MULLAHS' FAREWELL TOUR ~ BE THERE OR BE SQUARE
Posted on 06/03/2005 7:00:13 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
Regime Change in Iran: Interview with Gary Metz Ryan Mauro - 6/3/2005 Gary Metz operates the Regime Change Iran web site (http://www.regimechangeiran.com), one of the top-notch blogs keeping readers up-to-date on developments inside Iran.
RM: Given the fact that there were such large intelligence failures when we went into Iraq, and such a large portion of the American population feels the war is a mistake, how can we trust the intelligence coming out of Iran?
GM: Our intelligence inside of Iran is not what it should be. It will take years to build the kind of intelligence this country needs inside of Iran.
But there is no question that Iran hid aspects of its nuclear program for nearly 20 years. That is an established fact. The Administration's approach does not require a new intelligence find. They are seeking a dismantling of the Iranian uranium enrichment program. On this it appears the EU3 and the U.S. are in agreement. So intelligence is not likely to become a major issue.
But speaking of intelligence, geostrategy-direct.com recently reported that Iran has purchased all the technology and plutonium necessary to construct a bomb. This is something I have long feared.
Your question also implies that the U.S. is preparing for a war with Iran. This is in my opinion very unlikely. If you listen carefully to the words of the President and Condi Rice they seem committed to a regime change policy in Iran, but they won't call it that. By that I believe they intend to support an internal regime change similar to what we have witnesses in Georgia, the Ukraine, Lebanon, etc. This is what we support at regimechangeiran.com. To that end, we have just launched a blogosphere campaign to support the people of Iran to do just that.
RM: How sure can we be that the Iranian opposition is capable of overthrowing the mullahs? I think it is safe to say that when we went into Iraq, we had similar expectations.
GM: Unlike Iraq, the people of Iran have long been considered the most pro-American in the Middle East. Recent polls have indicated that a mere five to ten percent support for the mullahs and eighty-five percent support for a secular democratic government.
So the pro-democracy forces have the numbers. If the people of Iran could have real elections and could choose their own leaders, they would produce a new Iran. Since the people of Iran are tired of participating in illegitimate elections, the people of Iran are planning on boycotting the upcoming elections, June 17. But unlike past elections, the world will be watching, closely.
The pro-democracy forces there hope that when the world witness the people boycotting Iran's illegitimate elections it will put serious pressure on democratic nations to support real democracy in Iran. This is a similar situation that began the uproar in the Ukraine.
The issue is, are they willing to risk their lives to force a change. It is unclear how far the people of Iran are willing to go. But this summer promises to be the most volatile in the regime's history.
I just published a discussion with Gene Sharp had with the Boston Globe about his book, From Dictatorship to Democracy. His book has served as a training manual around the world for successful non-violent regime change. The people in Georgia, the Ukraine and Lebanon have received training in these methods, but the Iranians have had little assistance of this kind. Fortunately, Gene Sharp's book is now available in Farsi for free on the internet. I can only hope the pro-democracy leaders there can make use of these methods and exhibit the discipline necessary for it to work. We will know soon.
RM: Some people I speak to say we can't rely on the opposition for regime change because of two reasons: 1) The Revolutionary Guards, Hizbollah, and other regime-loyal forces will cut them down despite their popularity and 2) The opposition is incapable of regime change before Iran gets a nuclear weapon. How do you respond?
GM: Even totalitarian regimes must exhibit judicious use of violence against its own people. Too heavy a hand is likely to create dissention among those in charge of security. This can cause security forces fighting security forces. But it also increases the size, anger and willingness of those opposing the regime to make sacrifices they might not otherwise make. This if used properly can permit pro-democracy forces to galvanize the public towards their efforts.
Those in control in Iran understand this. Recently, the people of Iran chose to disobey the regime's ban on an ancient festival that involves making small fires and jumping over it, leaving the past problems behind. In Iran the sight of huge numbers of Iranians disobeying the ban, caused the regime to quickly shift its position and even permitted state TV broadcasters to cover the event and praised it.
It is also important to note that the regime has been forced to bring into the country non-Persian security forces because it does not trust its own security forces to carry out its orders. The sight of non-Persian security forces throughout Iran has caused the masses of Iranians to view the regime with disgust.
It might also be of interest that in some communities the Basji's (the religious militia) have been disarmed because some religious leaders in Iran have spoken out against the regime as corrupt and that the regime is causing Iranians to leave Islam.
Iran may already have the nuclear bomb and the best way to locate and put under the control of those friendly to the U.S. is to support the efforts of the pro-democracy forces there. A military attack may make things worse.
RM: If the opposition is incapable of defeating the Revolutionary Guards and other loyal forces, should the US military assist them? Are we too stretched-out to do so?
