Hagans American Journal: Iran’s Dangerous Game

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by WJHII, Oct 9, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Hagan's American Journal:

    Iran’s Dangerous Game

    By

    William John Hagan


    Houston Home Journal
    USA
    Weekend Edition
    10/08/2005


    Iran’s new President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, first made a name for himself as mayor of Tehran. During his tenure he imposed the will of the nation’s religious leaders by rolling back progressive reforms that had been allowed under his predecessors. As mayor, Mahmoud shut down fast-food restaurants and, in a fit of pique, required male city employees to wear beards and long-sleeve shirts. His extreme political and Islamic conservatism served his political future well; he was recently ushered into Iran’s highest elected office with the backing of powerful supporters in the Iranian parliament or “Majlis”.


    This group consists of old parliamentarians who took part in the original 1979 Islamic revolution that overthrew the Shah of Iran. Prior to his appointment as Mayor of Tehran, Ahmadinejad was an obscure figure in the world of Iranian politics; despite claims by some former American hostages that he participated in the capture of the American Embassy. Ahmadinejad denies any involvement, but does admit to joining Iran’s Revolutionary Guard after the fall of the Shah. For reasons unknown, the CIA has apparently sided with Ahmadinejad. According to an anonymous source, “The tone of the report is that there is no evidence to date that the new Iranian president…held U.S. diplomats hostage. The officials cautioned that the analysis is not final.”


    An outside observer might be led to conclude that the leak of these alleged “findings” could be a move by the Bush administration to keep the diplomatic door open to Iran at a time when their current nuclear program is threatening to further destabilize the Middle East. Photographic evidence and eye witness accounts, after all, call into question the CIA’s conclusions.



    If elements in the United States Government did in fact give Ahmadinejad a pass on his hostage-taking past, then it appears to have been a wasted olive branch. Iran is currently two to three years away from developing a nuclear bomb and the prevention of this threat to global stability has become a top priority for the United States, Britain, and Israel. Initially, the Ahmadinejad government claimed that their nuclear program was to be used only as a source for domestic energy; hardly a convincing assertion by a nation sitting on top of one of the world’s largest oil reserves. In recent weeks, however, it has become convincingly clear that Ahmadinejad is just not credible as he placed the military firmly in control of his nation's “civilian” nuclear program. This action has triggered a game of nuclear brinksmenship between Iran and the Western Alliance (the United States, Britain, and Israel).


    The United States and the European Union have prepared the grounds for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to send Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions for violating international nuclear obligations. Rather then accept their no-win position, Iran has opted to play a dangerous game of nuclear “chicken”. Ali Larijani, secretary-general of Supreme National Security Council, said “If pressured by America, Iran will use its full might to endanger America's interests”. President Ahmadinejad has stated this use would not involve curtailing oil sales to the west, as had been previously reported in the Khaleej Times of Dubai.


    Iran’s threats can, therefore, be inferred to be military in nature. One would assume that they are planning to increase their documented support for the Iraqi insurgency and Al Qaeda, which has been directly supported by Iranian General Qassem Suleimani’s “Qods Force”. According to the Weekly Standard, Qods Force, “has been linked to nearly every instance of Iranian-backed terrorism over the course of the last decade, including the 1994 bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, that killed 85 and injured 230.” According to the Washington Post, Qods Force’s goal is to "form relationships with Islamic militant and radical groups and offer financial support either to the groups at large or to Islamic figures … who are sympathetic to the principles and foreign policy goals of the Iranian government."


    Both the United States and Israel are taking this threat very seriously, and if Iran does not pull back from the brink by ending its nuclear program it will soon feel the wrath of the Alliance. Last week, Israeli lawmakers made it clear that if the United States does not stop Iran’s nuclear program then Israel will be left with no alternative but to take military action.


    If Iran truly desires a future as a peaceful sovereign nation, it is left with no choice but to back away from its nuclear ambitions. The development of an “Iranian Bomb” would be an insurmountable impediment to world peace, and the Western Alliance would be left with no other choice than to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Iran has been warned. If they fail to heed this geopolitical courtesy, they will soon feel a painful sting.


    William John Hagan can be visited on the web at: http://williamjohnhagan.blogspot.com



    Letters to the editor of The Houston Home Journal may be e-mailed to: rgambill@evansnewspapers.com (Please Include Your Name and Location)




    William John Hagan can be contacted directly by e-mail at:William_Hagan@excite.com
     
  2. and ?
    Pretty nice first post there, must have taken aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaages to cut and paste
     
  3. So the CIA is on the side of the 'terrorists'? :roll:

    Why is it that the Bushistas claim the CIA suffers from political bias and a lack of patriotism every time it produces intelligence that doesn't fit with neo-conservative preconceptions and proclivities? Personally, I'd sooner trust a report that has come from a reasonable investigation and analysis by experts than base a foreign policy around eye-witness statements from an event that occurred 25 years ago. The coppers here can tell you how reliable many eye-witness accountes can be just 25 minutes after an event.

    This is yet another misrepresentation of the IC's role. ALL intelligence is estimative and is subject to change in the light of new information. Evidently the 'tone of the report' suggests that they have found nothing so far to corroborate the rumours, but this article has been written (as is often the case) to act as a rhetorical pre-emptive strike in the event that no other information shows up. The accusation of CIA's lack of patriotism is out there and no doubt will be seized on at every opportunity every time the DI tries to tell their political masters that the course their on is not grounded in the realities of today's world.

    That tw@t Porter Goss is destroying morale over at the Agency. He's like their own TCH and his people are treating him in the same manner. Yes the USIC is in need of reform, but trying to politicisie intelligence so the product you get is persistentky congruent with the worldview of the politicl leadership is a recipe for disaster.

    To the new chap. If you lack the ability to process information, articulate your own thoughts and rely on reactionary talking points and innuendo, you'd be better off at Military.com.
     
  4. WJH ,

    I would rather you produced a simple precis of your post with a link to your blog, rather than reproduce it in full here. I appreciate it is your own work, and there isn't a copyright issue, but it's still an awful lot of reading. It would be good to see a precis, and some salient comments from yourself, opening a debate on the matter.

    Regards

    PTP