HT Dr. Zin - Regime Change Iran

Human Events:

Michael Ledeen, the Freedom Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says pushing a democratic revolution within Iran is the wisest policy the United States can pursue to avert the threat posed by that country's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In fact, Ledeen believes Iran has already developed a nuclear weapon, which, in his view, they will not test until it is deployable on an intermediate-range missile.

[...]

They had polls?

They have these surprising things. It's an odd sort of dictatorship. Every now and then things filter out that you wouldn't expect to filter out. For example, they conducted their own opinion poll two or three years ago. It was carried out by someone in the information ministry. So, imagine, you're an Iranian and you're walking down the street of, say, Isfahan, and some guy comes up to you with a clipboard and says: "Hi, I'm from your information ministry and I would like to ask you a few questions about how you feel about us." So you know it's a loyalty check. Under those circumstances, 73% of Iranians said they did not like the regime and wanted it changed. So the real number, a friend of mine said, must be 99%. If you get 73% with that method, it's obvious that the real number is higher. So, they know that their people hate them. There's never been any doubt about that.

[...]

So you think the wisest strategy for averting the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is for the U.S. to promote a democratic revolution from within the country?

Yes. Absolutely. Thomas Friedman rightly calls Iran the one Red State in the Middle East. The Iranian people are very pro-American. They demonstrate every 9-11. They go through the streets with lighted candles mourning the death of Americans. They want to go to Disneyland. They want to be part of the Western world. They have a long history of self-government and democracy, unlike a lot of other Muslim countries in the Middle East, and I believe that when we get there we will find that Islam really is out of business in Iran for at least this generation.

[...]

And an another level we should aid Iranian dissidents? What about the $85 million that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Congress for last week to support reformers in Iran? Is that a step in the right direction? Is that enough?

It's a small step, years late, but it's certainly a very good step. I hope all that money doesn't end up inside the State Department. It seems that $50 million is going to VOA, which hasn't been particularly vigorous in promoting democracy in Iran, obviously, because the American government — for which VOA speaks after all — has been so feckless. It would be better to support a wide range of broadcasters, and to concentrate on radio rather than T.V. I'm told that VOA and "Farda" (which is the Persian language equivalent of the old Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) is going to do less radio and more T.V., which I think is a mistake. Anyone can get radio, most anywhere they are, but you need a dish for satellite T.V., and lots of Iranians don’t have access to that sort of technology.

[...]

nd an another level we should aid Iranian dissidents? What about the $85 million that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Congress for last week to support reformers in Iran? Is that a step in the right direction? Is that enough?

It's a small step, years late, but it's certainly a very good step. I hope all that money doesn't end up inside the State Department. It seems that $50 million is going to VOA, which hasn't been particularly vigorous in promoting democracy in Iran, obviously, because the American government — for which VOA speaks after all — has been so feckless. It would be better to support a wide range of broadcasters, and to concentrate on radio rather than T.V. I'm told that VOA and "Farda" (which is the Persian language equivalent of the old Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) is going to do less radio and more T.V., which I think is a mistake. Anyone can get radio, most anywhere they are, but you need a dish for satellite T.V., and lots of Iranians don’t have access to that sort of technology.

And on another level we ought to be funneling cash to groups inside Iran that are resisting the regime we’re speaking up against?

Yes, we should be doing it. But we’re not doing it. Rice said in her testimony that we were helping to train Iranian trade union leaders. That would be great, that’s exactly the sort of thing we should do.

[...]

If they are a terrorist regime and they are acting the way Adolph Hitler did, and we know the Guardian Council vetoes any kind of reform, how easy will it be for us to do it, especially when we have Shi’ites in Iraq, Moqtada Sadr, saying he’ll come to the aid of Iran if they’re under any pressure.

Oh dear. Oh dear. Moqtada and his five guys, right? He didn’t do as well as most expected in the Iraqi elections, and most Iraqi Shi’ites hate Iran. Look, I understand all that. But the world — even in the Middle Eastern tyrannies — is much more open than people imagine. You can transfer money to anybody anywhere in the world now through this underground money-changer, money-transfer system that operates all over the Islamic world. You can move money. There’s nothing to prevent that from happening. I am in contact and friends of mine are in contact with plenty of dissident Iranians ranging from Ayatollahs to students. Communication is possible. It is sometimes tricky. It is sometimes difficult. It is sometimes interrupted. But it works.

Read it All

HT Dr. Zin - Regime Change Iran

Iran the most likely recipient of this technology.

*****

Deutsche Welle [02-24-06]

German police launched a nationwide raid against a suspected spy ring. One report links the suspects, who were interested in missile technology, with Iran.

