• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Iran: Regime Change We Can Believe In

    Iran’s Green Movement opposition has proven to be a stronger and more persistent political force than many advocates of diplomatic engagement with Iran’s dictatorship had expected. This development, as well as the regime’s continued duplicity and foot-dragging on the nuclear issue, has led some to revise their thinking about supporting regime change in Iran. For example, Richard Haass, a self-professed “card-carrying realist” who formerly opposed the Bush Administration’s support for regime change, now has changed his mind. He has written an essay in the current issue of Newsweek that assesses that “Iran may be closer to profound political change than at any time since the revolution that ousted the Shah 30 years ago.”

    Unfortunately, the Obama Administration remains wedded to its engagement policy, which unrealistically seeks to strike a deal with the implacably hostile regime, whose self-defined ideological legitimacy is based on unceasing hostility to the United States. Even if a diplomatic agreement could be reached on the nuclear issue, against all odds, it would be foolhardy to expect Iran’s unscrupulous dictatorship to permanently abide by such an agreement. Yet the administration continues to seek such a deal over the bloodied heads of Iran’s opposition forces. Because it continues to define its foreign policy in large part as the opposite of President Bush’s, regime change in Iran is not change that the Obama Administration can believe in.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    10 Responses to Iran: Regime Change We Can Believe In

    1. James says:

      Mr. Phillips: You misrepresent facts blatantly. You claim "[the] Obama Administration remains wedded to its engagement policy." In fact, the Obama Administration made only a feeble attempt at negotiations. When Iran proposed to discuss its own very reasonable offer, the US refused outright. The original US offer was a joke that Iran would have been stupid to accept. As far as Mr. Haass is concerned, he seems also to be confused. He is a confirmed neo-con in the disguise of a realist. Please read some of the comments about his story in Newsweek. Finally, in your earlier story about the Pentagon Chief of Intelligence, you also misrepresented what he said. He said that there is no evidence that Iran has actually decided to build nuclear weapons. His additional comment that "we don't know what we don't know" should not be interpreted as anything other than his trying to cover his tracks. There is no way that Iran can prove a negative.

    2. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      What the Iranian people need to hear is that most countries don't care if Iran builds its nuclear capability. It's not Iran's general populace that particularly worries folks around the globe. It is the irrational, unpredictable and dictatorial mad mullahs who hijacked Old Persia causing all the international heartburn. If Iran had a more reasonable and responsible government, such as in India and Israel, they could develop their nuclear technology with the world's blessings.

      PS: As an American, I appreciate the Iranian peoples' candlelight vigil for the slaughtered victims of 9/11. I know they've suffered heavy losses themselves by the same ideologically deranged thugs that attacked America.

    3. Jim Phillips says:

      Sorry James (the commenter), but you are way off-base. The Obama Administration is in fact still committed to engagement with Iran, but the regime is not responding. Richard Haass is not a "neo-con" as you contend and it is you that are confused, not him. Please read his past writings. (Also, please re-read my previous post on the Pentagon intelligence chief. The first sentence is: "The Pentagon’s top intelligence official this week indicated that although Iran has been developing the means to build nuclear weapons, his agency has discerned no sign that Tehran has made a final decision to do so.") You say that Iran would have been stupid to accept the U.S. offer, but that is true only if it is interested in nuclear weapons, not civilian nuclear energy. I doubt that many people would agree with you that Iran's counter offer was "reasonable" given the fact that it has repeatedly been caught lying about its nuclear efforts. Finally, you say that Iran can not prove a negative. It does not have to do that. All it has to do is fully cooperate with IAEA inspectors, which it has not done, which is why it has been targeted with three rounds of U.N. Security Council sanctions.

    4. James says:

      Mr. Phillips: Now, you are really distorting things. There was no attempt at negotiation with Iran. They had ONE meeting, where Iran was given a "take it or leave it" offer. That is not negotiation. The offer was for Iran to send 75% of its enriched uranium to Russia immediately and wait one or two years when maybe, just maybe, they would something back. Now, who in his right mind would consider such a ridiculous transaction? When you go to buy something from a store, do you pay in advance and just take a verbal promise for deliver a year later? With the history of broken promises from Russia and France, this offer was a non-starter. Iran proposed to do the exchange in parts simultaneously on its soil or its border. This is perfectly reasonable. When you pay for something you should get the goods. The fact that the West wants to deprive Iran of its property is totally irrelevant. As far as Haass is concerned, as I said, please read some of the comments on his article at the Newsweek Web site. He has supported dialog with Syria and Iran in the past, but his brand of dialog seems seems to be simply to promote the US interests. His advocating a regime change in Iran is totally unrealistic. As far as the Pentagon Intelligence Chief comments are concerned, you are parsing too finely. What he meant to say, I believe, is that they are developing the technology for enriching uranium. At the same time, they are building missile capabilities. But, there is no evidence that they are building nuclear weapons with associated delivery mechanisms. The US officials always try to get into the mind of people. How is the future "intention" of Iranians going to be determined? There is no way to stop people from thinking and intending in the future. So, it is a moot point. There is no way for Iran to prove that it does not have another secret facility. So what if it has? It is their right to build enrichment facilities. In fact they plan to build 10 or even 20 more. There is nothing in the NPT that says they cannot. You are just repeating the standard illogical comments of Obama, Clinton and Susan Rice. There are no facts behind these claims.

