Four Reasons To Overthrow Iran’s Mullahs in 2012
In its 32 years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has killed lots of U.S. Marines. The Iranians were behind the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, which killed hundreds of Marines. They were behind the bulk of deadly IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan, which killed and maimed hundreds more. Iran has been killing Americans all over the world for decades. And now the Tehran regime is set to kill another: Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, a 28-year-old American, Arizona-born, Michigan-raised — and former Marine. Hekmati was visiting family in Iran last summer when he was apprehended by authorities. This week, the regime has decided to give him the death sentence.
Hekmati reportedly worked for a New York-based video game company, which had a “hearts and minds” contract with the CIA. And so the mullahs accuse him of being a CIA spy. The extent of Hekmati’s espionage — whether nonexistent or knee-deep — shouldn’t matter. The man is a captured American citizen set to be murdered by a sworn enemy.
We are at a breaking point in 2012. Iran, this national security issue of such magnitude, will reach a crescendo during this year’s presidential election. President Obama and the Republican candidate will spend the better part of the year debating how to handle Iranian hostility with prudence. The wisest course is narrowing down to the only course: regime change in Tehran.
This does not mean military action — nor does it mean invasion, conquest, or occupation. Regime change, in the case of Iran, means open support for a “Persian Spring.” It means replicating the Reagan-Thatcher model vis-à-vis Lech Walesa in Poland and the late Vaclav Havel in Czechoslovakia: supporting Iranian dissident and opposition groups rhetorically, politically, financially, materially, and morally until a popular uprising — simmering in Iran since the Green Movement in 2009 — brings down the few hundred or so theocratic mullahs threatening the world.
We must do this for many reasons, but four big ones come to mind.
1. To avoid a war.
If the Iranian regime is not replaced, it will lead to war. The Israelis may preemptively attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. If the Israelis do not take action, the United States might do so. And if neither Israel nor the U.S. takes action, the Iranians themselves will continue to be the aggressors geopolitically.
Bringing down the mullahs internally would turn our most hostile enemy into a natural ally. It is unclear what type of Iranian government would emerge following the downfall of the mullahs. But one thing is clear: unlike Egypt and Libya and other Arab uprisings where the Muslim Brotherhood might take over for good, the Iranian people are far friendlier to the United States. Iran’s 70 million people are amongst the youngest in the world. They want to be connected to the rest of the planet. They want the freedom to worship — or not worship — as they please. They want to use the Internet free from censure; to assemble free from threat; to read, write, and speak free from intimidation. They do not want war with the West. They do not want to fight and die to restore the twelfth century or to bring back the Twelfth Imam.
2. To avoid nuclear blackmail, nuclear proliferation, and nuclear terrorism.
Should nothing be done — should the mullahs obtain a nuclear weapon in 2012 — the world will enter, as Churchill once phrased it, “the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.” Never before have such apocalyptic, self-destructive, suicidal religious psychopaths had such cataclysmic technology. The plausibility of nuclear terrorism does not need to be discussed here: Either one soberly comprehends this threat or one does not. Many do not understand this threat and its long-term implications.
But the issue need not be a mushroom cloud over Manhattan. Imagine the Iranian supreme leader making demands of the world, with the implicit threat of a nuclear suitcase-armed Hezbollah or al-Qaeda operative in Washington, D.C., London, Paris, or Tel Aviv ready to “blow” should these demands not be met. This is the world of 2013 and 2014 should Iran be allowed to go nuclear: the whole world would be held hostage to the nuclear blackmail of the mad mullahs.
In addition, the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Turks, and maybe even the Jordanians would all pursue nuclear weapons to deter Iranian belligerence. (Not to mention the Israeli, Pakistani, and Indian nuclear arsenals.) We would have a wide-ranging Middle East nuclear arms race. Nobody should think such a development would end well.
America’s priority should be to free ourselves from depending on Saudi oil. Once that’s accomplished, the economic pressures on Iran, assuming the European countries cooperate with a ban on their importing of Iranian oil….easier said than done….will be even more evident and impossible for the mullahs to belittle.