The early morning raid on Thursday covered 12 locations across four German states, and netted an unspecified number of suspects, according to Germany's federal prosecutor.

"The accused are suspected of attempting, in the service of a foreign intelligence agency, to obtain parts for delivery systems and conventional weaponry for armed forces," the prosecutor's office said in a statement.

Police would not say what foreign agency that might have been, but a source told the Reuters news agency that the country involved was Iran. Police were interrogating the suspects after raids in the states of Baden-Württemberg, Hesse, North Rhine-Westphalia and Saarland. Two men were arrested in Frankfurt, according to a police spokeswoman.

Read More

HT The Adventures of Chester

Back in January, I said:

Here's what I expect in the next 12 months.

-There will be airstrikes upon Iranian facilities by either the US or Israel.
-There will be catastrophic, if not cataclysmic, terror attacks in various parts of the Middle East, sponsored by Iran or its proxies; The Gulf States, Jordan, Israel, and Iraq are potential targets.

I'm not going to make any definitive statements of causality. Either of the above two events may happen before the other. What happens after those two is anyone's guess. But I think they are both coming, and coming faster than we may all expect.

Is it possible that the Iranians have begun their campaign of terror, but with as much deniability as possible?

[...]

As far as terrorism and its relationship to a state, Iran presents a different set of circumstances than either Iraq or Afghanistan. Al Qaeda's raid on the eastern seaboard on 9/11 was an act of a transnational terror organization with sanctuary within a state. Afghanistan was a totally willing host to Al Qaeda's parasitic organization. Nevertheless, the Taliban and Al Qaeda were still different organizations, with different goals, intents, and motivations, complementary though they might have been.

In Iraq, terror organizations have yet a different relationship with the state. There they exist as something more akin to a cancer, feeding off the ideological and organizational remnants of the Hussein regime, and attacking the host -- the new Iraqi state, founded in the period of 2004-2005.

[...]

The US response to 9/11 -- transformation of two states, and an unremitting pursuit of Al Qaeda in all its forms -- would seem to suggest that overt terrorism does not influence the US in a productive manner. Any organization or state that used terror solely for the purpose of a "show of force" would be looking down the business end of the US military's arsenal with little delay. This is not to suggest that spectacular attacks won't be pursued, just that they might now be most useful only for their destructive power.

But the second kind of terrorism -- deniable, covert, and meant to influence -- might take on a whole new importance. These kinds of attacks might be meant to embarrass the West, harrass it, sow discord among its nations, or alternately (and perhaps not simultaneously) unify the Muslim world against it. What might some of these actions look lilke? Well, perhaps "spontaneous" demonstrations in dozens of countries about something published four months previously in an obscure news organ would fit the bill. Or, perhaps a massive terror attack upon a key Shia shrine, which has thus far not been claimed by Al Qaeda in Iraq, could fit into this category as well.

When considered in the light of the long history of Iran with terror, as both its sponsor and its exporter, one wonders if Iran has begun a new campaign in its quest to achieve nuclear power status with no real objection from the rest of the world. Much of the below has been stated in other venues, but consider each of these points afresh:

[...]

But all of this raises a larger point: when Americans envision war, we imagine large scale military assaults and operations to neutralize targets, not covert and deniable violence on behalf of influencing public attitudes. Yet this blind spot is exactly what Iran excels at performing, and exactly what vexes Secretary Rumsfeld so much as he laments today in the LA Times:

Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but for the most part we -- our government, the media or our society in general -- have not.

Consider that violent extremists have established "media relations committees" and have proved to be highly successful at manipulating opinion elites. They plan and design their headline-grabbing attacks using every means of communication to break the collective will of free people.

I believe our war with Iran has begun.

Read More

HT View from Iran

Nerves & Giggles

Irritable bowel syndrome, ulcers, panic attacks, headaches, and other nervous disorders… Almost everyone I know in Iran suffers one of these ailments.

One more: “Why don’t Iranians just overthrow their government…” and I am going to puke. Ever overthrown a regime? Not an easy thing… I assure you.

“My aunt has the bill, I swear I have seen it myself, for the 4 bullets that were used to execute her son. When she asked: ‘where is his grave?’ she was shown a mass-grave where hundreds of others were also buried. This was 20 years ago.”

We were talking about the cartoon furor which, despite what you might think, is not such a furor in Iran. Not that Iranians are not observant Muslims, just that they are sick to death of the manipulation of Islam for political ends. (For those of you who read Dutch:read Erdbrink's eye-witness account of the demonstration in front of the Danish embassy.)

“The mullahs have always controlled our understanding of Islam,” a friend tells me. “They are losing that control here. Partly it’s because of the revolution. We have to study the Koran in school. Now, we ourselves know what is in it. We don’t need the mullahs.”

