US Intelligence Expert: Regime-Change the Answer in Iran

16:52 Dec 13, '05 / 12 Kislev 5766
By Ezra HaLevi

Former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor and intelligence expert John Loftus says that Israel is unable to thwart Iran's nuclear projects through military action – but that there is an alternative. (...)

Loftus stressed, however, that there are other options that are likely to succeed and are already being put into effect. "The Bush administration is hoping that, ironically with Chirac's help, UN pressure will cause a regime-change in Syria. That the Mehlis investigation is going to come down hard and heavy. The US military is chomping at the bit to go across the border and take out the terror bases in Syria that Assad claims are not there. Once Syria is gone, Iran is isolated, with US troops on both their borders, in Afghanistan and in Iraq."

The intelligence expert, who has contacts in the Pentagon, says that the strategy is not for the US to actually invade Iran, but to affect a regime-change. "One of the intelligence agencies, which shall remain nameless, asked me to hold a conference of dissident groups in Iran. We are holding that conference and getting ready for regime-change." (...)

"The aircraft carriers are there to defend the picket-line of ships that will place a blockade on the Straits of Hormuz," Loftus said. "Ninety percent of Iran's economy is based on oil exports – so a blockade of as little as three weeks can cause their economy to collapse, the people to rise up and the mullahs to be overthrown. The problem with this is that Iran knows that this is the most likely scenario and they have been preparing for three years to thwart it. They have developed vessels whose job is to sink as many oil tankers as possible to block the Straits of Hormuz . Once two, three or four vessels are sunk, you have cut off 40% of the world's oil supply. So the US doesn't mind – we have a six-month stockpile of oil - but the EU is much more fragile and susceptible to oil shocks. So we might have to dump a large share of the US stockpile on the world market until the regime falls."

More:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=94732

Compared to this neocon nonsense (regime collapse in Iran after a three-week blockade??) even the Israeli plan of attack seems more realistic.

This is really a neocon recipe for the end of the world as we know it. I hate to say it, but have these lunatics thought about what the Islamists will do if someone pulls this stunt? We need to let other people direct their own destinies while we get on track rebuilding the American gulf states.

whose military is tattered, over extended and demoralized to scare the crap out of you.

This could be a very interesting "engagement" for all involved.

The Sunburn missile is exceptionally fast; so much so that our current fleet has no protection from it. (Recall the success of missile attacks against the British during the Falklands War. An "inexpensive" missile can render a multi-million/billion dollar ship useless.)

And it is a widely known secret that Israel has nuclear weapons. The number generally floated is around 200. They don't admit it, and we don't press them on it. (And it's a good thing, since we have laws preventing us from providing aid to countries that are in violation of the NPT.)

This administration has two manuals: the PNAC documents and the Left Behind novels.

... the NNPT. They aren't a signatory, so they don't allow inspections. Neither is India, and we've just made a huge nuclear reactor deal with them. Pakistan is the WalMart of nuclear materials, and we've been funneling money to them for years. And, the US has ignored the mandate of the NNPT itself, quite apart from funding non-signatories.

That treaty, as far as the United States' actions go, is pretty much meaningless.

The real question here is that under international law, a complete economic embargo is considered an act of war. Israel's bombing of nuclear reactor facilities (authorized under the NNPT) in Iran would be an act of aggression which would permit a response by Iran (which I doubt would be made in the way Israel would expect--it would likely come as an increased terrorism response from the occupied territories and southern Lebanon).

The real horror in this is if the Iranians shot at a military ship of ours in international waters as a means of breaking the embargo. This business about blocking the Straits of Hormuz is suspect, since Iran can load oil at ports on the Arabian Sea on its south coast. That means that military ships of ours would have to maintain that embargo in international waters. And shooting at one there would be the excuse needed for this administration to launch a full-scale attack on Iran.

All of this, to my mind, is to maintain Israel's nuclear hegemony in the Middle East and to obtain control of all oil in the region. I'd feel a whole lot differently about this if there were equal efforts to put all countries in the area on a non-nuclear weapons basis, and if the American public were to be educated about wars for oil; it's not about obtaining access to that oil--we already have that--it's about maximizing the profits of US multinationals that deal in oil.