The key to this is strength of will in Washinton and among the environmentalists to get their priorities straight. The environmentalists imply now that they’d rather we remain dependent upon the Arab’s oil by their shrieking aginst drilling into our own known reserves and transporting those energy reserves via new pipelines. They apparently don’t object to their (and our) short hairs being in the grasp of the Arabs.
Talks and conferences are a waste of time, and only create open space for Iranian nuclear abilities to be perfected and become more threatening.
Our bipartisan efforts should be against the environmentalists and their proxy/ally…Arabian oil. How sad for our America to be held hostage by a short-sighted, semi-treasonous domestic pressure group.
Great article, but I don’t think this is even anywhere in the thought processes of any of the R candidates, and certainly not in Obama’s. Regime change in Iran is the obvious answer to a host of problems, but to see it, you first have to understand and accept that we are in a world-wide war with these people whether we like it or not. Unfortunately, no one in DC has the strategic vision to see it, or the fortitude to face it.
Iranian regime change is only a pipe dream of those of us who have been paying attention for the last few decades or so.
Yeah, I’m sure the Iranians will welcome us with candy and flowers. Just like the Iraqis did.
Screw hearts and flowers. I want them to respond with screams, tears, and wails of anguish.
This time, it’s personal.
You’re insane. Get therapy.
After reading your tripe, I am saddened by the idea that you can vote.
Please go away Bohemond. To reduce a complex issue, well detailed in the post, to your nauseating revenge fantasy is sickening.
Boots on the ground? Definitely not. Logistical and material support so they can do it themselves? You bet your ass they’d welcome that.
Americans have such a distorted view of how our country is viewed. The vast majority of common, everyday citizens in Iran, and throughout most of the Middle East, have little to no hatred for America. The mullahs hold their “Marg bar Amrika” rallies, and we assume they speak for the entire nation.
The Iranian population doesn’t want American troops occupying their country. But they would be our biggest fans if we gave them the means to fight their own fight.
It worked out so well when we tried it in 1953.
Actually, that’s not far from the truth. Back in 1981 I had an Iranian friend going to school. He returned to Iran thinking that all was going be rosy. In fact, we even had some export dealings through a third country. In less than 12 months, I get a call at 4 am from Sohrab asking for help to get him out of the country. This was done and we got him back into the US (don’t ask).
The point is that there are millions of Iranians with exposure to the US and the West that are senior adults now. These people were educated here and in Europe throughout the sixties and early seventies. They know this country, they have lived the contrasts. They would like to find a rapprochement. Their children, many of them born here in the states though not all, are now in their late thirties and early forties. They have been inculcated by their parents that the US is not their enemy.
And then, there is the current crop of youth that is digitally aware of the world with a tremendous curiosity of the US. We will never have a better moment to capture Iranian society and bring it into our orbit. Add to that, the Iranian
expatriates (refugees) both here and abroad that HAVE current connections, not with the regime but with all of the people mentioned above. It would be criminal to not find a way to provide support to the Iranian people and the groups willing to risk their lives to overthrow this regime
“Obama and the Republican candidate will spend the better part of the year debating how to handle Iranian hostility”
Actually they won’t. Obama talk about those mean Republicans who want to kill old people and shut down factories. He’ll use every rhetorical tactic at his disposal to keep from talking about it because he knows it will make him look bad.
We should only support the national front or the monarchists since these are the only two groups in Iran who support any type of democracy and constitutional rights. It is unknown if the leaders of the green movement can really deliver what they are promising and they maybe talking up democratic ideals just to get support from the west. Rafsanjani promised reform but he didn’t deliver and Khatami tried in vain to force the hardliners to open up.
If attacking U.S. Marines in Beirut is justification for war, why don’t we also wipe Israel off the map for what they did to the USS Liberty?
