| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| US allocates $75,000,000 for anti-regime campaign inside Iran |
| 2006-02-16 |
| The Bush administration made an emergency request to Congress yesterday for a seven-fold increase in funding to mount the biggest ever propaganda campaign against the Tehran government, in a further sign of the worsening crisis between Iran and the west. Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said the $75m (£43m) in extra funds, on top of $10m already allocated for later this year, would be used to broadcast US radio and television programmes into Iran, help pay for Iranians to study in America and support pro-democracy groups inside the country. Although US officials acknowledge the limitations of such a campaign, the state department is determined to press ahead with measures that include extending the government-run Voice of America's Farsi service from a few hours a day to round-the-clock coverage. The sudden budget request, which follows an outlay of only $4m over the last two years, is to be accompanied by a diplomatic drive by Ms Rice to discuss Tehran's suspect nuclear weapons programme. She is to begin with a visit to Gulf states. Ms Rice told the Senate foreign affairs committee that Iranian leaders "have now crossed a point where they are in open defiance of the international community". She added: "The United States will actively confront the aggressive policies of the Iranian regime. At the same time, we will work to support the aspirations of the Iranian people for freedom and democracy in their country." The US is to increase funds to Iranian non-governmental bodies that promote democracy, human rights and trade unionism. It began funding such bodies last year for the first time since Washington broke off ties with Iran in 1980. A US official said all existing citizens' groups and non-governmental organisations in Iran had been heavily infiltrated by the Tehran government, so the US would seek to help build new dissident networks. US officials depicted the new pro-democracy spending as just one side of a multi-faceted diplomatic offensive aimed at increasing pressure on Tehran. They said Ms Rice would make Iran a focal point of her talks with Middle East leaders in her tour next week, put it centre-stage at the upcoming G8 meeting in Moscow, and call a meeting of political directors from the Nato alliance in late March or April solely to talk about policy towards Iran. US propaganda efforts in the Middle East since September 11 have been relatively unsuccessful. Analysts say its Arabic news station al-Hurra (the Free One) is widely regarded with suspicion in the Middle East and has poor listening figures. The move follows talks in Washington last week with British diplomats specialising in Iran. The Foreign Office yesterday welcomed the US move, noting it meant the continued pursuit of diplomatic means rather than hints of military action. The Foreign Office funds the BBC World Service, whose Persian service has built a following in Iran. This month Iran began blocking the Persian service website. A senior US official claimed there was now "a broad degree of concern" in the Middle East and around the world about the recent actions taken by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and that the proposed US offensive had been greeted "very enthusiastically". The stand-off between Iran and the west worsened on Tuesday when an Iranian official said Tehran had resumed small-scale uranium enrichment, a necessary step towards achieving a nuclear weapons capability. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #34 $100 to Fred says the black turbans will explode a nuke w/in a year. --Timeline - new head of Israeli military intell says it will take Iran 3 years to get a bomb. Take that as you will.-- |
| Posted by: Sandy P 2006-02-16 23:39 |
| #33 jes throwing politics into it....why let the Iranians dictate the timeline? Start the internal pressure (the MM's support comes from the ignorant uneducated, like in most muslim countries) and help build an internal oppo.Show the UN and Russia/China as ineffectual or determined to stop action, as in Iraq, and put the marker down. If not now? When? If not us? Who? History will not judge lightly when an American or Israeli city is lit up. Dems will be out of power forever |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-02-16 22:30 |
| #32 I'm thinking next month... but who knows. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-02-16 21:46 |
| #31 I can't see us disrupting the world oil market in winter-preparation prime time. Late March or April. Otherwise we may not be able to avoid serious trouble for next winter if the Iranians get in a few lucky shots at Persian Gulf oil facilities. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-02-16 21:44 |
| #30 .com - no offense taken - I agree and do not think we'll make it to Nov. Politically: think about Amadmanijad raving week in, week out. We do the UN dance, while the alarm bells continue. Say late March, mid April, or even as late as August, W says to Congress: " Times up....we have to do something...will you support us in protecting America and Israel"? The Donks crap all over themselves taking polls and figuring out they have to go along. I see primary dogfights among Donks if it happens in Spring and waffling and backstepping if in general elections. The Iranian regime has been asking for it, time to return serve |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-02-16 21:38 |
| #29 "...At the same time, we will work to support the aspirations of the Iranian people for freedom and democracy in their country." We're doomed now! |