BTW, the 200 number of Israeli weapons that's bandied about goes back to Mordecai Venunu's estimates from around 1986, when he first talked to the British press. If Israeli production has continued at the rate it did from then to now, they likely have more than 400, making them the world's third or fourth largest nuclear power--more than China, more than the UK and possibly more than France.

A crummy situation all around, made worse by this administration. Right now, there's a slimming majority in favor of Islamic rule in Iran. In twenty years, that would probably be gone and the Iranians themselves would reduce the power of the clerics. But, the Bushies, in their own inimitable fashion, can't wait for self-rule in Iran (which they do have) to determine the outcome. If we attack them--either by embargo or directly--it will cause a nationalistic response rallying power around the clerics and the Revolutionary Guards and set back that process of liberalization by decades.

Cheers.

...making much headway in that illegal and immoral war.

So, now the "brains" of the NeoCon Junta want to attack Iran, a country that has 2.5 times the square mileage, and 3 times the population?

Great. Bring it on.

... I think the collective wisdom in both White House and Pentagon (and surely wisdom, in that context, is in exceedingly short supply) is not to invade Iran, but rather to start on a process similar to that employed against Iraq by the US and UK after the Gulf war. The US, if Bush decides to go ahead, will likely start a sudden and prolonged bombing campaign. The world will be told that the US is going after "nuclear" sites, leaving the American public to fill in the blank... "weapons," and then use that prolonged bombing to destroy as much conventional military and communications infrastructure as possible, and will continue an economic embargo in hopes of an internal revolt, making an invasion easy later, perhaps when the next Republican president comes to office.

To see the likelihood of this strategy, one has to see the current occupation of Iraq as part of a process which began before the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990, and to make associations between the events leading up to Kuwait, the tremendous destruction of Iraqi infrastructure in 1991, the continued sanctions and bombing of Iraq for twelve years, and the eventual invasion in 2003.

For example, the UN mandate in 1990 was to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Apart from the need to knock out a relatively small amount of military communications and troop installations in Baghdad which had been identified by aerial reconnaissance and on-the-ground intelligence, there was no military need to bomb Baghdad at all--Baghdad is several hundred miles from Kuwait. So, why was it extensively bombed? First, to create chaos, second, to cover repeated attempts to assassinate Hussein from the air, and third, to so damage civilian infrastructure that such might work to initiate a spontaneous revolt against Hussein. That's why Bush the Elder exhorted the Shi'ites in the south and the Kurds to rise up against Hussein.

Everything the US has done with regard to Iraq for the last sixteen years has been directed at regime change--either internally or externally. It doesn't matter how that regime change might happen--as long as it creates a set of circumstances which the US can exploit to create a US client state.

That will be the model for Iran, too.

Cheers.

is they will let another 911 happen just like they new of the first one. Once they done that they use the same excuse to go into Iran. The problem is Iran won't be anything like Iraq.

fight your own damn wars Israel or don't start them to begin with.

If there is ANYTHING in the world that will get the muslim community to unite it is Israel leading what amounts to a declaration of war on an islamic republic. And since we would have to back up Israel or let her be wiped from the planet, it would indeed be the start of world war III.

What an insane idea. The long answer is no.

that spending $250 Billion or so might well develop alternative fuels here in the US.

De-fund the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Cause the collapse of the Iranian regime AND the Saudis.

Help out the environment.

Create jobs and a whole new industry for Americans (until the Chinese take over manufacturing).

Oh wait, we spent that much on the war in Iraq...

Iran survived much worse than this during the Gulf War of 1980.
A blockade is unlikely to bring it to its knees, never mind
the fact that a blockade is an act of war.

It is also sheer fantasy to believe that toppling Assad in Syria
will bring about a more favorable regime. The likely outcome
is either a hardline Baathist or a Sunni Islamist takeover.
Even Israel prefers a weakened Syria with Assad still in power.

Unfortunately regime change across the region is the neocon plan.
Now that they have effectively handed Iraq over to Iran,
further regime change this is the only way they can salvage
the situation.

I think they are planning a war for next election year and the democrats are probably foolish enough to fall for it again.

