Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
U.S. Moves To Weaken Iran; A campaign to promote democracy
Topic Started: May 19 2006, 09:54 AM (447 Views)
5thwheeler
Member Avatar
Get the message?
Quote:
 
U.S. Moves to Weaken Iran
A campaign to promote democracy and fund dissidents prompts speculation that the administration's goal is to change the regime.
By Laura Rozen, Special to The Times
May 19, 2006


WASHINGTON — The Bush administration, shunning pressure from allies for direct dialogue with Iran, is shifting toward a more confrontational stance and intensifying efforts to undercut the country's ruling clerics.

U.S. officials have taken a series of steps to increase pressure on Iran, most recently creating new offices in the State Department and Pentagon specifically to bolster opposition to the Tehran government. In February, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Congress for $75 million to supplement $10 million in funds to promote democracy, aid Iranian dissidents and expand the Voice of America's Persian-language broadcasts beamed across the Persian Gulf from Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates.

"We are more out of sync now with Iran than at any time since 1979," said a State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I don't think the time is right now for a dialogue. We seem to be moving closer toward a confrontational stance, versus a compromise stance."

Although some observers note similarities in the Iran policy to the stance on Iraq in the lead-up to the war in that nation, officials emphasize that this time around, State Department diplomats rather than Pentagon war planners are in charge. Still, the campaign illustrates the administration's hostility toward Iran's rulers and raises the question of whether its ultimate goal is to curb Iran's nuclear program or change the regime.

"The administration is trying to make regime change through democratization the policy, instead of making confrontation by military means the policy," said Trita Parsi, a Middle East specialist at Johns Hopkins University who advocates direct U.S. talks with Tehran.

The administration's efforts are taking shape on the second floor of the State Department, where a new Office of Iranian Affairs has been charged with leading the push to back Iranian dissidents more aggressively, boost support to democracy broadcasters and strengthen ties with exiles.

Nearby at the Pentagon, an Iranian directorate will work with the State Department office to undercut the government in Tehran.

Rice and other officials have publicly advocated steps to pressure the Iranian government. But by setting up the new offices, staffs and programs, the administration is institutionalizing its long-held antipathy toward Iran's government.

The new offices are modest in size — the Pentagon's directorate began with six full-time staff members. But they can draw on expertise throughout the government, providing access to potentially hundreds of specialists.

The State Department's new Iranian Affairs office is headed by David Denehy, a longtime democracy specialist at the International Republican Institute, who will work under Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of the vice president.

Recently, Denehy and other officials went to Los Angeles for meetings with Iranian exiles and the Persian-language media. The purpose was to inform them of the government's plans, get feedback and — perhaps not a secondary consideration — create a buzz within the Iranian American diaspora and its satellite media outlets, which are beamed into Tehran.

Afterward, some Iranian Americans were left disappointed by their first look at the new campaign and by the fact that officials had not begun distributing money to exile groups.

"They came here — we didn't know why they came — asking: 'What do you think about Iran? Do you have any connections to people inside?' " recounted Zia Atabay, the founder of Los Angeles-based NITV, a Persian-language broadcaster. "We said, 'The reason you are here is you know we have a connection.' "

Assistance to dissidents in Iran is complicated by the Iranian regime's demonstrated brutality toward its critics — writers, bloggers, trade union members and human rights activists — much less anyone perceived to be receiving U.S. aid. For that reason, the State Department does not publicly disclose whom it funds.

Even private U.S. groups receiving money to support democracy efforts in Iran are reluctant to discuss their programs for fear they will put their Iranian partners in harm's way.

As much as $50 million of the funds requested will go to the Voice of America for Persian-language broadcasts. The State Department also is planning to send 15 foreign service officers to countries neighboring Iran and to capitals with large Iranian exile populations to serve as "Iran watchers."

