For now, the nutty
recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group that the United
States should engage in direct talks with Syria and Iran appears to
have been mooted by events on the
ground.
U.S. military
forces have caught Iran red-handed – twice – over the
past few weeks in Iraq, No one can possibly doubt any longer what I
and many others have been saying for some time: that Iran is involved
on the ground in Iraq and is aiding both Sunni and Shia insurgents in
an effort to blow that country apart.
But like all bad ideas in Washington, rest assured that the
Baker-Hamilton recommendation of direct talks will come back. Study
group members can be counted upon to argue that
the
capture of top Iranian Revolutionary
Guards and intelligence
officials in Iraq only proves their point that Iran has real
influence and thus must be dealt with directly, to prevent them from
playing the spoiler’s role.¬Ý
And by the way, they
will argue, what’s the alternative? Nuke Iran?
It is regrettable and
truly astonishing that President Bush has not applied to Iran and to
Syria the same global vision he has so eloquently displayed in
regards to Iraq and other fronts in the global war against the
Islamic jihad. Because there is a clear alternative to the
capitulation offered by Baker, Hamilton, and their advisors.
Instead of rewarding these regimes, the United States should use its
tremendous resources to contain Syria and to undermine the
legitimacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Such a policy is not
far-fetched, nor is it based solely on ideology, although
compelling
moral arguments can be
made in its favor. Instead, it serves the national and historic
interests of the United States.
Syria is a weak and
failing state, that survives largely because it goes
unchallenged.
After the assassination
in Feb. 2005 of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese
people revolted against Syrian interference in their country. The
brave and persistent demonstrations of the Cedars Revolution forced
Syria to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. The failure of the United
Nations and the international community to keep pressure on the
Syrian regime encouraged Syria to creep back in through the back
door.
The lessons just of these past two years are crystal clear:
pressuring Syria works; acquiescing to Syria does not. And yet, the
Baker-Hamilton group chooses acquiescence. When Syria sins, force
Israel to make concessions, the ISG recommends. If there is logic
here, it is not of the sort to make Americans proud.
Instead, the United
States should make the Syrian regime understand that it will pay a
real price for its transgressions. Serious economic sanctions on
Syria for its continued support of Hezbollah, in defiance of UN
Security Council resolution 1701, would have a devastating impact on
the minority Alouite regime. And targeted military strikes on Syrian
border outposts and military units caught red-handed aiding Iraqi
insurgents would send a clear warning to Syria’s military
leaders. If Syria did not get the message, the United States could
step up the pressure by targeted air strikes on Damascus safehouses
where Iraqi insurgent leaders continue to hide.
Syria has always backed
down when challenged. If Mr. Baker were truly the “realist”
he claims to be, he would acknowledge this and propose policies
accordingly.
The Islamic Republic of
Iran, however, is made of different stuff. This is a regime that over
the past twenty-seven years has been willing to pay a tremendously
high price in blood and treasure to pursue its radical policies.
Since the 1979 revolution, the United States has repeatedly attempted
to “influence the behavior” of the regime, without
success.
As I wrote
in
these pages just last month,
the Baker-Hamilton proposal is a warmed rehash of the same failed
policy we’ve been trying since 1979.
There is only one
approach that will get the attention of the Tehran’s
revolutionary and clerical leaders; and this is the one approach that
Baker and Hamilton – and the foreign policy Establishment -
have rejected: support for regime change.
This is the one
approach that the United States and its allies have never tried.
Short of an all-out U.S. military assault on Iran, it is the only
approach that can avoid a future Persian Gulf region dominated by a
radical Iranian regime armed with nuclear weapons. Saying
pretty-please, as the Baker-Hamilton group proposed, just isn’t
going to work.
Empowering Iranians to
change their regime will be costly. From having worked with opponents
to the Iranian regime over the past twenty years, and studied the
requirements of opposition groups currently working inside Iran, I
believe the United States should be prepared to commit a minimum of
$300 million over an initial six month period if we are to have any
hope of a successful outcome.
The very first step must be the appointment by the President of a
Special Envoy for Iran, with full presidential authority to convene a
loya jirga type meeting of several hundred prominent Iranian
leaders. The majority of those able to attend such a meeting will of
necessity come from the diaspora; some will come secretly from the
inside.
