Obama edges toward regime change

I haven’t seen any signs that Obama wants regime change. That would require ground troups. Ted Belman

By Barbara Slavin, ASIA TIMES

WASHINGTON – The Barack Obama administration is increasingly giving the impression that it supports a policy of regime change against Iran – a policy that could backfire and convince Iran to build nuclear weapons.

Senior United States officials have suggested recently that mounting economic sanctions were meant to “tighten the noose” around the Iranian government.

The Washington Post on Tuesday quoted an unnamed senior US intelligence official as saying that the goal of sanctions was regime collapse.

The Post later amended the story to say that the official had been
misquoted and that the Obama administration hoped sanctions would increase “public discontent that will help compel the government to abandon an alleged nuclear weapons program”.

On Wednesday, meanwhile, unknown assailants assassinated the fourth Iranian nuclear scientist in two years – Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, deputy director of Iran’s main uranium enrichment plant at Natanz.

The Iranian government blamed Israel and the United States for the killing, which, following the pattern of previous cases, took place when motorcyclists put sticky plastic explosives on a car carrying Roshan through Tehran traffic.

The harsh new rhetoric and the assassination come in the context of an escalating crisis that includes a massive attack on an Iranian missile facility that killed a top missile scientist and new sanctions directed against Iran’s central bank and oil exports.

Iran, in turn, has threatened to blockade the Strait of Hormuz and attack US ships in the Persian Gulf; this week, a Tehran court sentenced an Iranian American former US Marine to death on charges he spied for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and Iran began enriching uranium in a facility tunneled into a mountain near Qom.

Iran experts say the latest assassination is likely to scuttle the already slim chances for a negotiated solution and convince the Islamic Republic that the United States and its partners are determined to overthrow the Iranian government.

“The Iranians are convinced that that is our goal,” Paul Pillar, a CIA veteran and former Middle East chief on the National Intelligence Council, which advises the US president, told Inter Press Service (IPS).

Pillar referred to inflammatory rhetoric by US Republican presidential candidates – one of whom, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, has explicitly called for regime change – while others apart from Texas congressman Ron Paul have called for attacking Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons.

Pillar suggested that US government talking points were being influenced by domestic politics and that the Obama administration wanted to be seen as being “tough on Iran” during a year in which the president is running for re-election.

Officially, US policy remains a diplomatic resolution of the crisis.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, reacting on Tuesday to news that Iran had begun enriching uranium at the Fordow facility near Qom, called on Iran “to return to negotiations with the P5+1 [Iran Six]”, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the US, Britain, France China, Russia – plus Germany.

“We reaffirm that our overall goal remains a comprehensive, negotiated solution that restores confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program while respecting Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy consistent with its obligations under the Non-proliferation Treaty [NPT],” Clinton said.
However, other State Department language has muddied the policy waters.

At least twice last week, senior State Department officials said that the goal of US and other sanctions was to “tighten the noose” around the Iranian government.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland used the phrase during a regular press briefing on January 5. Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights, Maria Otero, used the language in answering a question on January 6 at a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

Greg Thielmann, a nuclear expert at the Arms Control Association and former State Department intelligence analyst, told IPS the phrase was “cleared language” that was not “carefully considered”.

“I’m not convinced that the US attitude has changed but this is an example of how sloppy and thoughtless we are,” he said.

John Limbert, former deputy secretary of state for Iran, said that such rhetoric suggested “a confusion of aims. It’s very clear that the way these sanctions have been put into effect, the aim is to undermine the regime. We’re going to cut off their financial system and their technology but we still want to negotiate. After a while, it strains credulity.”

While regime change may not be an explicit goal, clearly many would like to see an Iranian government willing to curb its nuclear program, to treat its own people better and to stop supporting militant groups in the region.

“We hope sanctions will increase the cost for Iran, make the regime more vulnerable and give time for something better to emerge,” Ali Reza Nader, an Iran expert at the Rand Corporation, told IPS. “In the long term, there is a potential for that but I’m not sure the United States can do much to bring that about. We can weaken the regime but we don’t have the power to change it.”

In the meantime, the escalation could convince Iran that it needs nuclear weapons for regime survival and increases the chances for a military confrontation and tit-for-tat terrorism.

Pillar warned that Iran would feel pressured to respond to the latest assassination.

