May 9, 2006

Ayoon Wa Azan (Threaten and Recoil), Jihad el-Khazen Al-Hayat - 09/05/06//

It feels as though, for the past two years, I have been writing the same article about Iran and its nuclear program, American threats, the role of European countries and the stand taken by the International Agency for Atomic Energy (IAEA).

Iran claims that its nuclear program is one of peaceful purposes; however, I believe that it is trying to build a nuclear bomb. The US threatens then recoils, European countries blow hot and cold, and the IAEA calls for restraint. This was the situation two years ago; it is stand still this week. Since I have grown weary of repeating myself, and I see the reader has grown even wearier, today I choose to rely on the 'New Yorker' magazine, which is my favorite American magazine, not 'Time' or 'Newsweek'. I claim no credit in the following lines except for selecting and translating them, as I believe that the Middle East is on the brink of a disaster in the case of a military confrontation between the US and Iran. I worry that the neoconservative cabal's opinions will prevail once again, and that we will witness hundredfold the catastrophe which followed the occupation of Iraq. Only, I am not a part of the debate in process, so today, I will settle for what I have read in the 'New Yorker'.

The last issue of the magazine reminded us that when the Vietnam War worsened, Lyndon Johnson consulted with elder American statesmen whom he calls 'Wise Men' to advise him on the issue. They were architects of the US foreign policy. Five days after their meeting, he announced restrictions on bombing areas in North Vietnam and his own withdrawal from the presidential race.

The magazine said that George Bush met with a group to provide him with advice, and without getting into names and comparisons, the magazine's opinion as well as my personal opinion, is that Bush's 'Wise Men' are not wise at all. Furthermore, they are definitely not as wise as those assembled by Johnson. Moreover, President Bush is inspired by a much higher source, as a week earlier, in California, he literally said: "I base a lot of my foreign-policy decisions on some things that I think are true [he said think and not believe]. One, I believe there's an Almighty. And, secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody's soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to be free."

The 'New Yorker' commented sarcastically, that unless God personally enters the White House and advises the President, the predicament in Iraq will continue.

For my part, I fear we would face a much greater predicament in Iran since the 'axis of evil' in the US administration and those around it are executing Israel's goals, which are not in favor of US interests, or any other interest.

I return to the March 6 issue of the 'New Yorker', which I saved after reading an excellent report written by Connie Bruck entitled 'Exiles: How Iran's Expatriates are Gaming the Nuclear Threat.'

The report mentions the demands, championed by Shahriar Ahy, for a successor to the throne of Reza Pahlavi. This reminds me of Ahmad Chalabi, as their ideas converge, even through Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). However, I selected only one column to translate out of 14 full-detailed pages. Connie Bruck wrote:

"… When it looked as if Iran might well be next. ('And it would have been, if Iraq had been a slam dunk,' Ahy says.) Indeed some Administration supporters who were intent on bringing democracy to the broader Middle East through regime change argued that Iran, not Iraq, should be first. Among them was Michael Ledeen, (one of the worst , anti-Arab and Muslim neoconservatives), a resident scholar at the American Enterprise institute, who played a role in the Iran-Contra scandal by arranging meetings between his friend the Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar and the U.S. government. Ledeen has been predicting for many years that Iran is on the verge of a popular revolution, which only requires some outside help to become a reality. He told a group of Iranian expatriates in Los Angeles not long ago, 'I have contacts in Iran, fighting the regime. They need funds. Give me twenty million, and you'll have your revolution.' He told me (the writer) that in 2001 and 2002, when he pressed the case for Iran with friends in the Administration, he had support from some officials in the Pentagon and in the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney (that same cabal). Richard Haass, who was the director of the State Department's Policy Planning staff from 2001 to 2003, and who is currently the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, told me, 'A number of Israeli officials were much more concerned about Iran. They worried that we were focusing on Iraq rather than on Iran, though they were careful not to appear critical of the Bush Administration.'

'But the prevalent view among neoconservatives in the Administration,' Ledeen said, was that 'the road to Tehran lies through Baghdad.' A person familiar with conversations among the Vice President's national security staff when Saddam's regime was toppled recalled, 'There was a lot of loose talk there - like: Now we can deal with Iran.' James Dobbins, the Bush Administration's special envoy for Afghanistan, told me that in the prewar planning for Iraq 'there was an intention that the US would retain troops in Iraq-not for Iraq stabilization, because that was thought not to be needed, but for coercive diplomacy in the region. Meaning Iran...'"

"…according to Gary Sick, who was the principal White House aide for Iran during the Iranian revolution and is now a professor at Columbia University. Sick listed prospective Chalabis who have visited one or both of the institutions over the past several years: Reza Pahlavi; Hussein Khomeini, grandson of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini; and Mohsen Sazegara, one of the founders of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. Sazegara leaped briefly to the forefront of the referendum movement in the fall of 2004, in London. Patrick Clawson, a prominent Washington hard-liner, brought him to the Washington Institute, where he is the research director. The Institute is well connected within the Administration and has close ties to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC (or spies' den, as I would call it)."

I ask: If Iran comes next in line after Iraq, who comes after Iran? I would say that all Middle-Eastern countries are targeted, and that Israel's cabal in the Administration has not given up after its defeat in Iraq. In fact, Israel is intent on forcing the US into a war with Iran and all the region's countries to serve Israel's interests. For they owe their loyalty to Israel alone at the expense of the interests of any other country.