Tuesday, May 20, 2003

Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, introduced the bill, which calls on the United States to step up support for pro-democracy campaigners in Iran and increase U.S.-funded broadcasts to that country.
At a Capitol Hill news conference, Senator Brownback said Iranian President Mohammad Khatemi, who has been in office since 1997, has failed to make good on promises of reform. "Iran is an ideological dictatorship, presided over by an unelected supreme leader, with limitless veto power and unelected expediency council and council of guardians capable of eviscerating any reforms," he said.VOA
This is a good step that could be taken by United States in order to change the regime in Iran and helps to establish a democratic and secular government. No military action under any circumstances can help Iranians to get rid of cleric rulers. It would be my hope that the bill would be approved. Real Iranian reformists need to be supported by west, especially by Americans. Any support of reform movement in Iran, could speed up achieving freedom and democracy.

Saturday, May 17, 2003

"Nuclear weapons may protect the mullahs against an invasion, but they will not protect the Islamic Republic against their own people, which is the greatest threat to their tyrannical rule. Paradoxically, the more we believe that Iran is on the verge of a nuclear breakthrough, the more we should be inclined to act in accordance with U.S. President George Bush's oft-repeated -- most recently last week in South Carolina -- message that the United States supports the Iranian people's desire to be free.
To be sure, many of the finest Iran-watchers, including the great Bernard Lewis, believe that any future Iranian government, even a democratic one, is likely to continue the nuclear program. That may be true, although we should remember that once South Africa became a democracy it abandoned nuclear weapons. But even if it is true, a democratic Iran will not be inclined to commit hara-kiri by launching a nuclear first strike against Israel, nor will it likely brandish its bombs against the United States.
The Iranian people have shown themselves to be the most pro-American population in the Muslim world, but the Iranian regime is arguably the most anti-American on Earth. Let's support the people, and help them bag the regime.
Faster, please. Much faster." National Post
Without a doubt, I believe that attacking Iran under any motivation could be the worst choice to take. It is obvious that more than 80 percent of Iranian are against the regime and wish to get rid of tyrannical rulers as soon as possible. But we should focus on the rest of population who are fed by cleric regime and their existence are depend on the stability of the existing system. They won’t give up effortlessly and any possible attack on Iran could multiply the number of them. Also invasion of Iran won’t be as easy as Iraq. Saddam was totally defenseless. There was not any air force in Iraq and Saddam has already lost most of his heavy weapons in the first Golf war. But condition in Iran is very different. Nearly more than half of Iran’s budget has been spending to develop weapons and military facilities for years. Obtaining the nuclear weapon is the most controversial one, however most of the military projects like chemical weapons are highly top secret.

Tuesday, May 06, 2003

Heed the Iran-Iraq parallels
"When the two dictatorships collapsed, exiles returned and extremists emerged from the mosques. The former had no standing with newly liberated publics; the latter quickly imposed their own standing. In both countries, the end of the regime meant decapitation of ministries, state agencies, the armed forces, security services and the police. Discredited leaders went to prison or fled, and their troops were afraid of asserting themselves in the absence of any authority assured of long-term control. Arms were distributed in all cities." More...