“I would be surprised if we didn’t have an in-kind retaliatory act in the near future – perhaps some poor bloke at Los Alamos,” the US nuclear lab in New Mexico, Pillar said.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a Middle East analyst, writing on the Atlantic.com on Wednesday, observed that if he were a member of the Iranian government, “I would take this assassination program to mean that the West is entirely uninterested in any form of negotiation [not that I, the regime official, has ever been much interested in dialogue with the West] and that I should double-down and cross the nuclear threshold as fast as humanly possible. Once I do that, I’m North Korea, or Pakistan: An untouchable country.”

William Luers, a former US ambassador and senior State Department official who has participated in discussions with Iranians, added: “As long as the regime is convinced US policy is at its core ‘regime change’ it will not be receptive to dealing and will be driven in the opposite direction. Whether or not the US is behind the assassinations and explosions, the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] is convinced it is the US.

“You can’t kill and talk at the same time,” he noted.

January 12, 2012 | 18 Comments »

Leave a Reply

18 Comments / 18 Comments

  1. HERE is the latest concerning Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, the US and Israel. After his scalding criticism of Israel over the killed nuclear scientist, Obama got on the phone to Turkish PM Erdogan. The Turkish leader informed BHO that he would not honor sanctions against Iran. Since Turkey is a major importer of Iranian oil, this means Iran will not be seriously hurt by peaceful attempts at curbing its nuclear program. Other issues were also discussed. The talk was apparently friendly, not the uncontrolled rage that US officials have been leveling at Israel the past few days.

    Barring the hand of God, or of Israel, or both, expect Iran to become a nuclear power soon, with full US assent. Also, check out the flag over the knesset every morning, to see it there is red in it.

  2. The latest from DEBKA is that Obama & Co. flew into rages over the killing of the Iranian nuclear science. DEBKA also concludes what we knew all along — that Obama is willing to do anything, to prevent Israel from defending itself against an Iranian threat. This may be Israel’s last chance to act like a sovereign state, before the Americans take over. God bless and keep Bibi, and give him the courage to stand up for God’s people.

  3. You’re sort of right about #5, Ed. I think putting Iran in its place is indispensible, if the world has any thoughts of curbing nuclear proliferation. I don’t think the US needs to give Iran “everything in its arsenal” to accomplish that. A bunker buster here and there, to make a couple of mountains crumble, the Bushehr reactor, all of Iran’s air defense, navy and prominent government buildings and factories. That ought to do it. Arab troops could liberate Khuzetstan a la Tripoli (namely, with massive involvement of NATO special ops). That’s what #6 was about.

    With Iran thoroughly spanked, some other nuclear wannabes would probably stand up and take notice. The Pakies might even think of behaving themselves. But combine the most brilliant military move with an Obama foreign policy, and all bets are off: Even if we win, he’ll be apologizing to our enemies and they’ll soon be laughing at us.

    #8 is about Turkey. I won’t even talk about them here. I don’t want to get b o t t e d.

  4. Dear Laura… we will hopefully never know exactly how many plots and schemes our government has been able to successfully block and neutralize. i’m a Daughter of the American Revolution, not leftist by any stretch, pro-constitution in comparison. we have no knowledge of retaliatory measures attempted whenever scientists or anyone else of importance to Iran’s strategies is taken out, but i’ll tell you this: all who live in the USA do well to thank Almighty G-d that we do in these days and thank Him for never slumbering nor sleeping as He watches over Israel at all times. Israel is a time-piece for the world and what happens to Israel will dramatically impact every other nation, whether for the good for those who stand with Israel or for worse for those who stand against Israel, whether speaking about Iran or the USA. You keep your eyes open and your own view, as well.

  5. If the US, the Allies and Israel decided to attack Iran today with everything in its arsenal, 5 through 8 would be negligible.

  6. The Barack Obama administration is increasingly giving the impression that it supports a policy of regime change against Iran – a policy that could backfire and convince Iran to build nuclear weapons.

    Iran is going to build nuclear weapons regardless of what our policy is. Being nice will not convince Iran to give up its drive for nuclear weapons but only convince it that we are weak-willed.

    Pillar warned that Iran would feel pressured to respond to the latest assassination.

    “I would be surprised if we didn’t have an in-kind retaliatory act in the near future – perhaps some poor bloke at Los Alamos,” the US nuclear lab in New Mexico, Pillar said.