This will also result in peace in the Middle East, and prevent Israel from any future nuclear blackmail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Great idea! Let’s do it. What could possibly go wrong?
What is so very interesting is that Iran took down the last liberal Democratic president, Jimmy Carter, and is about to do the same to this current liberal Democratic president, Obama. Iran can smell a weak president a mile away, which is why it has gotten away with so much with Obama. Iran is about to get a nuclear bomb, it has killed our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, it continues to fund Hamas and Hezbollah (which has all but taken over Lebanon), and it is behind the civil unrest in Bahrain. Yet we don’t seem to be doing anything about this, so Iran knows it will never get a better chance to advance its agenda in the Persian Gulf and around the world. Once a new Republican president is elected in November, the Iranians know the game is up. So they have to take their best shots now, before January of 2013. And they will. Count on it. Will it lead to war? The only thing that will force Obama to act is if the Iranians explode a nuclear test bomb, proving that they are now a nuclear power. Then Obama will have to do something. Other than that, the last thing Obama wants to do it get involved in another Middle Eastern war, especially before the election.
There is not a single shred of evidence that the Iranian people are “far friendlier” to the U.S. than Egypt. That kind of “analysis,” which puts an idea before a fact rather than a fact before an idea is irresponsible. There are 50,000 Americans living in Egypt and lord knows how many Westerners.
I think almost everything in No.3 is nonsense: Iran has nowhere that much traction in those places. Hamas implode? Not likely.
No.4 sounds like a lot of wishful thinking passed off as analysis.
It worked out so well the last couple of times. Sure, let’s do it. What can possibly go wrong?
As for the mullahs – they might be nuts, but they aren’t mad. The history of iran shows very careful decision-making (however obnoxious) with very careful consideration of consequence. They know what happens if iran ever uses a nuke against one of the good guys … iran loses.
The actual problem with iran getting The Bomb is that it potentially restricts The West’s own freedom to act (i.e. retaliate with conventional force). They know that. And that’s why they’re trying to get it (if they’re trying to get it).
Sir, what you just wrote seems to me to be a roll of the dice, 50-50 odds….You hope that you are right,..I see it as these mullas are mad, deranged, and so filled with poisonus hatred for the west, especially the USA,… that they will use any means possible to harm us. they know that a lot of their own people are partial to the USA, and they fear that….I do not expect to see 0b0m00 doing much to discourage their pursuit of WMD`s…We need to be in the lead as it comes to helping out these good people of Iran to rid themselves of this evil yolk…Israel is in there, and really making a good effort to kill off all their scientist. we should be also…..Hope i did not read your comment wrong….JB
I see it as these mullas are mad, deranged, and so filled with poisonus hatred for the west, especially the USA,… that they will use any means possible to harm us.
Based on what? List the concrete actions that iran has taken to harm the US. Yes, the embassy business was obnoxious. But in terms of evidence for iran seeking to actively strike against america, there’s not a great deal aside from rhetoric. Even considering their beef with israel, their involvement has been largely arm’s length. There has been an astonishing amount of NOISE about the threat from iran, but the actual threat (to the US) from iran is really very light on evidence. Iran’s primary concern has always been its own region and its own borders, and if they are trying to get the bomb then history suggests it’s to be used as a deterrent.
they know that a lot of their own people are partial to the USA, and they fear that….
Right now, I think they fear price inflation and recession a great deal more.
I do not expect to see 0b0m00 doing much to discourage their pursuit of WMD`s
More or less than bush did? Or should I say “b00sh”?
Israel is in there, and really making a good effort to kill off all their scientist.
It might be israel, it might not be. But whoever’s doing it isn’t being very picky about how closely-connected the victims are to the nuclear program. My impression is that somebody’s trying to send a message that it’s dangerous to be SEEN to be connected to iran’s nuclear ambitions, rather than picking strategic targets designed to slow the program down. I can see two targets who appear to have had no link to the nuclear program at all (masoud alimohammadi and darioush rezaeinejad). They appear to have just been academics in the wrong place. Is that ok by you?