I hope the American people will be smarter.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Published: 12/13/2005

Cumhuriyet - During his recent visit to Ankara, CIA Director Porter Goss reportedly brought three dossiers on Iran to Ankara.

Goss is said to have asked for Turkey’s support for Washington’s policy against Iran’s nuclear activities, charging that Tehran had supported terrorism and taken part in activities against Turkey.

Goss also asked Ankara to be ready for a possible US air operation against Iran and Syria.

Goss, who came to Ankara just after FBI Director Robert Mueller’s visit, brought up Iran’s alleged attempts to develop nuclear weapons. It was said that Goss first told Ankara that Iran has nuclear weapons and this situation was creating a huge threat for both Turkey and other states in the region. Diplomatic sources say that Washington wants Turkey to coordinate with its Iran policies. The second dossier is about Iran’s stance on terrorism. The CIA argued that Iran was supporting terrorism, the PKK and al-Qaeda. The third had to do with Iran’s alleged stance against Ankara. Goss said that Tehran sees Turkey as an enemy and would try to “export its regime.”

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=89141

(my emphasis)

I guess Goss lost all credibility at that moment. I wonder if the Turks laughed in his face or waited till he went to the washroom.

Mind boggling drool at that. But it's also the first place I've seen it admitted that Israel is impotent to do anything about Iran's nuclear activities, militarily speaking.

I think the US would be the first one to say uncle under this scenario.

Sure, we have the SPR, but we import over 60% of what we use, and will be in a bidding war with all of our lenders (China, Japan, EU) for the non-gulf resources.

At 67% of imports, or 8.04 Mbbl/dy, the oil in the SPR will last 120 dys if topped off at 1,000 Mbbl. Insane.

embargo. Plus our international debt is growing, growing, growing. BushCo needs to back off. They have screwed up the Middle East and they do not have the ability to get things straightened out because GREED is the byword.

of Khuzestan, or at least encourage an uprising of the local population against Teheran. Most of Iran's oil is concentrated in that province:



In addition, the province is home to most of Iran's ethnic Arabs:

"There is clearly a sizable Arab population in Khuzestan; estimates range from 30 to 60% of the population."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_of_Khuzestan

There are already reports about an "Arab Intifada" in that region of Iran. The Khuzestan guerrillas probably are among the "dissident groups" that Loftus plans to invite to the "regime change" conference he is organizing.

As the map shows, almost all of Iran's oil is within a days M1 ride from the Iraq border, in mostly flat/open country.

No need to push beyond the 'Cheney' line at the foot of the Zagros mountains.

Shipping the oil we steal out of the gulf region will be the interesting part. I'm sure that crack Brain Trust we have in DC has figured it out, though.

it has worked so well in iraq :sarcasm:

We disposed the orginal ruler in Iran and backed the dictator the Shah, that lead to the hardline Shiites taking over. We supported Sadaam and overthrew the ruler in Iraq. That lead to Sadaam as brutal dicatator. After regime change in Iraq, we are faced with an increasing theocratic society in Iraq and the moderate reformers in Iran lost out to a hardliner. If we promote regime change in Iran, then we will probably be faced with not only a nastier war than against Sadaam but also attacks from the Shiites in S. Iraq who are sympathetic to Iran. Why not support the moderates? Why not try to lessen threats to Iran so the moderates can gain support? These neocons are insane!

As a citizen of the world, I'm a helluva a lot more worried by Washington than Teheran.

that a blockade will cause a regime change. That all will fall in place.

:banghead:

"Asked whether he really thinks the government will topple so easily, Loftus responded, "It is hard to do polling in Iran – you have to do it by telephone and you therefore only end up talking to the urban population. But we found that 83% of the Iranian urban population hates the mullahs and don't want to grow up under a dictatorship. Most of the country is young and wants music videos and TV and not the mullahs."

whatsoever. We are simply stealing their oil.

They made a mutual defense pact so that an attack on one country would be defended by the other.

So much for Loftus' vision of peaceful regime change in Iran.

:bounce: come on Santa

Idiots.

If I were a war hawk, I'd say Iran was probably where they should have started.