US and UK Develop Democracy Strategy for Iran

The US and UK are working on a strategy to promote democratic change in Iran, according to officials who see the joint effort as the start of a new phase in the diplomatic campaign to counter the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme without resorting to military intervention.

A newly created Iran Syria Operations Group inside the State Department is co-ordinating the work and reporting to Elizabeth Cheney, the senior US official leading democracy promotion in the broader Middle East.

“Democracy promotion is a rubric to get the Europeans behind a more robust policy without calling it regime change,” a former Bush administration official commented.

The new direction, the former official said, reflected a growing belief in the US and UK that diplomacy through the United Nations and partial sanctions were unlikely to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. In the absence of a credible military solution, the argument went that international diplomacy could try to slow down the nuclear programme while more “robust” efforts continued towards the ultimate solution of regime change, he said.

US officials said the British input was important because of the Bush administration’s lack of experts on Iran, the legacy of 25 years of frozen diplomatic relations. Some see the UK as having a moderating effect as the US considers whether to fund opposition groups in exile, launch covert activities inside Iran, and/or “independent” satellite television broadcasting in Farsi.

But US officials also detect a hardening of the UK stance in response to the confrontational approach of Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran’s president.

Seeking to fill the US knowledge gap, the State Department last month set up the Iranian Affairs Office in Washington and announced new diplomatic posts for Farsi speakers. Barbara Leaf, an Arabist, is expected to head the office.

At the same time, the separate Iran Syria Operations Group was established to plot a more aggressive democracy promotion strategy for those two “rogue” states. Funding is to come from $75m that Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, announced in February she was requesting from Congress this year, plus some $10m already in the budget.

But two other US officials and a European diplomat insisted that it did. They said the inter-agency group, which is supposed to co-ordinate with the Pentagon and other departments, is heade`d by David Denehy, a special adviser who served in the coalition government in Iraq, and Alberto Fernandez, a public diplomacy official.

Jack Straw, UK foreign secretary, accused Iran of deciding to “take on the international community” through its development of nuclear weapons and support of terrorism in a tough speech on March 13.

Mr Straw said the UK would “not take sides in Iran’s internal political debates” and noted that Iranians were “understandably sensitive about any hint of outside interference”.

But in language that echoed Ms Rice’s testimony to Congress a month earlier, Mr Straw pledged UK support for the democratic “aspirations” of the Iranian people.

He focused on how to give Iranians access to “independent authoritative information” and said governments could help provide this.

The US is planning to increase satellite television programming by Voice of America and may launch a new “independent” network with a prominent Iranian as front-man.

US officials concede, however, that they are not encouraged by their experience in Arabic broadcasting in the wake of the invasion of Iraq.

Serious Iranian opposition politicians are virtually unanimous in saying that foreign funding of activities designed to promote democracy, especially by the US or UK, would be counter-productive.

Ali Akbar Javanfekr, a press adviser to Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, recently said Iranians were “alert” to the “propaganda of enemies”, and in general Iran’s rulers show little concern over existing US broadcasts.

"Straw is playing both sides as usual"

He's simply treading water till we and the UK can figure out what the heck we are doing, can do or will do in the face of the MSM in both countries and the Russian and Chinese attitudes.

Meanwhile the only one with the guts to really do anything - our own President - has to deal with the dilemma the Islamic regime finds delightful and flaunts as reasons why the USA will never attack Iran militarily.

Bush's choice is really quite simple. Does he sacrifice the world's long term best interests for the Republican party's November re-election considerations or does he ignore national politics and do what has to be done while he still can. Losing either or both houses will hobble him with legislative and budget opposition, so now is the only clear time he has to do something forceful.

While some may disagree with my post of the "Real Solution" (link below) as being too drastic, I have twisted, turned and cogitated to find anything else that will work - both inside Iran and for the world - that has fewer deaths or casualties as a result.

Estimated collateral damage might go as high as 20,000 non-military Iranians from the bombing but how many will die around the world and continue to die inside Iran if we do not do something drastic?

The neo-regime of Ahmadi-Nejad has already started to execute prisoners by the dozens in the last couple of weeks. They killed some 30,000 back in 1988 so why think they will have qualms now to not duplicate that number?

They are "cleaning up" by gathering up and exporting homeless street girls and deserted women, selling them to the Gulf sheikhdoms as sex toys or "indentured servants" (slaves) with the Morals Police, in charge of the clean up, pocketing the proceeds. Selected ones are kept to populate secret brothels owned and run by prominent and second level Mullahs.

Meanwhile, as of this Saturday, they are once again - as they did in the early days of Khomeini - roaming the streets and arresting pretty ones for "un-Islamic dress code".

These victims frequently end up being forced to have sex with their captors to be released. Having sex often takes the form of several nights of gang rape by various shifts of the jailers.

Used and dishonored they are freed with many committing suicide. Just as they did when the non-Iranian Khomeini first invaded Iran.

There are an estimated 400,000 homeless, desperate women and pre-teen children around the country trying to survive by prostituting themselves and selling drugs for the local Mullahs.

Incidentally, most of the younger boys also suffer the fate of their female counterparts in this slave trade.

Apart from the nuclear and oil threats, does none of this qualify the Islamic regime for brutal reprisal? Would the liberal MSM not be screaming holy murder if one percent of this was going on in our own respective countries?

Our only hope might actually be Bush's low poll ratings. He has little or nothing to lose if he steps on the side of the best interests of the world - including all of us - the American population - if doing so. Other than seats in the two houses.

PLease share this information with your friends.

In case you missed it, here's the link to the Iran Solution article.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1618380/posts

Bush's choice is really quite simple. Does he sacrifice the world's long term best interests for the Republican party's November re-election considerations or does he ignore national politics and do what has to be done while he still can.

Unfortunately, the Islamic propaganda organs headed by CAIR and Al Jazeera, in association with the socialist/communist agitprops that run most of the worlds media have done their job well.

Having nearly succeeded in brainwashing people in this country into fogetting 9/11 and who perptrated, they have so thoroughly demonized the war-effort, that it would not be political suicide to attack Iran.

so it will, in fact, take a nuclear terror-attack to wake people up again.

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.