At the Pentagon, the new Iranian directorate has been set up inside its policy shop, which previously housed the Office of Special Plans. The controversial intelligence analysis unit, established before the Iraq war, championed some of the claims of Ahmad Chalabi. A number of assertions made by the former Iraqi exile and onetime Pentagon favorite were later discredited.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable declined to name the acting director of the new Iran office and would say only that the appointee was a "career civil servant." Among those staffing or advising the Iranian directorate are three veterans of the Office of Special Plans: Abram N. Shulsky, its former director; John Trigilio, a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst; and Ladan Archin, an Iran specialist.

Even if the chief U.S. goal is arresting Iran's nuclear program — and not overthrowing the government — the democratization effort could be a useful part of the strategy, some experts said.

"The State Department policy of isolating the regime diplomatically is the main policy so far," said Daniel Byman, a professor at Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and a former CIA analyst who also worked for the Sept. 11 commission.

"But there are all these different ways you could game this. Supporting opposition groups could also be a way of raising the stakes, in effect saying, 'Here's what we are going to do if you won't comply,' " he said.

The new focus also may be contradictory, Richard N. Haass, a State Department official during President Bush's first term and now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said at a conference in Washington this month. .

"We are telling Iran, 'We want regime change, but while you're still here, we'd like to negotiate with you to stop your nuclear program,' " Haass said.


And what would we do if the shoe was on the other foot.

Does screaming bloody murder and shouting the old 9/11 rallying cry ring a bell!

How about a preemtive invasion. We are getting good at that!

Hey, look at it this way, we get to use our brand spanking new land base in Iraq!

In the words of Captain Kirk "Sounds like fun"!
History 101: When a popular myth is believed to be factual, teach the myth.

Its not possible to underestimate the intelligence of the voting populous.

Hummm, after seeing the results of the 06 election, I may have to modify my perception of the voting populous and refer to them as "Late Bloomers".

:ohmy:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
It would be better if the Iranians did it themselves.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
cmoehle
May 19 2006, 04:44 PM
It would be better if the Iranians did it themselves.

Yes. Maybe we can provide some "motivation" towards that end. Granted, it doesn't do much to undercut the notion of the US as the world's big meddler. In this case, you've got a regime that blatently supports terrorism, and has been linked to several hits on the US. And now they got a leader who is really showing their true colors with all the inflamatory stuff he spouts off.

I've said it before, and still wonder if this guy are really just trying to egg on a fight with us - so he has justification (in his mind) to retaliate however they see fit (e.g. attack Israel, the US, etc.). They evidently see themselves as the harbinger/martyrs for the cause of bringing back the 12th eman.

I also question if their brazen attitude isn't because they already have deployable nukes.

So if a Democrat administration was doing the stuff in the article quoted above, I wonder if you'd have the same reservations . . .?
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bikemanb
Member Avatar
Liberal Conservative
Republican or Democrat, it is not a workable idea. We will end up supporting Iranian version of Chabili because we want those that sing the song we want.

Actually Iran was on the way toward change before Shrub made the Axis of Evil speech, the mullah used the threat of the "Great Satan" to reel in newspapers and opposing political parties.....but it sure made a great sound bite for our "wartime" president.
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Teryt "So if a Democrat administration was doing the stuff in the article quoted above, I wonder if you'd have the same reservations . . .?"

How do you tell the difference? :dunno:


" Yes. Maybe we can provide some "motivation" towards that end."

Indeed. Iranians not so recently enjoyed life outside the repression of religious fundamentalism. Those I knew would relish the chance to rebel. Whether there are enough, I don't know. But it's worth the try.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
5thwheeler
Member Avatar
Get the message?
cmoehle
May 19 2006, 10:44 AM
It would be better if the Iranians did it themselves.

Where are G. Gordon Liddy's covert actions boys when we need them. :faint:

Ollie North... come out, come out where ever you are! :pistols:
History 101: When a popular myth is believed to be factual, teach the myth.

Its not possible to underestimate the intelligence of the voting populous.

Hummm, after seeing the results of the 06 election, I may have to modify my perception of the voting populous and refer to them as "Late Bloomers".

:ohmy:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
bikemanb
May 20 2006, 03:25 AM
Republican or Democrat, it is not a workable idea.  We will end up supporting Iranian version of Chabili because we want those that sing the song we want.