If this really is a targeted assassination policy, and if they really are being sloppy about who they’re taking out, then at what point can we start calling it “terrorism”?
Actually, come to think of it, killing the wrong people IS a trademark of one particular intelligence agency …
The best strategy is to keep the powder dry and wait. Iran is in the early stages of hyperinflation thanks to the out of control corruption and economic mismanagement/looting that is at the heart of Islamism.
Economic collapse WILL bring about the fall of the Mullah’s, starving citizens have little patience for “Obey me, the will of Allah commands you” when there is no food on the table and they see their rulers swanning around in luxury.
Any military intervention by the United States would play into the Mullah’s hands by demonstrating that the “Great Satan” hates the Persian people and wants to enslave them for cheap oil, or whatever the 2 minute hate/agitprop program is this week over there.
It also acts against the interests of the “Green movement” individuals who are tired of the corruption, repression, lack of economic freedom/opportunity and In your face hypocrisy that the despised ruling class billionaire mullahs and their cronies represent.
Puppets or beards get no respect in that region of the world. Remember what happened to the Shah.
The Persian people have had over 30 years of Islamism, they have reached their breaking point and another revolution is not far behind.
Unfortunately, by identifying all of these benefits, you’ve just insured that Obama will decide not to do it.
Eric in Denver – Surprisingly enough Hopey McChange, the teleprompter in chief is behind the hyper inflation Iran is suffering from at the moment (The Federal Reserve and it’s puppet The Bank Of International Settlements pulling strings), so the sit it out on the fence plan and wait for the revolution is official policy, at least for now.
Currency wars baby, full of win…
And this is a bad bad policy. If we will use our power, wealth, and influence to steer the course of vast populations not participating in our government via our constitution, then we MUST do it openly and decisively.
This is why innocent American citizens are targeted by terrorists, because of subtle meddling, covert actions, pulled strings, etc. These changes in nations are the result of the ‘effects’ of American power. Not of the explicit objectives of an American government. Thus America in the abstract is seen as an enemy, all her people becoming targets.
The question of evil masters and innocent people aside (mullahs and Iranians), all of them are having their lives affected powerfully by agents totally outside of their control. When our King wanted to tax us for our ‘own good’ we fired him! And we did it only because we didn’t have such a simple thing as a vote in the matter.
How is it different when we exercise our power to change the course of nations? Was the not the British Empire for the most part benevolent, moral, and civilized? Did not the colonies owe something for their defense during the French-Indian war?
The EVIL of such an action – this meddling and tinkering – is without justification. During the cold war we wrote it off as the lesser of two evils, how long can we do this and have any moral credibility?
Maybe we must – for our safety – fight this regime. But we must do it in the wide open. We must do it to counter a threat, not to manage their geopolitical situation.
This covert stuff is a great evil. That’s not to accuse anyone here, but to open your mind to the possibility. Many good leaders are led astray by this fallacious calculus Power + Good Intentions = Moral Justification. So so wrong.
Consider the blood of the men who died so we would not have a King.
Unconditional surrender, total victory, are certainly appealing notions. All the bad guys defeated in the Middle East!
However, with the defeat of Imperial Japan we saw the rise of imperial communist China. See how that works? Force, violence, and power do not create order. Order emerges organically from chaos. Domestically, we call this the free market. It works the same in international politics. Top-down solutions (violence) only solve top-down problems (organized violence). Regime change as a policy offers virtually no guarantee that any sort of peace can emerge. Often, evil regimes exist because they are providing some sort of valuable source of order.
One would argue that the political conditions that make it possible for a regime defined by anti-Americanism to arise exist only because we keep trying to manage the region. It is costly – in terms of information and choice as economic resources – to organize people used to violence into a peace. Often, things follow the path of least resistance. Even if a people have no hatred of America, uncertainty about America’s actions – that fear – can serve to empower an anti-American regime.
