Posted on 03/23/2003 9:43:13 AM PST by Lessismore
On the eve of his recent trip to Tehran to attend an Iraqi Shiite conference, Iraqi National Congress (INC) leader Ahmed Chalabi contacted the Iranian Embassy in London.
Chalabi spoke with the embassy’s adviser for relations with Iraqi opposition groups, Hossein Niknan, who used to be Iran’s charge d’affaires in Beirut. The INC leader asked the Iranian diplomat to issue a multiple entry visa for his public relations consultant whom he said would be traveling with him to Iraqi Kurdistan through Iran and back again.
Under strict orders from Tehran to comply with all Chalabi’s requests, Niknan did not hesitate to accede to this one even though the PR man in question was not Iraqi but American, Francis Brooke by name.
Brooke, who was traveling with Chalabi, is a well-known American Middle East specialist and is rumored to be close to US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Chalabi was surprised to see Niknan take such an interest in Brooke’s case; the American was granted a special multiple entry visa similar to the one issued to Chalabi himself.
When the pair arrived at Tehran’s Mehrabad airport, the Iranian authorities not only waived the newly introduced fingerprinting rule introduced in response to a US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) decision to fingerprint all Iranians entering the US as far as Brooke was concerned, Chalabi felt that his companion was being made even more welcome by immigration officers and Iranian Foreign Ministry officials than he was.
Brooke was so warmly received wherever he went in Tehran that journalists who met with Chalabi were intrigued. They noted that Iranian officials from the departments of security and foreign affairs, the Revolutionary Guards and the presidency were even more interested in Brooke than in the INC leader himself.
A young Iranian journalist who asked a Foreign Ministry official just back from a meeting between Brooke and a senior Iranian National Security official whether Chalabi’s PR consultant had indeed delivered a letter from the US administration to the Iranian leadership said that the Foreign Ministry man replied: “All I can say is that he (Brooke) is an important person who knows many secrets. We believe he is in contact with Washington decision-making circles. We therefore have to use the opportunity of his being in Tehran to convey our point of view to the Bush administration vis-a-vis the war on Iraq especially since the US government has closed off all other avenues open to us.”
A few hours later, two reporters Omid Memarian and Hossein Barmaki from Yas-e-no (a reformist newspaper published by prominent reformist MP and Islamic Iran Participation Front (IIPF) politburo member Mohammad Reza Naimipour) met with Brooke in clear violation of instructions by the Iranian authorities not to publicize his visit to Tehran and his meetings with senior officials.
The contents of this interview revealed that Brooke’s visit to Iran was not simply that of a PR consultant Chalabi had hired to embellish his reputation in the West. Brooke was on a mission; and the effects of his mission quickly became apparent in Iranian policy vis-a-vis the United States in general and the way Tehran began viewing the war on Iraq.
In his interview with Yas-e-no, Brooke said: “After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US no longer felt threatened with nuclear annihilation. It became no longer necessary for America to maintain relations with corrupt dictatorships just because of their hostility to communism.
“The Soviet foe has been replaced by a friendly Russia; China is not perceived by Washington as a threat but as a potential strategic partner. In fact, the gravest threat facing the West is that posed by Islamic fundamentalism. Sept. 11 brought home to us the magnitude of this threat to Western civilization. “We understand that there are two factors that have encouraged the spread of fundamentalism in the Middle East and the Muslim world: the Palestine question and lack of democracy,” Brooked continued.
“America’s most important strategic goals at the moment are to help Arab and Muslim peoples achieve democracy, and to find a just settlement for the Palestine question through the establishment of an independent and democratic Palestinian state.
“The overthrow of Saddam Hussein will be just the beginning of this process. A glance at America’s traditional allies in the region shows that they do not enjoy the trust of their peoples. That is why we have decided to rethink our alliances.
“There is a vast gulf between us and the Europeans. America is a country built on revolutionary principles; one of these is helping oppressed peoples and fighting colonialism. No country is more justified in talking about democracy than the United States,” Brooke said. “It is essential that the peoples of the Middle East enjoy the fruits of democracy.
“Europe’s experience is different to ours. European history is full of political and religious conflicts. Look at Europe now; in America, we proved that it is possible for people of different religious and ethnic backgrounds to live together. There are no racial and religious barriers preventing people in America from reaching the top in any field of human endeavor. In Europe, by contrast, laws are still in effect that distinguish between indigenous and immigrant populations. In America, once you are naturalized, you will be exactly the same as anyone whose ancestors came there centuries ago.
“We have an open society and a free press; we are not afraid to discuss our weaknesses openly.
“We are currently in the process of trying to overthrow the Iraqi regime and helping the Iraqi people establish democracy. This is part of our new strategy in this region.”
But what about Iran? he was asked.
Brooke said: “Iraq is the common denominator between Iran which was attacked by the Saddam Hussein regime and the United States, which wants to unseat the Iraqi leader. Iran has extended valuable help to the Iraqi opposition, and enjoys excellent relations with many opposition leaders such as (Kurdistan Democratic Party leader) Masoud Barzani and Ahmed Chalabi. We cannot deny that Iran enjoys a semblance of democracy, but we hope that this will be further developed into true democracy.” In private meetings, Brooke reassured Iranian officials that the Bush administration is not thinking of attacking Iran or of changing its regime so long as Iran acts responsibly and cooperates with the United States in effecting a smooth transition to democracy in the region.
On March 16, just two days after Iran officially rejected America’s war on Iraq, the Iranian National Security Council decided to adopt a position that tallies with US strategy. It quietly decided to participate in American efforts to effect “regime change” in Baghdad.
That was how the enigmatic Francis Brooke succeeded in laying the groundwork for a new Iranian-American relationship in the post-Saddam era.
Ali Nourizadeh, one-time political editor of the Tehran daily Ettelaat, is an Iranian researcher at the London-based Center for Arab-Iranian Studies and the editor of its Arabic-language newsletter, Al-Mujes an-Iran
I do not know anything about the reliability of the DAILY STAR but, taken on face value, this means that the administration is willing to accept Iran's acquisition of the bomb providing it "acts responsibily" and "cooperates" in effecting democracy in the region.
Either Iran "acts responsibily" or it acts like a member of the "axis of evil." Which is it? It might be a little late if the administration guesses wrong after the Ayatollahs get the bomb.
Finally, who are we talking to here? Who is in charge? and who is going to be in charge tomorrow when they have the bomb?
I think I can answer that question for you.
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.