Expert to Congress: Iran ‘Wants Us Dominated or Dead'
NewsMax ^ | 10 March 2006
WASHINGTON -- Michael A. Ledeen, a former consultant to the National Security Council and to the U.S. State and Defense Departments delivered scathing testimony on Iran to the House Committee on International Relations this week, citing his fear "that the obsession with the nuclear question often obscures the central policy issue: that the Islamic Republic has waged war against us for many years and is killing Americans every week."
The author of "The War against the Terror Masters" held little back from the lawmakers with such polemics as, "They want us dominated or dead. There is no escape from their hatred, or from the war they have waged against us. We can either win or lose, but no combination of diplomatic demarches, economic sanctions, and earnest negotiations, can change that fatal equation. They will either defeat us, or perish."
The former commissioner of the U.S.-China Commission warned the lawmakers that in his opinion the terror war in Iraq is a replay of the strategy that the Iranians and the Syrians used in the 1980s to drive the U.S. and its French allies out of Lebanon:
"Those Americans who believed it was possible to wage the war against terrorism one country at a time, and that we could therefore achieve a relatively peaceful transition from Saddam's dictatorship to an elected democracy, did not listen to the many public statements from Tehran and its sister city in jihad, Damascus, announcing in advance that Iraq was about to become the ‘new Lebanon.'"
The expert outlined a worst-case scenario that he suggested might unfold once Iran managed to put nuclear warheads on their intermediate range missiles:
"They might even be able to direct them against American territory from one or more of the Latin American countries with which the mullahs are establishing strategic alliances.
"The mullahs make no secret of their strategy; just a couple of weeks ago, when the leader of Hamas was received in honor in Tehran, a photograph of the event was released, in which there was a colorful poster of President Ahmadi-Nezhad and Supreme Leader Khamenei along with Castro, Morales and Chavez.
"The mullahs would be pleased to nuke Israel, and they would be thrilled to kill millions of Americans."
The author noted that from the first hours of the fanatical regime of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979, "Iran declared war on us in language it seems impossible to misunderstand."
He reminded the lawmakers of the recent statement by Hassan Abassi, the chief strategic adviser to President Ahmadi-Nezhad – "America means enemy, and enemy means Satan."
The expert ran through a brief resume of the enemy: "They created Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad, and they support most all the others, from Hamas and al-Qaida to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command. Iran's proxies range from Shiites to Sunnis to Marxists, all cannon fodder for the overriding objective to dominate or destroy us."
Recalling to the committee members the recent ABC News broadcast of a story about the discovery of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) sent from Iran into Iraq, he noted his agreement with the conclusion of Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant, about those powerful bombs that have taken the lives of some many of the soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq.
"I think the evidence is strong that the Iranian government is making these IEDs, and the Iranian government is sending them across the border and they are killing U.S. troops once they get there," said Clark. "I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops."
At one point, the former college professor challenged the panel: "The Iranian war against us is now 27 years old, and we have yet to fight back!"
He further suggested that future historians would be baffled at the intensity and tenacity with which successive American administrations have refused to deal seriously with the obvious and explicit threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
On that subject of fighting back, Ledeen – almost surprisingly after his dramatic rhetoric – eschewed the notion of outright invasion or bombing of the various nuclear sites around the desert country.
Military action carries enormous risks, the expert opined, because of the many unforeseeable consequences.
"Some number of Iranians would likely be inclined to rally to the national defense, even if they hate the regime," he said. "It's impossible to estimate how many of them would take this path. Moreover, there would inevitably be innocent victims, and our strategy should aim at saving innocents, not killing them. Add to that the virtual certainty that Iran would respond with a wave of terrorism, from Iraq to Europe to the homeland."
But if military action is a poor choice in his opinion, the expert gave even worse marks to diplomacy as a solution:
"The first step in crafting a suitable policy toward Iran is to abandon the pretense that we can arrive at a negotiated settlement. It can't be done."
Part of what Ledeen ultimately recommended to the committee was seizing the assets of the Iranian leaders.
"The mullahs have ruined the lives of most Iranians, they have greatly enriched themselves at the people's expense, and a good deal of that money has been squirreled away in foreign bank accounts," he explained.
The consultant gave as his favorite example of the greed of the Iranian ruling class a transaction tax, roughly worth 5 percent of the purchase price, all of which goes into the personal fund of the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei.
"That money properly belongs to the Iranian people, whose misery grows from day to day," Ledeen said. "We should hold it for them, and return it to a freely elected government after we have helped them overthrow their oppressors."
But the cornerstone of the author's strategy is regime change – from within but openly supported by the U.S.
"Too many of us have forgotten the enormous impact of Ronald Reagan's denunciation of the Soviet Union as an ‘evil empire.' The intellectual elite of this country condemned that speech as stupid and dangerous, yet the Soviet dissidents later told us that they considered it enormously important, because it showed that we understood the nature of the Soviet regime, and were committed to its defeat.
"In like manner, the Iranians need to see that we want an end to the Islamic Republic. We need to tell them that we want, and show them that we will support, regime change in their country, peaceful, non-violent regime change, not revolution from the barrel of a gun."
On the pragmatic end, the expert wants the U.S. to help the Iranian people build resources for a strike fund, noting that workers need to be able to walk off the job -- above all the oil fields and the textile and transportation sectors -- and know they will be able to feed their families for several weeks.
Facilitating communication is also a key he says, pointing to the instruments of communication -- servers, laptops, satellite and cell phones and phone cards, which the U.S. could supply.
"The regime has been more effective in identifying and repressing nation-wide communications among dissidents. They have been less effective quashing local networks," Ledeen said. "We should accordingly provide the local networks advanced technology in order for them to better communicate between cities and regions."
Ledeen also endorsed the suggestion that the President appoint someone responsible for Iran policy, and who would advise the president and report to the Congress.
"The Iranians will be encouraged by someone who they believe to be firmly on their side, while they will be discouraged by someone who has participated in the failed efforts to formulate a serious Iran policy." |