That meeting should
focus on establishing a broad declaration of principles around which
the various opposition factions can unite, and then electing an
executive committee that will include authorized spokespersons for
the pro-freedom movement. (Much of the ground work for such a broad
meeting of Iranians has already been accomplished over the past two
years, thanks to the Iranians themselves).
Over the next six
months, the following tasks must be accomplished:
•
Drafting
a detailed game plane for organizing massive non-violent protests
against the regime in Tehran. This game plan must include strategies
for neutralizing the Revolutionary Guards, the bassij corps, and
paramilitary gangs loyal to extremists in the current regime, and for
preventing the Islamic-Marxist Mujahedin Khalq, which worked with the
regime during the early years of the revolution, from exploiting the
situation and seizing power in a putsch. It must also include a
strategy for providing financial support to striking workers and
professionals;
•
Specific
policy recommendations for the United States and our allies, so we
can best leverage tools available to governments and international
organizations for delegitimizing and destabilizing the Tehran regime.
(The U.S. Department of the Treasury has
made a modest start
here).
•
Identify,
contact, and train key operations officers on the ground in Iran;
•
Identify
and pre-position secure communications and other equipment needed to
coordinate operations inside Iran; and
•
Establish
a finance committee tasked with harnessing the tremendous resources
of the Iranian diaspora, who have withheld major support to the
pro-freedom movement because they rightly judged that the movement
lacked U.S. support.
Broadcasting must be an integral part of any comprehensive political
plan to challenge the legitimacy of the Iranian regime and promote
non-violent regime change. However, none of the $300 million fund
should go to expanding the Persian language service of Voice of
America or Radio Farda, the Persian service of Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty. Both have failed utterly to live up to the goal
for which they were established.
Rather than communicate
an American viewpoint during Iran’s proxy war against Israel
this past summer, for example, VOA television sent reporters to
Beirut to interview top Hezbollah leaders – the same Hezbollah
leaders Iranian state television was treating as rock stars.
As for Radio Farda (“Tomorrow”),
established to be a “surrogate” for the free media
Iranians could not access inside their own country, it became a
laughing stock by championing Iran’s failed reformist
president, Mohammad Khatami.
Since Ahmadinejad took
over as president in 2005, Radio Farda has adopted the “music-first”
model of Westwood One and become simply irrelevant. Both are a waste
of U.S. taxpayer dollars and should be downsized or eliminated
altogether.
Instead, funding should
be provided to private Iranian broadcasters who understand the
political thirst of their compatriots and know how to package a
compelling message in a professional format. The allotment of the
broadcasting budget should be determined by the Executive Committee,
with a preference to pluralism and professionalism.
The U.S. intelligence
community can play a support role in this effort, but should not take
the lead. The last thing we need is to ask the Central Intelligence
Agency to organize the Iranian opposition.
On the contrary, much
of this program can – and must – be accomplished overtly.
Having the President of the United States openly support the
aspirations of the Iranian people, at the same time devoting $300
million to back the effort, will have a tremendous impact on
pro-democracy forces inside Iran, without yet putting lives at
risk.
At the end of the
initial six month period, the President can then decide if he
believes the program is viable. If so, he can pull the trigger on the
plan devised by the pro-freedom groups in coordination with his
Special Envoy. The U.S. will need to commit another $500 million or
so to the effort of organizing and supporting the massive non-violent
protest movement throughout Iran. This will be supplemented by
another $500 million or more raised from the Iranian diaspora.
This is expensive, for
sure. But it is far less costly than the alternatives of facing a
nuclear-armed Iran, or having to send in U.S. troops to prevent Iran
from deploying or firing nuclear weapons.
The Baker-Hamilton
approach of engaging the terror-masters brings great risks and few
rewards. It sends a clear message that terrorism, even conducted
against the world’s sole superpower, is a strategy that works.
Engagement with Iran and Syria will foster more terror, not curtail
it.¬Ý
Furthermore, engaging regimes that systematically repress their own
people and seek to destroy a bold democratic experiment on their
borders, sends a clear message to pro-democracy forces inside those
countries that their efforts can never succeed.
In one simple stroke,
the Baker-Hamilton approach will have emboldened our enemies, and
deterred our potential allies. And yet, for reasons that only the
chattering classes can explain, this goes by the name “realism.”
Supporting regime
change by Iranians, while containing Syria, not only makes the best
strategic sense for America. It is the right thing to
do.¬Ý
Click
Here to
support Frontpagemag.com.
Original:--