Wednesday, February 15, 2006


"I think a leader such as Reza Pahlavi would be more appropriate to head an interim government until proper referendums take place".

The drawback of an immediate monarchy, for which I remained in Iran after the Shah left and for which I had fought against the revolution would be too vulnerable to being accused of the bloodshed needed to remove the Mullahs. It would come back to bite it. Which is why I suggest coming to terms - temporarily - with the MEK (Mojahedin) and use them as the eradicators. Let them spill the blood of the Mullahs, whom they hate deeply on a personal level rather than politically or philosophically. the Mullahs executed some 30,000 of them after severe torture. Clearly they realize the peril of accepting and being removed themselves but the chance to seize power will overcome this awareness of only being a stop gap measure. Presently they ask for a six month grace period after being allowed and supported into Iran to hold elections. In fact the two years to which I refer will be the time frame needed (in reality) to remove the MEK from power. It will not be easy but much easier than the Mullahs with over a quarter century (recent terms) of putting down roots into the populace. The MEK will have very tentative roots. Reza Pahlavi would best arrive to rid Iran of the Marxist(MEK), the bloody murderers of so many "devout" Iranians (Mullahs etc.) and spill what can be termed "non-Moslem" blood, putting the Marxist tag onto the MEK with less taint. The strategy for this is to have the young Shah form a government in exile immediately after the MEK move into Iran and literally eradicate the Mullahs, probably with one swinging on every lamppost from Tehran to Shemiran for starters. "Personally, I am against an invasion (Iraqi style)". So am I, since it would not be necessary after turning all military personnel and equipment into bloody dust and rubble with conventional bombing raids. But surgical strikes will be self-defeating if we want a future democracy or something like it in the future under a Constitutional Monarchy. (Which incidentally is probably the only umbrella or catalyst which might succeed in keeping the country in one piece instead of pieces and orchestrate a democratic system). The late Shah had already started doing this when Carter interrupted everything and gave birth to the chaos we now face. Long gestation but his child nevertheless. "But it must be ‘perceived’ as an internal event". That would be best but a perception that America had finally had enough of being Mr. Nice Guy and had stepped in to save the world (constant post regime-change PR must be ready and budgeted) and would not hurt in the war against terror as a whole. As I have suggested the regime change needs a two or three phase strategy. 1. Destroy ALL military equipment in conventional bombing raids and destroy or bury all known nuclear or WMD sites using the 24/7 Persian broadcasts for which about $50 million easer being requested by State Dept. to help warn and thus minimize residents living on top of such sites. Killing IRGC military personnel is a part of war and "legitimate". They would be free to desert and leave the IRGC to be "sorted out legally" later by civilians depending on their alleged participation in "crimes against the people". (Again MEK in charge and ending up as the bad guys). 2. Allow (or initially be unable to prevent) the MEK to form an Interim Government inside Iran, like Khomeini did with Bazargan. 3. Establish and recognize a government in exile for Reza Pahlavi and work on getting demonstrations inside Iran supporting him and ASKING him to return. Thus legitimized, he can come and remove the MEK. I'm presenting this simplistically but without other options, I cannot figure out a better way to have a regime change and a lasting, stable situation later. Instead of the kind of coup after coup every few years that there was in Iraq till Saddam established a ruthless stranglehold some decades ago.

