Iran Agenda: How Tehran Joined the Axis of Evil Club

For an accurate insight into US-Iran Relations, beyond what is covered by mainstream media, read Reese Erlich's latest book, Iran Agenda: the Real Story of U.S. Policy and The Middle East Crisis. In his recently published book, Erlich answers some vital questions such as why Iran is developing a nuclear program, why it supports groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, and why US attempts such as financing democracy in Iran or supporting enemies of the government are futile.

I was a chief research on this book, and find it to be a very useful and thoughtful tool for anyone who wants to sift through continuous streams of misinformation about Iran and wants to understand the dynamics behind US-Iran Relations.

The book discusses vital issues related to Iran today such as the history of Iran's nuclear contracts with the US in the 1960s, supported by key information about the country's history. It also delves into the characteristics of Iran's ruling system, its relationship with Hamas and Hizbollah, and the composition and diversity of Iranian dissidents.

The real dispute between the United States and Iran has little to do with Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons. The Bush administration declared Iran to be part of the "axis of evil" and has been pursuing a policy of "regime change," a euphemism for the U.S. overthrow of an internationally recognized government. The U.S. has adopted different tactical positions, sometimes calling for tightening sanctions, other times threatening military strikes. But the long-term goal remains overthrowing the Iranian government and installing a friendly regime. (Chapter Two)

Reese sheds light on US activity in support of Iranian armed opposition--a subject not covered by other media sources. During his September 2006 trip to Iran, he traveled to Northern Iraq to investigate the source of support for Iran's Kurdish opposition, a group that has become increasingly violent recently, gaining notoriety among Iranians. He was among the first journalists to discover these groups are funded and supported by the US Administration. In an article he authored for Mother Jones Monthly, as well as in an interview with me, he talks about his conversations with leaders of Iranian opposition groups:

Every opponent of the Iranian government that I spoke to criticized the disastrous impact of U.S. policies. When the United States periodically threatens military attacks, funds dissidents and sponsors terrorism, the administration helps fuel anti-American nationalism, said Ganji. "Passing this ($85 million) budget has made our work much more difficult and the work of the democratic forces much more cumbersome in Iran," Ganji told me.

...which summarizes why Iranians are not interested in US attempts at financing 'democracy' in Iran.

Perhaps one of the key contributions of this book is sharing lessons learned from the Iraq experience and ensuring we use them when dealing with Iran. Erlich who is the co-author of Target Iraq completed his new book just as the US-Iran rhetoric against each other has escalated: US seems to be setting the stage to bomb Iran using various media sources to influence first the US public and then the rest of the world, starting by labeling a sector of Iran's official army, the Revolutionary Guard, a terrorist organization.

Noteworthy characteristics of Erlich's book are that they is a culmination of information gathered from studying the cultures, political systems and historical events in the region, gained from extensive travels and interviews throughout the years, paired with his lifelong presence in the American media. He has visited Iran many times, including 2005 when he joined Sean Penn and Norman Solomon to meet with and interview many people including politicians and artists.

Iran Agenda also considers different aspects of the political and cultural spectrum of the Iranian Diaspora and argues how searching for an Iranian version of Ahmad Chalabi is a myth. Erlich not only interviewed Shirin Ebadi, Iran's 2003 Noble Peace Laureate and Akbar Ganji, one of Iran's prominent dissidents, but also the son of Iran's last king, Reza Pahlavi. In regards to US foreign policy towards Iran, the book concludes:

Successive Democratic and Republican administrations have made a mess of U.S.-Iran relations since 1979. The United States has tried economic embargoes, UN resolutions, propaganda broadcasts, covert terrorist attacks, imprisoning Iranians living in Iraq, and strident military threats. None have resulted in significant changes inside Iran. A number of leading experts suggest an alternative. The people of Iran must be left alone to change the government as they see fit. Meanwhile, the United States must negotiate with Iran as part of lowering tensions throughout the Middle East. (Last Chapter: Lessons of Iraq)

In hopes that such books are read, understood, and taken to heart to prevent further war.

Comments

[outnow]

In diplomacy we talk of carrots and sticks. I see all sticks and no carrots. We have already overthrown their government back in 1953. Then. we supported the regime of Saddam Hussein giving him nerve gas. But we also supported the Iranian side of the conflict. Then we invaded Iraq and then we invaded Iraq again and occupied Iraq.

Then we imposed sanctions on Iran for playing with nuclear materials. Iranians claim a right to nuclear power under international law. They signed the agreement and have permitted inspections.

Funding Hammas and Hezbolla is a mistake but hasn't Saudi Arabia funded militants in Iraq and elsewhere.

Our foreign policy is so contradictory that it has become totally irrational. Many countries in the world are more worried about the actions of the United States than Iran's actions. The exceptions are Israel and Saudi Arabia who don't want the Shia influence from Iran to grow. The more pressure we put on Iran, the more debate and dissent is not permitted, and the more they feel threatened and would want a nuclear weapon.

The precondition to talks is unacceptable to Iran, i.e., giving up enrichment. And so the brinkmanship continues as Bush and the neocons seek to "reshape" the Middle East instead of their own provocative policies.

The Iranians have seen presidents come and go but his one is dangerously close to attacking Iran. The issues could be resolved diplomatically but a fair deal is not what the US wants.

[srmorris]

For me, the question is very simple. Not, "When have the Iranian people supported the United States?" but rather "When have the United States supported the people of Iran." First we blindly supporting one dictator after another in that country (and the rest of the region) and when that regime was eventually, and inevitably, thrown out we supported another dictator, Saddam Hussein, in his attempt to conquer Iran. Then after we destroy Hussein's regime we once again prepare for war with Iran. If Iran is in fact an evil nation, then what does that say about us?

[RibEye]

Long live the spirit of Howard Baskerville a true American hero, known in Iran as American Lafayete. Iranians still hold his memory in their hearts.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Our current President has got to be one of the biggest wussies on the planet. He doesn't like Ahmadinejad but also doesn't go out of his way to meet him and talk about their differences face to face. In fact, you never see him doing any of the kind of heavy lifting in the foreign arena that would benefit this country the most. The dude spends more time farting around down in Texas than he does talking to all foreign leaders put together.

You know what the problem is with leaving these sorts of things mainly in the hands of the Secretary of State? SOS is far better at working at her own level than with the No. 1 person, and appropriately so. But we still have those duties structured the same way in the jet age that they were back in the sailing vessel age, and it's hard to get more illogical than that. Foreign affairs take on a level of importance in the modern world that they've never had before, and we have yet to elect a President who is willing to fully accomodate this reality.

What we really need is a workaholic for a President, a veritable perpetual motion machine, and hacking out underbrush in his spare time is not getting the real work done.

[RumiSouth]

One has to wonder: In Cuba and Iran, we have two examples of a US embargo that not only seems ineffectual, but apparently preserves the very regime we oppose. Since generational embargoes never seem to work, would dropping such an embargo actually *undermine* an unfriendly government? Could McDonald's and Coke do what all those millions of dollars in subsidies to Iranian opposition groups have failed to do?

http://www.osborneink.com

[Ben Dixon]

The people of Iran must be left alone to change the government as they see fit.

And what if they don't see fit to change thier terror supporting theocratic government?