    Jeffrey Goldberg, a Middle East analyst, writing on the Atlantic.com on Wednesday, observed that if he were a member of the Iranian government, “I would take this assassination program to mean that the West is entirely uninterested in any form of negotiation [not that I, the regime official, has ever been much interested in dialogue with the West] and that I should double-down and cross the nuclear threshold as fast as humanly possible. Once I do that, I’m North Korea, or Pakistan: An untouchable country.”

    William Luers, a former US ambassador and senior State Department official who has participated in discussions with Iranians, added: “As long as the regime is convinced US policy is at its core ‘regime change’ it will not be receptive to dealing and will be driven in the opposite direction. Whether or not the US is behind the assassinations and explosions, the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] is convinced it is the US.

    “You can’t kill and talk at the same time,” he noted.

    Such typical tripe coming from leftist foreign policy “experts”. Just more excuses to do nothing. There was no retaliation after the other Iranian scientists were killed. They can’t really believe that we will actually talk Iran out of acquiring nuclear weapons. But these analysts won’t admit outright that they don’t have a problem with Iran having nuclear weapons. In their view, that is preferable to a military confrontation with Iran. This view is very short-sighted. A terribly biased article.

  7. Thanks for the encouraging comment, Ted.

    Do you know, Ted, you could make some good pocket change on Israpundit. Just post lots of strategic articles such as this, and invite comments. If you’re really smart, once you start getting a volume of responses, you could link up with the IDF, the Foreign Office, etc.: Call the comments to their attention (if they aren’t monitoring them already) as a “swarm” method of getting useful ideas. With a little help from a young geek, you could make a game out of it: Award points to players who submit really helpful info (based on your feedback from official channels).

    Swarm technology is currently being used to translate the Dead Sea scrolls and perform other difficult tasks. The idea is that there are millions of untapped useful minds in the world, just waiting for something to do. Bill Gates used this principle when he open-sourced DOS. The result was that while Apple was hobbling along with its own expensive software designers, Microsoft (and secondarily IBM) was benefitting from the talent of geeks all over the world.

    In the movie TOYS, Michael Gambon plays a three-star general who harnesses the game-playing skills of children by interfacing games in a computer arcade with real-time actual war machines. In the movie, this was portrayed as evil; but this is the ultimate direction of warfare and statecraft in the 21st century. The masses are not idiots; they have good ideas as well as bad. It’s up to clever governments to harness this resource and channel it for their own benefit.

    I think the US will be in Israel until they’re scared away. Israel is the perfect place to set up shop as a forward command and control center for electronic warfare. With a little bit of engineering, they could locate and destroy hostile emplacements (stationary and mobile) with remotely-controlled satellites, aircraft, boats and land vehicles. Israel could serve as a secure node, taking advantage of the relative political stability of Israel.

    Welcome to the new century, likely our last.

  8. Here you betray yourself as an apocalyptic nut

    Lois,

    You are betraying yourself as not knowing history nor geography, as well as perhaps being a materialistic nut. Ted will probably tell you, if you ask him, that I have correctly identified the countries mentioned in Ezekiel 38. Note that I identified them GEOGRAPHICALLY, based on history, quite apart from any “cosmic” meaning. As for the timing I mentioned, that comes from the simplest possible reading of the text: In Ezekiel 38, Turkey is the central player; in today’s world, Iran is. Nothing apocalyptic or nutty there.

    If you want to comment on these matters, maybe you should do a little study of history. You might start with some older, second-hand books from a used book store, so you don’t get thrown for a loop by propagandist pseudo history from Stormfront or whatever other source you habitually use.

  9. The Russians and Chinese reaction to an Israeli or U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran can not be predicted, but it’s doubtful they’d do nothing. It goes beyond simple business interests. The do not want the turmoil this attack would bring. Obama and The Pentagon brass do NOT want Israel to do this no matter how much Israel is trying to provoke the Iranians into doing something rash by yet another assassination of an Iranian scientist. If Israel goes ahead – they’re likely to get more than they bargained for.

  10. Pretty good synopsis until-

    Incidentally, in case nobody’s noticed that I’ve said this before, Turkey geographically contains most of the places mentioned in Ezekiel 38: The land of Gog (Lydia), Magog (prob. Anatolia, or the Hittite homeland), Gomer, Meshech and Tubal (Central Turkey) and Beth Togarmah (Eastern Turkey). The attack from Gog on Israel will happen when Turkey is the paramount power in the Middle East (outside of Israel). Right now, that power seems to be Iran; but this could very well change, if Turkey got a charismatic leader

    Here you betray yourself as an apocalyptic nut, fanatic and not to be taken seriously.

