[Mb-civic] FW: Amir Taheri latest

[villasudjuan]

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Farhad Sepahbody" <monsoon at esedona.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:20:19 -0700
To: <villasudjuan at free.fr>
Subject: Amir Taheri latest

WANTED: AN IRAN POLICY
by Amir Taheri
New York Post 
July 20, 2004 
  
  July  20, 2004  -- IS Iran  shaping up as an issue in the American pres
idential election campaign?   A  month ago, the question would have appeared
fanciful. Then the assumption  was that violence in Iraq  would use up all
the space there is in such a campaign for foreign policy.   Now,  however,
there are signs that Iran  might come up as an issue over which President
Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry  are clearly divided much more so than over
Iraq.   Iran  offers Bush and Kerry a chance to demonstrate their different
approaches  to the issue of dealing with regimes that, rightly or wrongly,
are  perceived as hostile to the United  States  and/or its allies. In a
broader perspective, the issue would enable Bush  and Kerry to debate their
views on how American power should be used in  the post-Cold War world.
What  is pushing Iran  into the American presidential agenda?  The  first
issue is Iran's  alleged program to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
There  is a growing consensus, even in European circles, that the Islamic
Republic has made the strategic decision to "go nuclear." The question is
no longer whether anyone could persuade Tehran  to change its mind on an
issue that lies at the heart of its new defense  doctrine.
    
Ardeshir  Zahedi, a former foreign minister of Iran, put the case neatly in
a recent  article in The Wall Street Journal. He said the real question was
whether  the region, and beyond it the world, could live with a
nuclear-armed  Iran  under the present regime.
 
The  Iranian nuclear issue is likely to reach the U.N. Security Council this
autumn, perhaps on the eve of the U.S.  election.
 
The  Bush administration has not developed a clear policy on the issue. Last
year, it endorsed European Union efforts to persuade  Tehran  to abandon the
military aspect of its nuclear program. With those efforts  now at an end,
the administration is reverting to unspecified threats to  dissuade Tehran
from "going nuclear."
 
Kerry,  on the other hand, has proposed what could, in diplomatic terms, be
described as a flight of fancy.
 
His  idea is simple: The United  States  and its allies should offer to
provide Iran  with as much enriched uranium as it needs for producing
electricity and,  at the other end of the cycle, receive the total amount of
spent uranium  fuel for reprocessing.
 
In  other words, Kerry is inviting the mullahs to give the  United  States
control over both ends of their nuclear program. Although some in  Tehran
have welcomed Kerry's offer, there is little chance the Islamic Republic
will accept it. 
 
The  second issue propelling Iran  into the headlines concerns Iraq  and
Afghanistan.  Both countries are scheduled to hold elections soon. And
Iranian-backed  elements in Afghanistan  and Iraq  are receiving vast sums
of money and propaganda support.
 
In  Afghanistan,  they could end up winning almost 30 percent of the seats
in a future  parliament. That could put them in a position to form a
coalition with  other anti-American elements, and those opposed to
democratization in  general, to gain control of the future parliament.
 
Also  in Afghanistan,  Iran  is sponsoring the Pushtun Islamist warlord
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar against  moderate Pushtuns led by the interim President
Hamid Karzai. Most of the  recent attacks against foreign-aid workers in
southern  Afghanistan,  as well as around Kunduz, have been the work of
Hekmatyar's armed gangs  rather than the Taliban.
 
Support  for Iran  is less strong in Iraq  but the impact of Iranian money,
organizational skill, propaganda and  intimidating tactics shouldn't be
underestimated. 
 
Ayatollah  Ali Khamenei, the Islamic Republic's "Supreme Guide," has said
that the  "New Middle  East"  that is to emerge after the fall of the
Taliban and Saddam must "conform  to what Iran  wants, not what Washington
dictates." 
 
The  third issue concerns Palestine:  The disintegration of the Palestinian
leadership under Yasser Arafat and  the dismantling of Hamas by the Israelis
are creating a vacuum that  Tehran  hopes to fill.
 
Tehran  is reviving the Palestinian branch of the Hezbollah, which had
almost  faded away since the start of the now defunct "second Intifada."
Iran  is supported by Syria,  which is equally determined to oppose
Washington's  attempt at reshaping the Middle  East.
 
Tehran  still believes that control of the "Palestinian cause" could give it
a  leadership position in the Muslim world and enhance its defenses against
military action by the United  States  and/or Israel.
 
The  fourth issue concerns Iran's  alleged role in sponsoring international
terrorism.  Tehran  has not denied the CIA claims that some of the 9/11
terrorists had spent  time in Iran.  It is also a public fact that hundreds
of Taliban and al Qaeda militants  have sought refuge in Iran.  Some former
Taliban leaders have purchased homes in several Iranian  localities, notably
Pishin and Dost-Muhammad.
 
Groups  that want the United  States  to adopt a "regime change" policy on
Iran  are building up a case against the Islamic Republic on the basis of
its  alleged links with terrorist attacks aimed at America  and its allies
in the past quarter-century. These groups (which include  many
Iranian-Americans) hope to persuade Bush to adopt a tougher position  on
Iran.  
 
But  other groups (again including some Iranian-Americans) are campaigning
for  a dialogue between Tehran  and Washington.  Kerry's senior
foreign-policy aides have said he favors such a dialogue.
 
The  dialogue idea is also promoted by a new "task force" led by Zbigniew
Bzrezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser,  and
Robert Gates, the former CIA director. Former Secretary of State  Madeleine
Albright and former U.S.  ambassador to the U.N. Richard Holbrooke are also
campaigning for  "normalization" with the Islamic Republic.
 
Because  of its internal divisions, the Bush administration has not been
able to  develop a policy on Iran.  While Bush has described the Islamic
Republic as part of an "axis of  evil," Deputy Secretary of State Richard
Armitage has praised  Iran  as "a sort of democracy" that the United  States
must accommodate. 
 
The  presidential campaign might force the Bush camp to dispel the mental
fog  that has shrouded its thinking on Iran  for almost four years. And
that, in turn, could compel the Kerry camp to  come up with more realistic
ideas of how best to deal with a regime that,  regardless of its merits and
demerits, cannot be ignored in one of the  world's most sensitive regions.
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/6045
<http://64.4.43.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&amp;lah=96b22591b60e9bdaec317c1c
01acc593&amp;lat=1090426269&amp;hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2ebenadorassoci
ates%2ecom%2farticle%2f6045>


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20040722/a946b336/attachment-0001.html