| Posted by: smn 2006-02-16 21:13 |
| #28 Com Look for December "Big Show" right after elections. The funny money is psych ops spade work to condition the battlefield. Pls, Santa, pls |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-02-16 21:08 |
| #27 LOL! Never mind. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-02-16 20:26 |
| #26 »:-) there otta be a law!! |
| Posted by: RD 2006-02-16 17:46 |
| #25 Mackrel in the moonlight, itn shinny and stinky after 3 posts. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-02-16 17:16 |
| #24 Speaking for the American people, it is the counsel of the State Department that the aid to the Iranian opposition be balanced by the distribution of an equal sum to the Hill and Knowlton public relations firm - which has done so well in informing the public about the true face of the Islamic Republic of Libya - so that they can tell the truth about the misunderstood democratic government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, so that we can follow the current regime's pathway to friendly relations with the people of the United States of America. Understanding the essential benevolence of the current government of Iran, is to recognize that they will advance American peace and security, as long as we demonstrate and implement a policy of non-beligerence, and respect their desire to develop weapons of mass destruction, for peaceful purposes. |
| Posted by: State Department 2006-02-16 15:56 |
| #23 I beg to disagree. If the Marines had been allowed to do their job, and had swept the walls with LMG fire when the "students" started invading, it would have worked. We would have gotten pour people out, eventually, and much sooner than in the actual events. You didn't see any "students" swarming over the walls of the Soviet Embassy, did you? Why not? Because everybody knew the Russkies would have no compunctions about killing every single one of them, and be fully justified in international law. |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-02-16 13:28 |
| #22 Not dispositive, as the attorneys say, but this indicates that the soil belongs to the host country: This ability of reciprocity to modify the behavior of nation-states as well as individuals is remarkable, and can encompass various circumstances -- such as the enforcement of foreign judgments, asset protection, diplomat protection, private suits in US courts by foreigners, etc. Take, for example, the case of Boos v. Barry (1998), which dealt with the appropriateness of protest in front of a government building but not in front of a foreign embassy on US soil. This extension of privilege to a foreign embassy carries with it an expectation (whether realized or not) that American embassies on foreign soil will be reciprocally protected from protest. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-16 13:20 |
| #21 Had Dhimmi Carter's response to the seizure of US territory ( Our Embassy is US Soil) in November 1979 been appropriately robust, this post would not be necessary. Not so. However flaccid Carter was in response to the embassy takeover, and flaccid only begins to describe his inaction, Khomeini (say; "Thank you, France"), was already in place and Iran's path to its current position as nuclear aspirant and terror sponsor par excellent was well on its way. Carter's limp response merely emboldened what was already a defiant and perfidious regime. Sidebar: I thought a country's foreign embassy is situated on international soil, not a given nation's (extranational) territory. Experts here, please clarify. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-02-16 12:48 |
| #20 :) |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2006-02-16 12:47 |
| #19 Yeah, but I don't see what any of this has to do with VP Cheney shooting that guy on the quail hunt. I wish you people would stick to the important news. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2006-02-16 12:46 |
| #18 This money would be better spent doing the same thing in Venezuela and strengthening its neighbors defensive forces. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-16 12:27 |
| #17 This is a waste of money. A year or two ago it might have worked. This kind of work takes time, especially for the inexperienced. But there is not enough time for all that learning now. We should be getting down to months, not years in dealing with Iran. If Bush thinks he can launch a pre-emptive attack in the last two years of his term, he is nuts. Gotta go with NS on this one, not to bash Bush (contrary to what some of you might think), but simply out of realism. I do not claim to have any "timeline" either, but any campaign in Iran needs to be prosecuted post haste so that it has some chance of being culminated within the span of this administration's tenure. I'll disagree only in saying that we might as well spend a chunk of change softening up Iran with some strong propaganda, but a PR campaign alone falls far short right now. It would be a deep mistake to initiate an attack on Iran in the waning days of 2007. This would permit a repeat of the early Iraq debacle where support was withdrawn after enticing offers were made. Any attack on Iran needs to have a good follow-through. Depending upon an incoming administration to uphold commitments made by a predecessor is an unreliable proposition at best. If we hope to have the proper impact needed to promote regime change (as this $75M is intended) then whatever timeline we select needs to begin in short order. Regardless of whether the mullahs are one year or three away from obtaining nuclear weapons, wrecking their arms-building infrastructure needs to begin now. This would serve a twofold purpose. Of greatest importance is, at least, temporarily delaying any significant Iranian progress towards nuclear armament. Nearly equal in importance is instigating some sort of meaningful regime change. This more lengthy process requires a consistent foreign policy upon our part, one free of abrupt shifts in allegiance or execution. Only then can we have any hope of securing even a part of the Iranian people's loyalty. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-02-16 12:25 |