  11. I mentioned Turkey. They are an important player concerning Iran, Syria, Israel’s gas deposits and other matters in the Middle East. Their economy is apparently really on the rocks, in worse shape than that of Greece. Remember that World War II broke out during the Great Depression; and remember also that Istanbul is strategically significant: It was the capital of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Empire, all of which controlled Israel. Here’s an excerpt from a recent article:

    A disaster is in the making. Leave aside the economic ills of the southern
    Mediterranean generally, which will impinge Turkey’s exports (about half of
    which go to the European community): Turkey’s financial system is reaching
    the end of the rope. A sudden adjustment in the current account accompanied
    by large-scale bankruptcies among Turkish businesses and widespread
    unemployment will make 2012 an ugly year for the Turkish economy, and an
    even uglier year for Turkish politics.

    http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=55291

    Incidentally, in case nobody’s noticed that I’ve said this before, Turkey geographically contains most of the places mentioned in Ezekiel 38: The land of Gog (Lydia), Magog (prob. Anatolia, or the Hittite homeland), Gomer, Meshech and Tubal (Central Turkey) and Beth Togarmah (Eastern Turkey). The attack from Gog on Israel will happen when Turkey is the paramount power in the Middle East (outside of Israel). Right now, that power seems to be Iran; but this could very well change, if Turkey got a charismatic leader.

  12. Nine was about Israel’s neighbors to the South, and a suggestion that the American presence in Israel may end as it did in Lebanon in the 1980s. That fragment got censored.

  13. Ten. It’s an election year. Lesions are erupting all over the Middle East, while Obama is trying to present a picture of calm, painless dominance. The result would probably be elastoplasts all over the place, trying to cover things up, until something gets out of hand.

    God only knows what will happen.

  14. Seven. Turkey is on the verge of a serious falling-out with Iran. They definitely do NOT want Iran to get nuclear weapons and become the leading military power in the region. If Iran is neutralized by a NATO attack, however, it will likely fall into the Turkish sphere: The Turks have everything to gain and nothing to lose, by siding with NATO.

    Eight. Without strong Turkish-Iranian ties, Syria is increasingly becoming detached from Tehran. Iranian help has thus far been a stabilizing force there, keeping Assad in power. Take that help away, and Assad may fall, leading to who knows? Al Qaeda? The Islamic Brotherhood? Turkey? They all spell trouble and confrontation with American-occupied Israel.

  15. Five. Iran is just the tip of the iceberg: Nuclear proliferation is getting out of hand; and unless DECISIVE action is taken, the number of rogue nuclear states could mushroom in the next four years. “Non-rogue” countries, moreover, would probably rush to develop their own nuclear programs because of confused signals coming from Washington. Some candidates: Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Venezuela. Use your imagination. Nuclear material and technology are everywhere; and there are plenty of Koreans, Pakistanis, Ukrainians, Russians, Argentines and others ready and willing to peddle their wares. Four more years of Obama is tantamount to pushing the world to the precipice of World War III.

    Six. the nuke factories, (b) heavily damage Iran’s defense and economic infrastructure, and (c) carve the place up into independent Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Luristan, Khuzetstan and Baluchistan. Khuzetstan alone, a Shiite Arabic-speaking area, controls the lion’s share of Iran’s oil wealth and would be a strong competitor to Iraq-South (Iraq-North would fall into the Turkish sphere). The Persian-speaking half of Iran is relatively poor in resources, and would regain its economic footing only with great difficulty.

  16. I got botted. Let me try to re-package things:

    In elections, as well as in wars, the first casualty seems to be the truth. Here’s what we know(?):

    One. The US has evacuated Iraq, leaving a power vacuum in the Persian Gulf area. SOMEONE is going to fill it, probably Iran — unless the US, Saudis or Turks do something about it. Iraq itself is ripe for a civil war, which might be said to have already begun.

    Two. The Iranians have the technology to produce nukes any day now, and the intent to destroy both Israel and the US. Having US forces in Israel and in the Persian Gulf means they can attack anywhere they please.

    Three. Russia, China and other pro-Iranian states have easy access to Iran, to supply it in time of war

    Four. Israel is virtually incapable of independent action against Iran, now that it is occupied by US troops.