February 18, 2006
The Bush administration took a further step on Wednesday in
its campaign against Iran by requesting a large increase in funding
for the political destabilisation of the Tehran regime.
Speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice declared that the US would "actively
confront" Iran and called for an extra $75 million to fund
anti-Tehran propaganda and to support opposition groups inside
and outside the country. Last year just $10 million was allocated
to such activities.
Rice carefully avoided the use of the term "regime change"
and its obvious associations with the US campaign that culminated
in the illegal invasion of Iraq. But there is no mistaking the
Bush administration’s intention to subvert and remove the
current Iranian regime.
The absurdity of Rice’s claims to be promoting democracy
in Iran is highlighted by the activities of the US across the
border in Iraq. While American troops are engaged in the ruthless
suppression of Iraqi opposition to the US occupation, the US ambassador
Zalmay Khalilzad is engaged in frantic behind-the-scenes efforts
to fashion a new puppet regime to carry out Washington’s
dictates.
The Bush administration’s support for "democracy"
in Iran, like its opposition to Tehran’s nuclear programs,
is simply a pretext for advancing US ambitions for economic and
strategy dominance in the resource-rich region. For Washington,
"a democratic government" in Tehran is synonymous with
a pro-US regime that opens up the country’s huge oil and
gas reserves to American corporations, implements IMF dictated
market reforms and slavishly supports US foreign policy in the
region.
Rice’s appeal for more funding has close parallels with
Washington’s support for Iraqi exile groups throughout the
1990s. The CIA funded and worked closely with the convicted embezzler
Ahmed Chalabi and former Baathist thug Iyad Allawi in fomenting
opposition and a failed putsch inside Iraq. Now, Khalilzad is
seeking to ensure that both men have prominent positions in the
next Iraqi government, despite their lack of any significant popular
support.
Washington’s potential Iranian allies have a similarly
sordid record. They include monarchist groups allied to the family
of the former dictator Shah Reza Pahlavi and the People’s
Mujahideen of Iran (MEK). The MEK, a petty bourgeois nationalist
formation, backed the Islamic regime established in Iran following
the ousting of the Shah in 1979, but its leaders fled to Iraq
after the new conservative theocracy turned on the organisation.
While carrying out hit-and-run attacks inside Iran, the MEK also
sought support in the US and Europe, recasting itself as a pro-Western
movement supportive of free market policies.
At present, the MEK is on the US State Department’s list
of terrorist organisations and last month Rice reiterated it was
US policy not to work with the organisation. In Congress, however,
there are already moves afoot to transform the MEK from "terrorists"
to "freedom fighters". Congressman Tom Tancredo told
a congressional briefing on Wednesday that the decision to place
the MEK on the terrorist list was "a sop to the mullahs"
by the previous Clinton administration, indicating it should be
overturned.
The Bush administration is also seeking to link up with the
trade union opposition inside Iran. The AFL-CIO, which is a notorious
arm of US foreign policy and the CIA, has recently latched onto
a struggle by Tehran bus drivers for recognition of their union
and better conditions. This right-wing union bureaucracy, which
has presided for decades over the destruction of the jobs and
conditions of its own members and is oblivious to suffering of
workers around the world, suddenly decided to organise a joint
protest last Wednesday with unions in 17 other countries against
the repression of the Tehran bus drivers union.
These efforts could easily fall apart. Hostility inside Iran
to the theocratic regime does not immediately translate into support
for the predatory plans of US imperialism. Raymond Tanter, a former
National Security analyst during the administration of President
George Bush Snr, warned that US-backed groups "will be tarred
by association". "If the administration follows the
path of putting money into opposition groups in a public way,
that will only reinforce Iran’s supreme leader [Ayatollah
Ail Khamenei] and his selected president, Mr Ahmadinejad,"
he said.
Neo-conservative critics
The main criticism of the Bush administration’s policy
on Iran has come from the extreme right, particularly from the
so-called neo-conservatives, who championed the military invasion
of Iraq. These neo-fascistic layers ridicule Rice’s diplomatic
efforts and criticise the Pentagon plans for air strikes against
Iran’s nuclear facilities as ineffective and inadequate.
Rice’s appeal for Congressional funds was in part aimed
at placating these right-wing critics. Prominent Republican Senator
Sam Brownback had effectively foreshadowed the move at a speech
to the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute on February
2. He told his audience that Congress should increase funding
for "promoting democracy inside Iran" from $10 million
to $100 million as well as pushing for a suspension of World Bank
funding to Iran.
Brownback, however, was chastised for not going further. American
Enterprise Institute analyst Michael Ledeen declared: "What
I took from this speech is that Brownback wants regime change,
that he’s in favour of it, so why doesn’t he just come
out and say it. Why isn’t he endorsing the Santorum bill?"
The Iran Freedom and Support Act proposed last year by Senator
Rick Santorum would commit the Bush administration to a program
for "regime change" in Iran.
The Santorum legislation parallels the Iraq Liberation Act
passed by Congress in 1998, which made the ousting of the Saddam
Hussein regime part of US foreign policy and provided $97 million
to recognised Iraqi opposition groups, including military aid.
According to its supporters, the Iran Freedom and Support Act
currently has the backing of 42 senators and 333 congressmen.
Rice’s call for funds to support regime change in Iran
has been generally welcomed by the neo-conservatives. Ledeen commented
on Friday: "[A]fter years of dithering, we now have the first
encouraging signs that this administration is inclined to support
revolution in Iran. Secretary of State Rice, after her laudable
reform of the Foreign Service, has now asked Congress for an additional
$75 million to advance the cause of freedom in Iran. This is good
news indeed, especially since there were hints in her testimony
to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday that we
have already begun supporting Iranian trade unions, and even training
some of their leaders."
Of course, if the plan to stir up a phony revolution in Iran
fails, these circles will want more direct military action. In
an interview on the conservative Human Events website on
February 10, former Republican speaker Newt Gingrich declared
his support for a military invasion, should alternatives fail.
Asked if force were warranted, he said: "I believe this [Iran]
is such a high risk that it is utterly irrational for us not to
have a strategy that says in the next two to three years this
regime is going to be changed."
The latest funding request is designed to heighten tensions
in the lead up to a key meeting of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) in early March. In line with an IAEA resolution
passed on February 4, if Iran fails to agree to freeze its uranium
enrichment programs and cooperate fully with the IAEA, it will
be referred to the UN Security Council for possible punitive actions.
Like the deliberate leak last week of the Pentagon’s plans
for air strikes against Iran, Rice’s announcement is also
aimed at putting pressure on Washington’s allies in Europe
and Asia to support tough action against Tehran in the UN Security
Council. The obvious threat is that, with or without international
support, the Bush administration will do whatever it deems necessary
to pursue US interests in the Middle East. The comments of Gingrich
and others make clear that the inexorable logic of Washington’s
actions is another illegal war of aggression.
|