Yet, the Administration has little credibility about military matters these days. So they need to create cover. IPC is the means to the end. One can be sure there are Neo-cons all over this plan. The plan is to build up and support Saddam's personal Iranian insurgents, the Mujahedeen e-Khalq Organization (MEK), to act as US surrogates in Iran and probably support them with Special Forces already in Iran and air support in a scenario very much like how Afghanistan was destabilized. MEK is currently on the US terrorist lists.
Lately the Sunni minority in Iraq has been blaming the US for marginalizing Sunnis. Could it be that the US has changed tactics, recognizing the US has failed in its objective to place a friendly Arab democracy in the Middle East, they instead hope to use the budding civil war as a way to occupy the Muslims in a conflict amongst themselves? The Sunnis and the Shiites have been rivals for centuries. The Sunnis fear a Shiite dominated Iraq and may begin actively supporting the insurgency now that its turning fratricidal. Jihadis from all over the Muslim world will join the battle in Iraq if it escalates.
Iran Policy Committee (IPC): U.S. Policy Options on Iran
By calling for change in Tehran based on Iranians instead of Americans, IPC stresses the potential for a third alternative: Keep open diplomatic and military options, while providing a central role for the Iranian opposition to facilitate regime change.
Iran is emerging as the primary threat against the United States and its allies: Iran’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons, continuing support for and involvement with terrorist networks, publicly-stated opposition to the Arab-Israel peace process, disruptive role in Iraq, expansionist radical ideology, and its denial of basic human rights to its own population are challenges confronting U.S. policymakers.
More
For too long, Washington has been divided between those who favor engagement with and those who support military strikes against the Iranian regime. President George W. Bush advocates working with the Iranian people as opposed to the regime in Tehran but has not explicitly called for regime change. By calling for change in Tehran based on Iranians instead of Americans, IPC stresses the potential for a third alternative: Keep open diplomatic and military options, while providing a central role for the Iranian opposition to facilitate regime change.
Iran is emerging as the primary threat against the United States and its allies: Iran’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons, continuing support for and involvement with terrorist networks, publicly-stated opposition to the Arab-Israel peace process, disruptive role in Iraq, expansionist radical ideology, and its denial of basic human rights to its own population are challenges confronting U.S. policymakers.
Announcing IPC White Paper
IPC News Conference
IPC FEATURED PUBLICATIONS:
White Paper: US Policy Options for Iran
Published on February 10, 2005
(PDF Format)
Washington, DC - April 7, 2005 Congressman Tancredo (R-Co) , Congressman Filner (D-CA)
On April 6, a think tank called Iran Policy Committee (IPC) convened on Capitol Hill at the invitation of the Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives.
At issue were U.S. policy options for Iran. In attendance were over 80 members of the Congress and their aides, foreign diplomats, experts from other think tanks, and members of the press.
Co-chairs of the caucus, Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) and Congressman Bob Filner (D-Calif.), chaired the briefing.
IPC panelists included: Prof. Raymond Tanter, former staff member, National Security Council; Paul Leventhal, founder and president emeritus, Nuclear Control Institute; Dr. Neil Livingstone, CEO, Global Options Inc.; Capt. Chuck Nash (ret.), president, Emerging Technologies International; Lt. Col. Bill Cowan, USMC (ret.), CEO, wvc3 Inc.; and Clare Lopez, IPC executive director and strategic policy and intelligence analyst. IPC member, Lt. General Edward Rowny (ret.), former Ambassador to the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, also attended.
Filner opened the briefing and noted that it was an attempt by the caucus to provide a setting whereby members of the Congress might learn about Iran and consider options to deal with threats Tehran poses to the region and world.
Tancredo raised the issue of the terrorist designation of Iran's main opposition group, the Mujahedeen e-Khalq organization (MEK), and IPC panelists concurred on the need to remove it from the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organizations List. Tancredo stated that the MEK was designated not because it was involved in terrorist activities, but because the Clinton administration sought to curry favor with the Iranian regime.
Tanter spoke about a race between two clocks. While Iran's nuclear clock is ticking very fast, the clock for a regime change is much too slow, he said. And if Iran were to acquire the bomb before the people are able to change the regime, it might obtain a new lease on life, act to extend the Iranian Revolution throughout the region, and threaten U.S. interests in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel.
Rather than depending either on diplomatic or military options, Iran Policy Committee (IPC) speakers advocated a third alternative-relying on the Iranian people to play a major role in determining their own future. In doing so, panelists suggested that the U.S. government support European Union diplomatic negotiations with Iran, keep military options on the table, and provide a central role for the Iranian opposition to facilitate regime change.
The first speaker, Leventhal, addressed the Iranian nuclear threat and Tehran's breaches of its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency. He also rejected the regime's justification for embarking on a nuclear path. Leventhal emphasized that Iran has been hiding its nuclear weapons program from the eyes of the international community, and were it not for Iran's main opposition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the world would have remained in the dark about these activities.
Livingstone addressed the issue of Iran's continuing sponsorship of terrorism and referred to specific instances of assaults by Tehran in Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. He suggested that the idea of engaging a terrorist-sponsoring regime only emboldens it to continue its "rogue-like behavior."
Nash spoke about the pros and cons of military action against Iran. He said while all options must remain on the table, a limited or large-scale military campaign was not only impractical, but also likely to be ineffective in ending the Iranian nuclear and terrorist threats, and therefore the least desirable of options.
Cowan called for a prudent discussion before any decision to select military force in dealing with the growing Iranian threat. He suggested, however, that a wait-and-see attitude might have dire consequences, given the nature and the urgency of the threat posed by Tehran.
Lopez spoke about the situation of human rights violations by Tehran and growing opposition to the regime inside the country, citing several recent antigovernment rallies and demonstrations. She also discussed benefits of the third option of encouraging the opposition to destabilize the regime.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
/© 2005 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
No comments:
Post a Comment