Afghanistan – our conquest – and Pakistan – an ‘ally’ – are ripe to become centers of evil and terror once again. The region’s inherent instability cannot be blamed on the policies of a single regime (despite that regime exploiting its position and that instability to engage in evil acts). If it disappeared, the chances are good another power or powers would emerge to exploit that instability to commit evil acts. At least, it’s very probable and worth considering before starting more wars.
Either way, if we do strike Iran we must do it only this way: declaration of war by congress for a specific grievance (sponsoring Hezbollah, pursuing nuclear weapon). This is followed by an air-spec/ops-marine corps attack on the leadership, Republican guards, nuclear facilities, and maybe Hezbollah cells worldwide. We keep pounding until they surrender.
If they surrender, we accept peace only under new leadership – with the dismantling of the Republican Guard, nuke program, lists of all Hezbollah info and admission of guilt. Our grievances met. At that point, we leave them ALONE. If some thug takes over so be it. We could encourage democracy through diplomatic channels, but our military objectives and the war effort must be symmetrical. None of this picking ‘our guy’ to lead the country shenanigans.
Even if we had the moral impetus to install the Shah due to the spread of Soviet communism, objectively the current regime formed out of the discontent he created, and was hardened by the Iran-Iraq war we encouraged; it exists in large part (though not exclusively) because of our actions. Morally, sovietism might have been the greater evil, but going forward we need to admit our role in creating this situation as we consider the way out.
I think ‘taking out’ a troublesome regime as a ‘fix’ for a macro problem is the same faulty social engineering paradigm that inspires politicians to dump massive amounts of Stimulus dollars into the hole that used to be a functioning economy. We don’t have the capacity to centrally plan for the complexity of the world political environment. Just like we can’t centrally plan the economy. Nation building is a bottom-up process just like capitalism – because human beings remain human beings at all times.
The less we are involved in the middle east, the less the negative effects of the instability there need to affect us. It’s not an overnight fix, but it’s a direction. And that direction involves a long term commitment to markets, freedom, and non-intervention. People will get bored of wanting to fight wars, and instead will want to drink Pepsi. It is a brilliant Milton Friedman/Reaganesque vision.
However, in the short term, I recommend this approach: pull out of the region altogether as a sign of serious intent. Maintain a fierce naval presence and plenty of sorties out of Diego Garcia. Listen, and watch very very carefully.
Our military responses will then only be provoked by military moves. A suspicious cable made public, and our fleet moves closer. But we need to chill out over the economic stuff. A mideast flare up and higher oil prices? Our boats don’t even react.
We have the oil in North America – only environmentalism, and the global oil and banking cartels make mideast oil a problem. Imagine, a mideast flare up and gas goes up to $5.00/gal. for four months, then back to $3.20? Is that worth war after war after war and billions in military spending?
ZSorenson – “The EVIL of such an action – this meddling and tinkering – is without justification.”
Why do we have to justify it? Maybe we pull strings, manipulate and destroy on a whim simply because we can regardless of possible benefit.
We do what we must, because WE CAN. Words to live by…
“Force, violence, and power do not create order.” They do, if you take them far enough, systemic exterminations are very powerful social engineering tools especially combined with Stalinist/Maoist police states, look at North Korea for a current example.
“‘Force, violence, and power do not create order.’ They do, if you take them far enough, systemic exterminations are very powerful social engineering tools especially combined with Stalinist/Maoist police states, look at North Korea for a current example.”
- I would agree with you to a point. I think perhaps a more true statement would be to say “Force, violence, and power do not create order, that outlasts the force, violence and power.”
Your example of North Korea is an excellent point. Should the oppression and constant fear of punishment and death be removed, the existing social order would not be maintained for long.
Force lead to order in Japan and in Germany. Even Vietnam is cozying up to us these days. To actually win with violence it seems you have to go all out and really mean it. Undeclared wars are more full of unintended consequences compared to good old fashioned wars, but you can’t have a good old fashioned war without a good old fashined statesman running it.