Iranians also have experience with limits on their freedom of humor. It was a capital crime to make fun of a mullah. Now it’s the number 1 Iranian past time. (How else could a frankly pro-Islamic film like Marmulak get banned? BTW, if you have not seen it, see it. It is great!) As a rule, Iranians are highly unlikely to support any efforts to limit their freedom of humor.

“Did you know that it is impossible to pick a mullah’s pocket?” a friend asks me. “It’s just too deep.”

Link

HT Hugh Hewitt

*****

by Mary Katharine Ham

Bringing on a revolution, one babe at a time.

This is cool. A 28-year-old artist named Deeyah has been dubbed the "Muslim Madonna," and her most recent video is a harsh take on the Muslim world's treatment of women.

Watch the video, here.

[...]

But the video's not all about booty-shaking your way to freedom of expression. The video reportedly features other Muslim and Middle Eastern women who have fought for women's rights. There are women, throughout the video, pictured removing strips of tape from their mouths. I'm trying to find a story on who exactly they are.

[...]

The Jawa Report thinks this is exactly the way to fight Islamofascism-- fight fire with hotness.

[...]

Read More

HT Renew America

Rocketsbrain has been saying this for two years. The $64 question is why the Bush Administration choses to remain silent on this.

Rocketsbrain suggest this is being held as a trump card in a much larger game. See previous post, UPDATE - Saddam's WMDs IN SYRIA (Linked below).

*****

Saddam's WMDs: The Russian connection and the coverup
Wes Vernon
February 20, 2006


The free world may soon learn it has just been bamboozled by one of the most clever and well-organized propaganda campaigns in the history of this planet. No WMDs in Iraq? That is not the case, according to eyewitnesses and expert intelligence analysts.

Yes, Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, he intended to use them.

Most Americans don't know that, because the public has been spoon-fed the line that multiple intelligence reports around the world got it all wrong, and that there "never were" weapons of mass destruction.

As it turns out, former CIA Director George Tenet was not wrong when he told President Bush it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam had WMDs. At least it was likely accurate at the exact moment he gave that assurance. Shortly thereafter or at about the time he said it, the weapons were removed.

But of course, you already know that, if you've been reading this column or have listened to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or watched Fox News. Much of the rest of the media have cheerfully assisted in the "No WMDs" mantra.

What you might not have known until now is that the Russians helped the Saddam deception of removing the WMD from Iraq prior to the war there. As Lt. General Thomas G. McInerney, a military consultant — said in a conversation with this writer — the Russians "masterfully laid it out into the free world that there were no WMDs. Politically, it was picked up [here at home] by the Democratic Party and other parties throughout Western Europe. It was brilliantly done by the Russians that there were no WMDs. And to this day [that story] has still got legs."

But the facts of the story are different from the false conventional wisdom.

At a private "Intelligence Summit" meeting that began Friday just outside Washington, military analysts and intelligence professionals heard the highlights of twelve hours of taped conversations between Saddam Hussein and his top lieutenants. The Iraqi strongman did have a WMD program to include nuclear. How far along he was is another question, McInerney added. But he was still investing in that area. He was supporting terrorism.

General McInerney says Saddam could have had a role in the anthrax attacks in the United States shortly after 9/11 because "it was such a high grade of anthrax that it was not a low-cost energy effort. It was done masterfully."

McInerney adds the latest Russian dots "need to be looked at." They come from many different sources (including from Jack Shaw who gave a Pentagon insider's account of the Russian connection as he spoke before the Intelligence Summit on Saturday) as well as from Israel and other places around the globe.

Taken together, the dots indicate "there was WMD, [and] that it went out to Syria [three locations] and through Syria on to Lebanon [one location]." The Russian connection was "the orchestrator to move the weapons out. And they had the skill [with a crack team]" and two top generals — "one to help them on the air defense, and one who was to clean this WMD up."

Russian assistance was thorough, to say the least. "The archives and all that were taken out. It was brilliantly done, and then they laid in a program to follow it. And that's the information operations [propaganda] campaign," which General McInerney says was "brilliant." They spread it "into Western Europe, and then to the UN and to the diplomatic world. [And so] it became a part of the political lore that the Democratic Party and our Congress and the administration just backed away from it [the idea that Saddam's Iraq had WMDs]."

Jack Shaw was Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for International Technology Security at the time this was learned through intelligence sources.

Addressing the three-day conference at a hotel not far from the Pentagon itself, he revealed not only the Russian operation, but the effort — for whatever reason — to cover it up here at home.