    5. Pari, TX says:

      Just today two young men who were accused of participating in the anti-government protests were executed. As an Iranian-American woman, my heart is aching for these two young men and their families.

      Just like the Islamic Regime of Iran is taking its own people hostage by the most brutal methods possible, it would use its nuclear weapon capability to take the world hostage to do as it wishes. IRI has no intension of giving up its nuclear weapon program no matter what the international community offers as incentives. So the best thing the US can do as Mr. Haas suggested is to support the pro-democracy movement of the Iranians. Regime change is the only way to go. The US needs to use this golden opportunity as its interest is aligned with the interest of the Iranian people at this junction of history. Let’s use this opportunity to get rid of this criminal regime. The world would be a better place without IRI.

    6. James says:

      To Pari, TX: I am against the death penalty and I fervently hope that the theocracy in Iran will disappear. However, the two who were executed were not involved in the election demonstrations of last year. In fact, they were apparently arrested earlier. According to PressTV (http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=117257) they were involved in the Shiraz bombing that killed 13 people. You can also look at the Times of India report at:

      http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-e

    7. Jim Phillips says:

      James (the commenter) – There you go again… You say that Iran can not afford to accept the offered nuclear deal because of a "history of broken promises from Russia and France". What about the Iranian dictatorship's long history of duplicity on the nuclear issue? (Not to mention its lying to its own people, murdering protesters, throwing them in jail where they often are tortured and even raped, its support for terrorism, and repression of religious and ethnic minorities?) Iran has the right to build uranium enrichment plants but under the NPT it must inform the IAEA that it is doing so, which it didn't do until after the secret plant was discovered. Perhaps you are so confused about Iran because you apparently believe Press TV, judging by the link you offered. Press TV is a propaganda organ of the Iranian government, in case you didn't know…

    8. James says:

      Mr. Phillips: I am surprised at your "there you go again" approach, reminding me of Ronald Reagan' flip comments. Considering your scholarly background, I was expecting a logical argument, not slogans. You mix all kinds of irrelevant issues to confuse the matter. I can also say that the police in Pittsburgh violently beat up demonstrators in the G-20 meeting last year and there are 2.5 million prisoners in the US and a very large percentage of younger prisoners get raped in US prison every year. Do I need to bring up Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo or "Extroardinary Renditions?" Can you dispute these facts? But, what relevance do these facts or what you say have to the issues that I thought we were discussing? Let's just consider just four items: (1) I provided ample evidence that Obama is NOT negotiating with Iran. Except for that one meeting, he is no different from Bush. There cannot be any argument about this fact. In contrast, you claim that Obama is "engaging diplomatically" with Iran. You must be joking! (2) You say Iran has been lying and cheating. When has it been cheating? I am quite aware of all the claims on this matter. I would be surprised if you are not aware of the NPT provisions. Iran had to report the Quom facility only six months before the introduction of fissile material. It actually reported it 18 months in advance. Iran only temporarily and voluntarily had agreed to the more stringent provisions of the NPT. It withdrew several years ago and the Iranian parliament NEVER approved it. Does the US abide by treaties that the Senate does not approve? (3) As for PressTV, I am perfectly aware of what it is. In fact, the Times of India and Yahoo News got their information from PressTV so I gave the original source because it was more precise and more complete. Just because it might be the organ of the Government, it does not mean everything it says is a lie. If you watch Fox News, I can assure you that 75% of what it broadcasts are lies. (4) You did not address the question of the exchange. When you buy something, do you pay in advance and wait for a potential delivery a year later? The Iranian proposal for the exchange was extremely reasonable if you can think logically. Please explain what was wrong with it as a business transaction. The US proposal was a joke! The only argument you can possibly give is that it won't let the West cheat Iran of its uranium supply.

      As added evidence, please see the following Web site which includes a September 2009 statement from IAEA as reported by AFP about the Iranian nuclear activities:

      http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeq

      As a final point, if you want to put all your baskets on the nuclear issue, please explain the US double standard when it comes to India, Pakistan, Israel and South Korea. To take the mildest case, South Korea cheated for 20 years and enriched uranium to 77% and the US did not raise its voice once. We won't even talk about Israel's huge supply of nuclear missiles and the fact that it refuses to sign the NPT. QED

    9. Pingback: Morning Bell: The Ahmadinejad Victory Tour | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    10. I know you says:

      Y donot knoe shit about Iran ! belive me I know you !

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×