GM: The pro-democracy forces can defeat the revolutionary guards by the methods I outlined and therefore there is at this time no need for U.S. military action. U.S. military action is likely to have the opposite effect we would want. It could cause the people of Iran to rally around a government they dislike, just as the 9/11 attack brought Americans throughout the political spectrum together for time.
RM: If we support the opposition, isn't Iran capable of retaliating by causing a great amount of trouble in Afghanistan, Iraq, or even at home?
The regime has already been doing everything imaginable to cause problems in Afghanistan and Iraq. The only thing they haven't done is use direct military action and this would provide the U.S. the justification to retaliate against Iran's military. Iran cannot re-supply its military fast enough. It would lose in a traditional military conflict. It could only hope to win a war of attrition as they are attempting to do in Iraq.
RM: Won't there be internal Iranian conflicts and guerilla war as a result of the overthrow of the mullahs? Won't the instability lead to the dispersal of WMDs and military arms?
GM: This depends on largely on how the regime is brought down. WMD's are generally under the control of the military. If the pro-democracy forces can turn the loyalties of the military and security forces it can keep them under control. This has happened in other nations. But it is likely that their will be bloodshed and regime change opens the possibilities for WMD's to change hands before complete control is in place. It is possible.
RM: Why is the Mujahideen-e-Khalq labeled a terrorist organization by the State Department and should it/will it remain that way?
GM: The Clinton Administration designated them a terrorist organization based on its murder of Americans and loyalties to at one time Khomeini, then later to Saddam. During the Iran/Iraq war the MEK fought and killed Iranians. As a result, inside of Iran they are almost universally considered traitors. I am not an expert in the MEK but I know that the Iranian people overwhelmingly hate the MEK and if the U.S. were to change their designation it would cause them to believe that the U.S. has made peace with their enemy. This would be a huge mistake.
RM: Is it a possibility to form an exile government outside Iran? Is such leadership available?
GM: It is possible, there have been several groups seeking to do this. One such group calling itself the Iranian Opposition Council is working on this. It is too early to know what they will be able to accomplish.
RM: Wouldn't assisting regime change in Iran cause further anti-Americanism around the world and perhaps provoke terrorist attacks?
GM: Just the opposite. While the people of the Middle East generally distrust the U.S., the free elections in Afghanistan and then in Iraq are causing a tide wave of change in the Middle East. People who never thought democracy was possible in the Middle East are now asking, why not us? The more likely targets of terrorists are the new leaders of these new democracies, not the U.S. But these nations are likely to do a much better job of securing their nations than the U.S. could ever hope to do.
RM: Is it possible to form a real coalition to support the opposition or even support military assistance?
GM: There are many groups seeking to support the Iranian opposition inside of Iran, but no coalition that I am aware of. We should discuss this further. As I mentioned earlier I have launched a blogosphere campaign in support of the pro-democracy forces inside of Iran. We may be able to organize something larger as a result.
---
Ryan Mauro is a geopolitical analyst. He began working for Tactical Defense Concepts (www.tdconcepts.com), a maritime-associated security company in 2002. In 2003, Mr. Mauro joined the Northeast Intelligence Network (www.homelandsecurityus.com), which specializes in tracking and assessing terrorist threats. He has appeared on over 20 radio shows and had articles published in over a dozen publications. His book "Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq" is scheduled to be published in the coming months. He publishes his own web site called World Threats. tdcanalyst@optonline.net
PING!
bump!
Good job, dr
GM: The Clinton Administration designated them a terrorist organization based on its murder of Americans and loyalties to at one time Khomeini, then later to Saddam. During the Iran/Iraq war the MEK fought and killed Iranians. As a result, inside of Iran they are almost universally considered traitors. I am not an expert in the MEK but I know that the Iranian people overwhelmingly hate the MEK and if the U.S. were to change their designation it would cause them to believe that the U.S. has made peace with their enemy. This would be a huge mistake.
"inside of Iran they are almost universally considered traitors. I am not an expert in the MEK but I know that the Iranian people overwhelmingly hate the MEK and if the U.S. were to change their designation it would cause them to believe that the U.S. has made peace with their enemy. This would be a huge mistake."
Bump!
Bump and bookmark
Excellent Bush and Condi zots!
Someday, when I get all the spyware killed off I'd like to get the PaintShopPro with animation and learn how to make these animated .gifs!
What makes me proud of Free Republic is that this site is intellectual user rich, those who are activists and known in the field as experts, which the DUmmies probably don't have. There are many users on Free Republic expertise with their knowledge in the region they know about. I am glad they are here, which I may hear directly from them.
Good one, Phil!
Thanks for the post; thanks for your work.
Another Bump
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.