| #16 The US is knee deep in Persians. It is mind-boggling to me that they didn't have a huge recruitment on Sept 12 and have some of these new recruits return to Iran under cover of Islamic harrassment. We'd be in good shape now and they'd be actively taking their country back. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-02-16 11:50 |
| #15 .com I trust bush too, it's the donks and rinos I don't trust. End to term - Clinton managed to knock Slobo for a loop at the end of his term, when he was very weakened. If the circumstances are right, Bush can act on Iran at any point in the cycle. Bullshit. He didn't knock anybody for a loop, he conducted a terror bombing campaign from 15,000 feet to bail out the Euroweenies who could not clean up the mess in their own back yard because his generals told him it could be done without casualties and his pollsters told him it would generate the least public opposition. It was great for the media because they could show him as the great leader as well as the great stud. It was gutless and will cost us in the long run as does every adventure in the Balkans. Better to leave them to themselves. For Bush the donks, rinos and MSM will assure that the circumstances are never right. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-16 11:49 |
| #14 It seems that it would be a good thing to at least start this campaign. While I agree it would have been better to start this program a long time ago, hindsight being what it is, at least we would be giving it a chance. I'd love to see the young people of Iran revolt as did many young americans did here in the 60's. lol. |
| Posted by: Jan 2006-02-16 11:14 |
| #13 "I honestly have given upon a Peepul's Revolution, liberalhawk, for two reasons. First of all, if it were going to happen, it would've done already." I cant speak to details about whats going on in Iran, beyond some of the things you see here. But when change of this kind happens, it happens fast, and seems to come from nowhere. "Second, and causative to the first I believe, the Arab world saw what happended to the Iraqi Shiite revolt against Saddam Hussein following Gulf War I." They can only do it if they dont rely on us for military support. Doesnt mean they cant do it. Once again, as nasty as the mullahs are,they dont have the 100% control Saddam did. "They legitimately don't trust us to come through on promised support once they've put their necks on the line. Yes, it's George W. Bush in the White House right now, but he isn't the one handing out the AK-47s (bought second hand in Peshawer? *wink*)" While I dont care for the CIA position in the internecine feuds in DC, Im not of the CIA are traitors school. If they get orders, theyll carry them out - in any case, as I said, the Iranians need to do this for the most part themselves. " -- look at who was just given control of managing America's ports." First its only some ports, not all. Second its a company that AFAIK has done a good job managing ports. Third its owned by what, yes, is an ally. We may not like their approach to Israel, or to Salafism in general, but if the UAE is actively helping AQ theres plenty Bush could do about it. Helping AQ to attack the US would be suicidal for UAE. And unlike IRan, I havent noticed the sheiks in UAE acting as anything but rational tyrants. And its up to DHS to make sure our ports are secured - I sure hope we dont leave a lot on trust to the port managers. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-02-16 10:36 |
| #12 I honestly have given upon a Peepul's Revolution, liberalhawk, for two reasons. First of all, if it were going to happen, it would've done already. Second, and causative to the first I believe, the Arab world saw what happended to the Iraqi Shiite revolt against Saddam Hussein following Gulf War I. They legitimately don't trust us to come through on promised support once they've put their necks on the line. Yes, it's George W. Bush in the White House right now, but he isn't the one handing out the AK-47s (bought second hand in Peshawer? *wink*) -- look at who was just given control of managing America's ports. There might be an uprising after decapitation strikes, but short of that, I don't see anything more than regional disturbances. (Of course it could be said that I'm arguing through my hat, and I wouldn't dare contradict the speaker.) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-02-16 09:43 |
| #11 y'all seem to assume this is prep for a military option. I remain unconvinced that A. a military option could succeed or B. That a people power revolution cant succeed. I know this takes time, and agree it should have started earlier - all i can say is that the guys running the admin for policy werent as keen on this sort of thing as Rice (and yes, thats a knock at BOTH Powell AND Cheney) It couldnt really happen till Rice had taken firm control. Timeline - new head of Israeli military intell says it will take Iran 3 years to get a bomb. Take that as you will. End to term - Clinton managed to knock Slobo for a loop at the end of his term, when he was very weakened. If the circumstances are right, Bush can act on Iran at any point in the cycle. The Dems are not too keen on the mullahs in Iran. The way the Iranians mouth off on Israel is not too pleasing to some folks who are key Dem donors. The Kucinich wing may oppose, the Deaniacs may quiety grumble, but the mainstream of the party will support. It doesnt hurt that Britain AND France AND Germany are along. We're working with our allies now. Again, credit to Dr. Rice. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-02-16 09:21 |