“Force lead to order in Japan and in Germany.”
- No, you misunderstand history. Force led to the destruction of the existing political regimes there. It wasn’t FORCE, it wasn’t the bayonet, it wasn’t violence and power that rebuilt the Japanese economy. It wasn’t violence and power that made West Germany a nation that recovered and became prosperous while East Germany, subject to the FORCE, VIOLENCE and POWER you speak of, stayed languishing in poverty and squalor.
Force, violence and power can smash and destroy very well. They cannot, by their very nature, truly CREATE anything.
Supporting the democracy movement in Iran is a good idea. Unlike Libya and Egypt, any resulting government that energes if a revolution succeeds can hardly be worse than the present iranian gov, and might well be better.
Of course the Iranian gov will accuse the democracy activists of being paid for pawns of the usa, but they will do that even if we dont support them, so we may as well.
And if we can bring down the mullahs by internal revolution, we will not have to bring them down by war, a far worse prospect.
Kicking out the mullahs would certainly be a boon for mankind. Unfortunately it is easier said than done. This is the reason that this administration, and probably the previous one, haven’t really tried. Because it won’t be easy. The mullahs are backed by Russia and China and probably others. Libya was a cake walk by comparison, and it took many months and resulted in many dead and couldn’t be done without us shooting. The Iranians are very unlikely to provoke the US without a nuke in their arsenal. The current situation in Syria is what we can expect. Month after month of killing of civilians with Russia and others keeping the US and the UN out of it. I guess the Arab league won’t be interfering though.
I believe that Obama’s style of war does include a secret component with the use of drones and possibly cyberwar. I don’t know who’s responsible for the sabotage and assassinations inside Iran but it could be the US. It would be better if it were groups of Iranians, possibly with US help, but there’s no clear evidence who it is yet.
I believe it’s possible that the mullahs can be removed from power without US fighting a war with them but it won’t be easy.
I like the current strategy that is working in Iran. A ‘Western’ Power is using the Mojahedin-e Khalg (PMOI) in their targeting of nuclear scientists. Bringing terror to Iran’s community of scientists is, however not enough. The mad mullahs must also be made terror targets, as well as economic targets such as the gasoline refinerys. Terror bombings of revolutionary guard commanders and their rural puppets the basij militias, demoralize the regieme’s mullahs and commanders. This will again lead to a ‘Persian Spring’. Small digs at Iran such as calling the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Gulf, help to sow disharmony among the masses. Next time it will not be a Green revolt, but a bloody one the western powers should exploit.
Illegitimate and evil. I can only think of the American patriots during our revolution. Their independence was won to be free of the global chess games. As they were not to be pawns of George III’s empire – however enlightened, neither should any nation or people be subject to our abstract geopolitical or economic interests.
An Iranian nuke is an abstract threat. It is dangerous enough, and must be taken seriously, but for now it isnt even on the radar screen. Yeah, there’s intel, but despite rhetoric to the contrary, it is doubtful Iranian leaders are in fact hopeful for national suicide. It is far far more likely that they fear the REAL threat of an American attack. Like N Korea they need inflammatory rhetoric to ass to the credibility of their threat. The snake’s rattle.
They are dangerous and without moral credibility, but that does not justify our use of naked force to have our way. Ignoring the reality of blowback and unintended consequences, the nature of this sort of fight alone is wrong. Terror is the only weapon against asymmetric ploys like these covert actions. Nowhere in all game theory can you find more rational human choice than in geopolitics. The US being most schizophrenic. We can’t decide if we are a free republic, or a benevolent empire.
Hitler maybe should have been attacked after the sudentenland invasion. Maybe there should have been tanks stationed on the Western front. But a series of asymmetric and covert actions against Germany would have assuredly provokes war. If non-appeasement has any value it is that it prevents war.
With no declaration of war with open and explicit goals, the only legitimate form of covert ops is surveillance. The alternative is an admission of war minus public knowledge. THAT is what makes this sort of activity so dissonant with American values.