Sunday, February 12, 2006


"Some believe the typical Iranian loves the US Whether love for America exists inside Iran or not becomes an almost weightless premise to consider, not because the average Iranian likes or dislikes the USA but because today, the typical Iranian, who might play a part in a regime change has nothing left with which to love - or time and energy to translate growing hate into effective action. "They will hate us, afterward, if we bomb them" warn diplomats, a comment equally without merit , since post event emotions will depend on who the USA and the West bring in to replace the Mullahs or the next ruling faction in a more than one phase regime change. And on the improved quality of life and safety that results. Or not. The typical Iranian presently wants only to survive, as life grows financially more and more onerous for the middle and lower classes despite promises and efforts by Ahmadi-Nejad. Where people have to have three jobs to try to make ends meet and employed workers salvage food in the garbage bins to try to feed their families. Many don't earn enough to meet the rising costs - or have not been paid in months. Great fodder for an internal regime change? Not so. All those who suffer have no time for politics, no time to protest, no time for anything but to try to survive with just enough food not to starve and just enough money to try to get by for another day. Khomeini created shortages on purpose to keep everyone too busy to have time to oppose his revolution once flaws appeared. As an Iranian TV program in Los Angeles said, life under the Shah was not one of personal scarcity or discomfort and those Iranians who tried to remove him to increase their political profiles and obtain "better elections", now have no freedoms, no comforts and no security of life and limb. The love-hate "myth" was created by the Reformists in Iran, (the Mullahs themselves foster the disinformation), self-serving Europeans, who insist on a peaceful transition (even though it has gone nowhere and still goes nowhere - nor can it go forward with the neo-Iran of Ahmadi-Nejad and the love-hate stick continues to be used to prevent any consideration of a military "attack". Just like the "myth" that Iranians hate the Mojaheddin (MEK) so virulently that they would never accept or support their participation in the overthrow of the Mullahs. Guess what? Reports last week from students and others in Iran (much to the astonishment of naysayers) have indicated the MEK would be most welcome - BUT not forever. Just till they have removed the clerics, after which they would be fair game to be removed themselves. Something suggested by this author in Operation Sandblast. The late Shah of Iran refused to allow his special forces Generals to potentially kill an estimated 5,000 people, in separate incidents nationwide, to snuff out the revolt in early days and look what happened to the country. How many millions died in the Iran-Iraq eight year war that could not, would not, have happened if the monarchy had remained in place after 5,000 had died? And the millions of Iranians scattered to the winds of the globe as they fled the oppression and death inflicted by the Mullahs. Hitler was consistently accommodated and some 50 MILLION people died because he was not "taken out / dealt with" early on. Now with a replay of history we, too, have been replaying our weak role with Ahmadi-Nejad. Iranians do not understand weakness. When the Shah tried to help things simmer down by telling the citizenry "I hear you" it simply encouraged them to be even more revolting (pun intended). Attacking Iran will trigger bloody events, including homicide bombers in European and American public locations like shopping malls, subways etc. and unfortunately perhaps, even some dirty bombs. And some extensive death and damage in Israel - as well as regional Arab countries when Iran tries to destroy or limit their ability to furnish oil to the West. NOT attacking will eventually kill far greater numbers of the West's global citizenry - in more ways than only nuclear ones. Not attacking and allowing Iran to deploy nuclear weapons and(read "The Mullah Threat" article ) even worse, create financial and economical havoc on a worldwide scale. In retrospect, should we not bomb Iran, 10,000 deaths being posited by some as the casualty estimate from attacks, would be a welcome number - just as it would have been in World War II - compared to the fatalities Hitler eventually inflicted because we refused to face up to him and to RECOGNIZE the threat we faced. Certainly acceptable compared to the deaths which would result from an untethered Iran. There are some 350,000 IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps) paramilitary forces and if ALL of them (as opposed to civilians) were destroyed plus every warehouse, nuclear site or any other storage or location with military equipment or personnel, while horrific and horrible in concept, in a practical, real life fashion, would remove the main threat the world faces. Would Islamic terrorism increase as a result? Or would it realize it cannot trifle with the USA and an anxious West when push comes to shove? And retreat, even for a while? My comments may sound over the top - and would be - were there not an Ahmadi-Nejad and his military control of Iran and lunatic fringe concepts of Islam as their guiding light in charge of an oil rich country with no fear of destroying everyone and themselves in one fell swoop. Even Hitler and his followers wanted to survive. For Ahmadi-Nejad and the Hojatieh sect, survival is irrelevant or at best not essential and until everyone wakes up to this fact, no correct analysis or evaluation of the "Iran reality" will be possible. We tend to think in our own cultural mind frames and find it next to impossible to take a quantum leap when a quantum change takes place. Our "mental radar" equipment screen settings need to be drastically reconfigured. Or we shall repeat an unpleasant side of history again. © Alan Peters