Posted on 01/24/2005 6:41:28 PM PST by F14 Pilot
Editor's Note: Iranian-American journalists warn that a U.S. attack on Iran would only give the repressive mullahs an excuse to crack down on the Iranian dissident movement.
SAN FRANCISCO--Iranian-American media are dismayed though not surprised by the news that the Bush administration is undertaking covert actions in Iran. They warn that an attack on Iran would not promote democracy there or in the Middle East.
Writing in the Jan. 20 issue of the New Yorker, leading investigative writer Seymour Hersh charged that the close circle of neoconservatives in the government have solidified their power by sidelining the CIA, launched covert intelligence-gathering within Iran through the Pentagon and developed a plan to attack and remove Tehran's nuclear capability.
The CIA had reportedly concluded, based on computer simulation and war games, that attacking Iran would not work, putting the agency out of step with the Bush administration. The administration attacked Hersh's story as inaccurate but did not deny the existence of a strike plan.
Prominent figures in the Iranian-American media found Hersh's story credible. Hossein Hedjazi, program director of KIRN-AM 670 in Los Angeles, says, "The neocons want to control the Middle East. They will not shy away from any action that gives them power and control." He says the neocons include Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Shahbaz Taheri, editor of Pezhvak of Iran, based in San Jose, California, says any military action against Iran -- even limited strikes against military bases and nuclear plants -- would be unwise.
"It would be very deleterious to the current Iranian struggle for democracy," says Taheri. "The U.S. would be essentially giving the Islamic regime a good excuse for suppressing all opposition within Iran and openly joining forces with international terrorist organizations."
He sees the next five months as critical period for the younger generation in Iran, mainly the students, who are trying to rally the Iranian public to demand an internationally monitored referendum to change the country's constitution.
More than 338,000 U.S. residents claim primary or secondary Iranian ancestry, according to the 2000 Census. Immigration to America from Iran increased sharply following the 1979 Iranian revolution.
Pari Esfandiari, editor of IranDokt in Los Angeles, finds common ground with the Bush administration in wanting to spread democracy to create a safer world. But she thinks the United States is going about it the wrong way.
"When we talk of imposing democracy, it is a contradiction in terms," she argues. "Democracy and force do not go together. You cannot bring about changes that conflict with the means used to bring it. The outcome of the Iraqi war is testament to my claim," Esfandiari adds.
She says the United States must learn from the history of the region, contending that the CIA's 1954 overthrow of nationalist leader Mohammed Mossadegh most probably prevented the development of a democratic and peaceful government in Iran.
Hedjazi and Esfandiari doubt that a U.S. invasion of Iran would succeed. Although the sentiments of the youth and many others in the country are with American democratic ideals, this sympathy would not translate into support for an invasion. Instead, the United States would face a formidable army of a million men fueled by nationalism.
Hedjazi says the Mullahs running Iran are not stupid, but are alert and smart and priming the people with propaganda that the United States is against Islam and wants to seize Iran's oil fields.
"It would be suicide to invade. It would be much better to go with strong diplomacy to help people find their own way," says Hedjazi.
Esfandiari also says the United States would find it difficult to convince allies and the U.S. public of the need for another war. A survey by the Opinion Research Corporation and released this week found that only 42 percent of Americans "would support the United States invading Iran to stop its nuclear program." Forty-seven percent would oppose such a move.
This week President Bush and Vice President Cheney refused to rule out military action against Iran. Meanwhile, Tehran announced in October that the range of its missiles has been raised to 1,200 miles, which would allow strikes against Israel and U.S. bases in the region.
Hedjazi says it is very likely that, given concerns over Iran's nuclear capability, the administration conducted spy missions in Iran. He doubts, however, that the missions could be done without help from allies in the region.
He believes Pakistan helped in exchange for the United States not pursuing Abdul Qadeer Khan, "the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb" who sold nuclear expertise to Iran and other countries.
Others believe the United States had help from the Mujaheddin-e Khalq, an Iranian dissident group, and from the Azerbaijan liberation movement, an ethnic minority within Iran. Both have ties with the United States.
Esfandiari believes the White House may be using the Hersh article to indirectly threaten the Iranians and get them to accept European pressure to curtail their nuclear program.
But Esfandiari also thinks the United States is not yet committed to any long-term plan. "The scene is ready for any action. The chess game has already begun. Only time will show the outcome."
PNS contributor Donal Brown, who taught journalism in California public schools for 20 years.
ping
Hold on. "an excuse for openly supporting terrorist organizations?" I thought they're already doing that.
Islamic Regime in Tehran denies its involvements in global terrorism...
Which is why they can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. The consequences would be disastrous.
But everyone can see right through that. At least I hope so.
I don't read Hersh, but I DO read Ledeen.
Have you seen this thread?
You might be interested, if you haven't.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325430/posts
It's good to see you. ;o)
The last sound they will hear on the phone will be a sharp whistle.
Whenever a Islamicist says you're about to make a mistake, you know you're on the right track.
Elections there in a week. It's a testament to the falsity of that claim.
Yes, the regime tries to deny it.
But that's really tuff to do every February when they all get together there, isn't it?
They're like the thief who is caught on video tape stealing, who then goes around telling everyone he's innocent. Why do they bother? Everyone in the world knows they are guilty. It's asinine.
Good article. I agree. Except i think that Iraq is headed towards a democratic regime, however the situation in Iraq is different than Iran. There is absolutely no need or desire for an attack on Iran.
"Writing in the Jan. 20 issue of the New Yorker, leading investigative writer Seymour Hersh.."
The New Yorker?? Seymour Hersh??
Nuff said.
Isn't Iran worse than Iraq? The regime is worse than Saddam. They bascially preach "Death to America" everyday.
The regime in Iran is far worse than Saddam, but the situation in Iran is far different. Iran has a long history of fighting for democracy. There are consistent pro-Democracy demonstrations in Iran - 70% of the population are under 30 - polls put the regimes support at about 15% and the younger generation are pro-American. A revolt works much better when dealing with Iran.
Then maybe what we need to do is weaken is infrastructure of the government to give the Iranian people a chance.
That's definitely the best option. I'm sure we're already doing some things.
Iranian-Americans have satellite tv stations setup in California that reach an estimated 5-10 million homes in Iran. There are currently over 20 Persian Satellite TV stations. They're bootleg operations that are pro-US and pro-Democracy, but have wide appeal and outreach. They're illegal and the Iranian government regularly raids homes, but they simply cannot keep up with the production. They're also instrumental in getting people out into the streets. Iran is no North Korea - the people are well aware of things happening due to these satellite dishes.
The problem is that the 15% loyal hard-liners are *extremely* devout. They feel that they're protecting God himself and will do anything to defend the regime. They'd kill anyone, including themselves to defend the regime.
15% is more than enough to keep power - especially when the world media hardly pays attention and the Europeans, Chinese, Russians and most of the rest of the world are backing you.
SYS0013: Encountered "leading investigative writer Seymour Hersh" where [reliable source] was expected.
Then maybe we should work to eliminate the hard-liners.
Do you think an attack on Iran would trigger a response from Russia and/or China?
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.