| #10 “pro-democracy groups…non-governmental bodies…citizens' groups and non-governmental organizations” For fear of their safety The State Department doesn’t intend to publicize the recipients of this financial support. Just trust that the dough is going to political dissidents, exiles groups, support networks, citizen unions, activists, reformers, and student fellowships. Whatever nice sounding descriptions you hear, just remember that the MEK = Terrorist Cult. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-02-16 09:13 |
| #9 Even if military action against Iran is inevitable, an anti-regime campaign will make any military venture that much better from a PR perspective, particularly if airstrikes will kill ~10K - we have to have our own channels ready to let the Iranian people know the real story, not the one that Hitler Jr. and Co tell them. In any event, we owe it to the Iranian dissidents to let them know that they are not alone in their fight against the mad mullahs and is a far more preferrable stance than the attempts to reach a Soviet-style detente with false (Rafsanjani) or impotent (Khatami) moderates within the regime. |
| Posted by: Dan Darling 2006-02-16 08:43 |
| #8 Had Dhimmi Carter's response to the seizure of US territory ( Our Embassy is US Soil) in November 1979 been appropriately robust, this post would not be necessary. |
| Posted by: doc 2006-02-16 08:09 |
| #7 10 year ago it might've done some good. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-02-16 07:52 |
| #6 Hmmm. Three observations... One, we do want as many Persians to understand what and why before it happens as possible. We don't know, but the support for our actions might be greater than we expect - and I'm adding in phil_b's recent comments about the breakdown of Iran into some component parts to a personal friend's first-hand assessment that the guys out in the stix are anything but Mullah-backers. So maybe, just maybe, there's a real payoff possible here. Two, it is my recollection that Ledeen has at least as many misses as hits - so I don't find his utterances to be of substantial import. An opinion, true, but I get to have one, too. Three, there has been some recent articles around which indicate that the Dhimmidonks have read a few tea leaves and realize that Iran is growing in the consciousness of Americans as a bona-fide threat, even going so far as trying to pretend that they've been tough on the issue and Bush is behind the curve, lol. So the logjam at the Senate regards giving Bush specific authority to deal with Iranian nukes, in the same sort of no-BS language that the House did, seems to be breaking up. Maybe they'll try to improve their images regards security issues and do the right thing for the wrong reasons, now. The election cycle is a specious reason not to protect the interests of the US, especially regards security. MM's with nukes certainly qualifies as an overriding example. I don't give a shit if it happens on Bush's last day in office. And, y'know what? I don't think he would either. I've been on record here for a verrrrry long time that Bush will not fail us regards Iran. I'm still there, whether this $75M is a waste or not, he has to give it a shot - cuz the moment is coming, regardless. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-16 07:50 |
| #5 I sure don't have the timeline any more than you, .com, but after the fall elections, Bush's power drops to E immediately. In the last two years he will have a hard time doing anything. Running up to the election in November he can put the donks and rinos between a rock and a hard place wrt Iran. After that, everybody goes off the reservation and trying to get Congress to do anything is like herding cats. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-16 07:37 |
| #4 Ah, you have The Timeline. Plz share. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-16 07:32 |
| #3 This is a waste of money. A year or two ago it might have worked. This kind of work takes time, especially for the inexperienced. But there is not enough time for all that learning now. We should be getting down to months, not years in dealing with Iran. If Bush thinks he can launch a pre-emptive attack in the last two years of his term, he is nuts. Short of a substantial provocation that unites the country, the donks and rinos will go nuts and there will be enough of them to make things difficult. He should have listened to Ledeen; Faster, Please. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-16 07:31 |
| #2 It's all about the timeline. Folks here called for this about a year ago, but we don't have the intel to know if the Big Show will be in March - or December. Of course, we're not too confident that Bush does, either, given the record of the 3-letter agencies... Mebbe it will be March, 2007... sure feels like sooner, though. Regardless, this is welcome and, to be frank (ya mind, Frank? Lol), represents the hoped-for push and the Big Chance for the Persians to take a hand in the inevitable and retake thier country. I hope enough are smart enough to take it, cuz the smackdown is coming. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-16 07:22 |
| #1 They better buy more than kabobs! |
| Posted by: Glase Slagum4530 2006-02-16 07:13 |