Iranian Alert - February 16, 2005 - The Blogosphere begins to support a referendum in Iran

A Daily Briefing of Major News Stories on Iran:

The movement towards a referendum in

Iran

has picked up American support

Iranian expert, Michael Ledeen recently came out in support of the referendum movement.

Yesterday our friend Roger L Simon did the same.

Regime Change Iran is also in support of the referendum movement and will soon be announcing a campaign we will be launching on the blogosphere.

Here are a few of the often overlooked headlines.

Ayatollah’s and clerics and their websites.

A leading member of Iran’s Hezbollah says Iran will produce an atomic bomb.

Why Iraq’s Shiites wont follow the Iranian lead.

Iran’s Kharrazi still hoping for a breakthrough in their of Nuclear Deal With EU.

Senator McCain grumbles that Europeans “haven't budged one inch.”

Are the Jihadists in Iraq in a retreat?

Carolyn Glick lays out the options regarding Iran.

Iranians voters refusal to vote in their last elections a sign of things to come this summer?

The Belmont Club thinks they know who killed, Rafiq Hariri.

Once again (22^nd time) the WTO rejects Iran’s application to become a member.

US drones over Iran? wapo says yes, US says no drones, Iran says yes there are.

And finally, Michael Ledeen declares These Are Revolutionary Times. I believe he is right.

thanks for the ping.

I'm frustrated today because of a rant I witnessed two days ago by my boss about how wrong we were to go into Iraq and help the Iraqis achieve democracy...that the Iraqi people won't ever be free, given the Iraqi history and the different factions - and that we need to take care of our own people here in the US [like the poor black people who are uneducated and don't have health insurance (I didn't suggest the county health department and maybe the poor black person could get off the couch and get a job)]. And my boss's last words were that if we go into Iran, she's moving out of the country (well, I guess there goes my job, 'cause I'm not moving!)

And you know, the boss is ALWAYS right, no matter HOW WRONG he/she is... so I have to be silent, hense my frustration.

If my boss knew about the struggle of the Iranian people to be free, if she'd take a moment to read information like this, she'd understand the good her country is doing. Instead, she is force-fed by MSM, and, therefore, she is becoming more and more angry.

What strikes me, what angers me toward this type of mentality is that my boss is free to start up a business, to own property, to sell her business for millions, to buy Cole Hahn shoes and Hermes handbags, to flew to Geneva first class. She has freedom, she has liberty. What is her problem with the Iraqi and Iranian people experiencing a mere slice of the freedom my boss has?

Interesting "news" today - Iran and Syria publically announcing an alliance. Of course, everyone already knew they were allied. It could be troubling that Iran is speaking like this. When we take down Syria and Lebanon's governments in the next few weeks or months, Iran might significantly up its military engagement of US forces. If (not 'if' really, but 'when') we attack Syria, Iranian forces (as opposed to Iranian-funded terrorists) may simultaneously attack the US forces in the region. Highly unlikely, but it would throw a big wrench in our plans. Not to mention highly stupid. Iran gets automatic regime change if it does anything on that scale.

Yes, Khashayar is correct. Syria/Lebanon is next. Here is the schedule as I understand it:

1) Iraq's new Prime Minister takes office; newly elected National Assembly comes into power.

I must admit that I am somewhat concerned with who the next Iraqi PM will be (fortunately, whoever it is, they will only be in power to December. Maybe Allawi could run for PM again in December???). Both likely candidates are less pro-American than Allawi. One is Jaafari, who seems to be a decent man; the other is Ahmed Chalabi (!). I was somewhat shocked yesterday when I read that Chalabi has a shot (albeit a long one) to be PM. Of course, he has his alleged ties to Iran. Then I read this evening that he wants to drop all charges against al-Sadr. I'm no expert on local Iraqi politics, but a man who wants to drop charges against an Iranian-funded terrorist leader doesn't make me feel good.

I want Allawi, but that's not going to happen, obviously. Hopefully, Jaafari will work OK. He did say that his #1 objective will be to stamp out the terrorists....

The election for PM is to take place on Friday.

2) The new Iraqi government, probably in March sometime, will decide officially to take action against Syria.

3) Iraq will go to the UN (good luck!) and demand action against Syria, since Syria keeps attacking Iraq (among other things).

4) American and Iraqi forces agree to fulfill Iraq's request to do some regime change. The 1st Marine Expeditionary Force (1-MEF) and the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division (3rd ID) invade from the East. American air assets drop bombs on nearby terror camps in eastern Syria. In a day or two, American forces are in Damascus. Meanwhile, Israeli forces invade from the south and liberates Lebanon from Syrian occupation. Hopefully, they will also be able to retreive Saddam's WMD (unless the bad guys move them again).

5) This is what maximum success looks like:

-- US international credibility rises due to the confirmation that Saddam really did have WMD.

-- Freedom and democracy begins to take root in Syria and Lebanon.

-- Ba'ath party elements of Saddam's regime, protected by the Assad regime, are captured or killed.

-- Israel is pleased with having relieved a major perennial security headache.

-- Terror operations in Iraq decrease (maybe, maybe not) ??? Iran will still be around (or maybe not!). Lots of terrorists will still be around, just the money supply and sanctuary will be limited. I think of they will be a lot of blood spilled. The difference is that we won't be playing defense anymore. Right now we are just waiting for the terrorists to invade Iraq one by one. Going after Syria eliminates a partial source of the terrorists.

I guess I could go on, I'll stop there.

It appears at the moment the invasion should take place soon, perhaps by late spring, early summer 2005. Maybe only a few weeks away. But you have the morass of the United Nations. That could take months in and of itself.

Maybe before Bush leaves office he'll announce that the US is pulling out of the UN. I mean, why can't we make up our own coalitions? Additionally, the original purpose of the UN makes it now even less relevant.

One last thing - I heard Rumsfeld testifying today. Some congressperson asked him when the US would pull out of Iraq. A year, a year and a half, they asked. He said it depends on the strength of the insurgency. He said it could even be sooner than that.

Eliminate the Syria-Iran axis of evil, and the insurgency will receive a fatal blow. You know, he could have had that in mind...

Agreed, agreed: 2005 will be a monumental year in world history.

Some of what is likely to happen, as I see it:

-- Iraq has three elections; democracy takes a definite hold.

-- Syria and Lebanon have regime change.

-- Possible regime change for Iran; definitely by 2006

We are basically talking about redrawing the map of the Middle East. Imagine if five years ago someone told you that soon, there would be regime change in:

Afghanistan
Iraq
Syria
Lebanon
Iran

You might think they were crazy. But yet, here we are! History in the making!

Afghanistan is well on its way to securing democracy. Iraq is halfway there. Syria and Lebanon are about to experience freedom. After that it will be Iran's turn.

You still have Egypt and Saudi Arabia and some others, but that's a pretty big piece of the Middle East being cleaned up!

Let freedom reign!

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.