights record.

The Administration seems poised to do just that, with the elevation of Goli Ameri to the US delegation to the UN Commission on Human Rights. Here is her most recent statement, in case you might have missed it.

Leaving aside whether Dhimmi status in and of itself is anti-Jewish (and anti-Christian) and leaving aside the historical anti-Semitism in Iran pre-Khomeini, especially outside the cities, the point remains that since the 1979 Islamic revolution there has been a carefully nurtured and provoked demonization of Israel and Jews. That is 26 years of propaganda to overcome. Not to mention that anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment is ubiquitous all aver the Muslim world. Their presses rant with it even in the most moderate Muslim countries. But Iran will be the solo exception embracing Israel immediately upon overthrowing the Mullahs? I think not.

Further you say that the President of Israel is Persian. No he is a Persian Jew and an Israeli. Israel is full of Persian Jews, and that irrelevance is clear by how Persian Jews are viewed right now in Iran despite the fact that they are not Israeli. German Jews were Germans too and that made little difference to the Nazis.

I agree with Bombay Bloke’s points on Iranian nationalism widely supporting nukes. Further BB nailed the bind the US is in – they correctly think a military solution to Iranian nuclear ambition is necessary but they realize that will result in alienating many reform minded people who they believe are so pro-US. Thus I consider it likely that Israel will be used to take out the nukes while the US will try to maintain deniability. Whether Iranian populace will buy it is not a bet I would take.

Nevertheless to leave the nuclear program extant in hopes that a popular revolution will solve it is suicidally irresponsible. Have we learned nothing from Clinton’s NK delusions?

One would hope that a reform minded Iranian government which came into existence with US support, who you claim would oppose nukes and be US and Israel friendly, would forgive the elimination of such a program to which they were not really attached. In fact it is arguable that if the Iranian majority is opposed to the nuclear program and feels the Mullahs have ill-used them in that respect, their destruction may be one more impetus for change.