When the Cold War ended, Russia's military aid to Iraq and Syria did not. Unlike Germany and Japan at the end of World War II, the free world allies were not able actually to occupy the old Soviet Union and de-communize" it the way Germany was "de-nazified." In Germany, the bums were killed, imprisoned, disgraced, or banished from public office. In Russia, the bums walked free and pulled strings, albeit under different banners. We are paying the price of that in today's Iraq War.

Shaw explained that Russia not only built up the military arsenals of Iraq and Syria, but also could "provide a pipeline through Syria to funnel weapons to Saddam as the pressure on him increased." Thus, they could "put beyond the reach of an invasion force such munitions [for which] Saddam wanted a safe haven." Or as Shaw put it, that "assured that the traffic in both directions would be directed and implemented by Russians providing deniability on both sides of the border." Not incidentally, that border has had a 3000-year experience in smuggling.

The chief mischief-maker on the Russian side apparently was General Yevgeny Primakov, who headed the Soviet foreign intelligence service in 1990, served as Russia's minister of foreign affairs in 1996, and as prime minister in 1998. You may remember him as the post-Cold War general who was given to outrageous and threatening outbursts.

Despite Iraq's 8 billion dollar debt to Russia, Primakov convinced the Russian government to invest anew in rebuilding Iraqi military forces after Saddam's humiliating defeat in the Gulf War. "Secret agreements, signed between Iraqi intelligence and the Russian GRU, provided for clean-up operations to be conducted by Russian and Iraqi military personnel — to remove WMDs, materials for production, technical documentation, etc., from Iraq, so that the regime could announce that Iraq was 'WMD free.'"

Part of the plan — specifically dealing with chemical weapons — was described by a Romanian intelligence official now living in protective custody after briefing U.S. intelligence for three years. The Russians specified that all chemical/bio weapons were to be burned or buried at sea in the event of potential capture. Just before war against Iraq by the allied coalition, two Russian ships set sail for the Indian Ocean. Shaw says it's not known whether they then headed for Syria or were destroyed. The point is they were out of Iraq and out of the reach of any invasion force.

In addition to undercutting the U.S. rationale for going to war, the Russians also secured important gains for themselves. Shaw says they increased their influence in Syria and "and put themselves in a position to support armed guerilla action in Iraq after the war." This is a reference to the terrorists (or "insurgents" in delicate media-speak) who have been killing innocent Iraqi citizens, as well as American military and civilian personnel.

None of this in any way contradicts the claims made by General Georges Sada — at one time the second highest ranking general in Saddam's air force — who says in his book "Saddam's Secrets" that he knew the dictator moved the weapons out of the country (see my column of January 29). He says they were moved by air. Some at the Intelligence Summit say weapons were also moved out by cattle trucks. McInerney says it is credible that different conveyances were used. "The fact is they probably went out in a combination of different ways."

The biggest puzzle in all this is why the Bush administration has not shouted this story from the rooftops, especially since it puts the lie to the "Bush lied-People died" propaganda. In our interview, General McInerney (you may have seen him as a military analyst on Fox News) said it is as clear as ever that "Russia was number one, China was number two, France was number three in providing [Saddam] conventional weapons. We know that. There's no question on it. It just hasn't been exposed." You will note those three regimes persistently voted in the United Nations against the U.S. efforts to marshal international force against Iraq with something more meaningful than another tired UN Resolution.

Shaw put it this way to his audience: "The question is not only how badly we got snookered by the Russkis, but why it is in the U.S. interest to continue the cover-up of the real story. It has been suggested that our knowledge of the movement of these weapons is not helpful as we cannot prove what happened without expanding the war. There is also the old intelligence rationale of not blowing your cover, so you can continue to mine your intelligence sources without compromising them."

General McInerney noted that Russia, China, and France are permanent members of the UN Security Council, and perhaps the Bush administration needs them to help in the global War on Terror. "So maybe [the Bush administration] did not want to create a big problem with them."

So Shaw is asking, "What is the current Bush administration's game plan? Does it have one? And who are the enforcers?"

The three-day Intelligence Summit conference here is a logical outgrowth of the concern on the part of military and intelligence professionals who are frustrated by cover-up after cover-up of the misdeeds of enemies and our so-called "friends" that have left Americans dead, while the bad guys get away with it.

There's much more to be told. One of the main conference participants — Bill Tierney, a translator and former weapons inspector — told conferees the cases involving the first (1993) World Trade Center bombing and the (1995) Oklahoma City bombing should be re-opened so as to bring to a closure the glaring inconsistencies and unanswered questions in the accepted versions of those mysteries.

But we'll get to that later. For now, the Russian connection is enough to ponder.

Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer and veteran broadcast journalist.

© Copyright 2006 by Wes Vernon

Link to source