Bush Has a Strong Belief that Iran's Population Should be Free
July 19, 2003
The Telegraph
Toby Harnden
Iran has become the most contentious foreign policy issue in the Bush administration, with bitter division over whether to force regime change in Teheran or woo reformist elements amid growing concern about the country's nuclear ambitions.
Some of the most hardline, neo-conservative elements have suggested a pre-emptive strike against nuclear facilities if Iran does not come clean about its weapon production capabilities, but no senior figure in the administration is advocating a new war.
America questions the need for the Nuclear plant at Bushehr
"There's a couple of us who say, 'wouldn't it be nice' but then we'll flip into a more pragmatic mindset and then the belief is all we really can do is to encourage the revolution is to continue," explained one official aligned with the neo-conservatives.
While few would mourn the collapse of such a repressive regime, "regime change" in Iran is still not official US policy.
The hawks are placing their faith in Elliot Abrams, the neo-conservative head of Middle East policy on the White House's National Security Council, to resist moves from career diplomats to "reach out" to Teheran in the hope of encouraging a change in behaviour.
"The feeling among some of the more hawkish elements is that the State Department really wants to cut a deal with the mullahs and we're not happy about that," said the official.
Although it was not clear whether President George W Bush would want to bring about regime change by force, the official said, he appeared to have a strong belief that Iran's population of 65 million should be free.
"The way the president has spoken about this says to me he's got a pretty right-wrong sense of the world and he'd really like to see the mullahs undercut as well. I don't know the president would endorse anything that looks like a sell-out.
"But often in some of these thin-air, upper atmosphere deliberations at the top of the administration logic does get twisted."
The hawks advocate, at a minimum, covert intelligence operations to foment discontent in Iran and mobilise young people. Preferably, military aid would also be forthcoming.
But more cautious officials say Iran has been helpful with assisting the fight against al-Qa'eda and that active intervention by America could radicalise the population and therefore strengthen rather than weaken the regime.
A senior administration official said he believed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein had given heart to Iranians who wanted an end to theocracy. "The hopes for Iran are the fact that three-quarters of the people voted for a different government.
"They still haven't been allowed to have it and the unelected rulers of that country continue to support terrorism and pursue weapons of mass destruction.
"It's going to be a very complicated equation.
"Obviously everyone in Iran, including the worst elements there, are going to welcome the demise of their old enemy if it comes to that. But I also think that if - big if - the Iraqis can demonstrate some success at building a representative government it's going to embolden those people in Iran who are demanding freedom."
For now, the State Department and CIA appear to have been successful in urging Mr Bush to hold back. But there are powerful voices calling for a more aggressive policy.
Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has argued for a congressional mandate for regime change in Iran similar to the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.
"We'll never have true stability in the region as long as the Iranian regime remains in power," he said at a recent conference of the American Enterprise Institute, the intellectual engine of the neo-conservative movement. "We're riding a horse and we're in the middle of the stream. We've got to press on to the other side."
Iranian support for Shi'ite rebels in Iraq and co-operation between Teheran and Havana on jamming Voice of America broadcasts in Farsi to Iran have hardened attitudes in Washington.
Teheran has made overtures to the Bush administration through Mohammad Javad Zarif, its ambassador to the United Nations in New York, but the White House has rejected the notion of direct talks about Iran's nuclear programme.
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/07/19/wiran19.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/07/19/ixportaltop.html "If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