Actually Iran was on the way toward change before Shrub made the Axis of Evil speech, the mullah used the threat of the "Great Satan" to reel in newspapers and opposing political parties.....but it sure made a great sound bite for our "wartime" president.

This takes a que outa Reagan's play book - calling a spade a spade. But admittedly perhaps that doesn't always work. Sometimes it is somewhat refreshing though, in a world where you often don't know where many politicians stand.
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
5thwheeler
May 20 2006, 11:11 AM
cmoehle
May 19 2006, 10:44 AM
It would be better if the Iranians did it themselves.

Where are G. Gordon Liddy's covert actions boys when we need them. :faint:

Ollie North... come out, come out where ever you are! :pistols:

Well, I admit, you got me there.

I was assuming this action, falling somewhere belween diplomatic and military efforts, was aimed at promiting what the peole of Iran might want in the way of getting out from under the tyranny and oppression of authoritarian government. In Iraq it was secular, in Iran it's religious, but anything that oppresses if not supresses people's freedom is to me abhorant. Not that I'm out on a crusade to free the world, but can't we help others who want it?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
5thwheeler
Member Avatar
Get the message?
Huummm... lets put the shoe on the other foot.

In Iraq it was secular, in Iran it's religious, and in the US its a little of both, and lot of other things, but anything that oppresses, if not suppresses people's freedom is to me abhorrent, but can't others help Americans?

No, they are declared insurgents and terrorists and must be eliminated regardless if they are innocent of insurgency or terrorism.

Whatever happened to "what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander"?

During 9/11 we suffered the death of 3000 plus innocents. Not good!

Afghanistan and Iraq has suffered the death of 40,000 plus innocents, but they don't count because we are the good guys there to help free them. :faint:
History 101: When a popular myth is believed to be factual, teach the myth.

Its not possible to underestimate the intelligence of the voting populous.

Hummm, after seeing the results of the 06 election, I may have to modify my perception of the voting populous and refer to them as "Late Bloomers".

:ohmy:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
" but can't others help Americans?"

Examine your principles daily, then apply them, stop the bullshit.

On edit :redcard: am I allowed to say that? Bullshit, I mean?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
why is it that some countries seem to be able to rear up and overthrow tyranny and develop a democratic way of gov. in which one is free to pursue one's religious preferences?
and others can't ?

it seems to me that we're meddling with nations who, as a people, are just not ready for a real democracy (secular). they really don't want to be "free" of God's laws, they don't believe that's the way to go.

back when we invaded Iraq, I was hearing that a majority of the Iragis are secular minded. That doesn't seem to be the case at all, and the two, major religious factions dislike each other, but neither one of them want secular gov.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
What freedom is to be found in "God's laws"?

Historically, we found it once, we have since lost that liberty of conscience.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DanHouck
Member Avatar
Land of Enchantment NM
Ironically, the Hussein "government" was secular. It is the Shias that want a religious state. Unfortunately for the rest, they are the majority in Iraq.

In any case, we need to stop trying to police the world and tell everyone what to do. We lead best when we simply let the results of free enterprise and democracy do our talking for us.

Why do you think Mexico wants to move up here? :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
What freedom is to be found in "God's laws"?

Historically, we found it once, we have since lost that liberty of conscience.


that's another argument altogether. telling the shiities or sunnis that they're WRONG just doesn't cut it because they think we are WRONG. It's a standoff.
And trying to force them to change their thinking.... well, that doesn't work very well, either.
we could take all their little kids away from them and raise them under american or british or australian or canadian democracies, but who's going to do that?

people have to WANT what we have in order to get it.
what happened over here was a lot of luck.
we had a lot of people over here who didn't want to break off from england
we had a lot of people out on the frontiers who didn't give a rap about any gov.
and we had a lot of people who wanted to create a new and better way of gov.
the last ones won the day because they had the $$ and the intellect to get it done.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Freedom doesn't mean wanting what we have.

It happened here, ultimately, because more people wanted freedom than didn't.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply