[Reader-list] Book Review: Target Iran: The Truth about the White House's Plans for Regime Change

[Yogi Sikand]

Target Iran: The Truth about the White House's Plans for Regime Change
by Scott Ritter.  Pub: Nation Books, New York, 2006.  Pp: 316. Hbk:
US$25.95.
http://www.muslimedia.com/usiranbk.htm

Target Iran is the latest book by Scott Ritter, one of the UN's top
weapons inspectors in Iraq between 1991 and 1998. He is the author of
many books, including Iraq Confidential (2005), in which he revealed
how the CIA deliberately sabotaged the activities of the UN Special
Commission on Iraq. An integral, independent inspector, Ritter
insisted over and over again, in 2002 and early 2004, that there were
no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The US, however, was only
using allegations of weapons of mass destruction as a pretext to
pursue its real aim: regime change. Seeing history repeat itself
before his very eyes, Ritter has written Target Iran with a sense of
urgency, hoping that his call from the wilderness will not go unheeded
again.
Ritter's book is based on IAEA reports, media accounts, and his
extensive contacts among academics, weapons inspectors, nuclear
experts, intelligence officials, and diplomatic sources. Target Iran
reveals that the present Iranian crisis was manufactured in Israel, an
effort spearheaded by Major-General Amos Gilad, senior advisor to
Israel's Minister of Defence. Rejecting the disciplined approach that
Israeli military intelligence had embraced since 1973, Gilad moved
from fact-based analysis to faith-based konseptsia. He took on the
task of elevating Iran to the state of number one threat facing
Israel, overseeing the 1996 National Threat Assessment which called
for regime change in Iran. Amos Gilad then engaged the services of the
pro-Israeli lobby, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), in order to bring the battle to the US Congress.
History, of course, was repeating itself. Amos Gilad, along with
Israeli intelligence, had plenty of experience manipulating American
political opinion against Syria and Iraq. He had previously placed
Iraq as the number one threat facing the state of Israel, unleashing
the propaganda campaign which eventually led to the overthrown of
Saddam Hussein. In February 2003, Amos Gilad made one of his most
outlandish allegations, claiming that Saddam "kept astounding
quantities of chemical weapons aimed at half the world. He apparently
also has biological weapons and is engaged in building nuclear
weapons." As Ritter explains, the statement was stunning since it was
not backed by any serious assessment from within the Israeli military
system.
Despite the fact that the Israeli-supplied information against Iraq
had been manufactured, it was presented as fact by the fear-mongering
Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney claimed that "Saddam
has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapon," that "Saddam will
acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon," and that "he is using his
procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to
enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon". Condoleeza Rice claimed
that Saddam had the infrastructure and nuclear scientists to make a
nuclear weapon and that he was only six months away from making a
crude nuclear device. Dismissing United Nations Special Commission
(UNSCOM) inspectors who found no evidence whatsoever of a nuclear
programme in Iraq, Rice claimed that "there will always be some
uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we
don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Even though
Mohammed El-Baradei, the Director General of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), refuted every single allegation made by the US
regarding an Iraqi reconstituted nuclear program, his calls for calm
fell on deaf ears. The decision to destroy Iraq had long been made in
both Israel and the US. The UN weapons-inspection process had long
been hijacked by the US, using it as a justification for military
action against Iraq. Since lies lead to more lies, the reasons for
invading and occupying Iraq have continued to morph: 9/11, the war
against terror, weapons of mass destruction, freedom and democracy…
Although Ritter clearly understands the Israeli agenda against Iraq
and Iran, he should also have stressed the Syrian-Lebanese situation.
After the invasion of Iraq, Israeli intelligence intensified its
propaganda against Syria and Iran. In April 2003, Amos Gilad said that
"Now that Saddam Hussein's regime has collapsed, it's time for a
change in Syria too." On February 14, 2005, Lebanon's former Primer
Minister, Rafiq Hariri, was assassinated by the Mossad in Beirut,
unleashing events that had been orchestrated for years by the Israel
and US intelligence: a "popular" uprising against the Syrian
"occupation" which was coined the "Cedar Revolution" by US
undersecretary of state for global affairs, Paula J. Dobriansky in a
news conference. Lacking the sophistication of the Israelis and
Americans when it comes to world-wide media manipulation and political
machination, the Syrians were pressured into withdrawing their 14,000
troops from Lebanon on April 27, 2005. The aim of this operation was
not to bring freedom and democracy to the Lebanese, but rather to
facilitate an Israeli invasion of Lebanon which took place in July of
2006. Lebanon and Syria, of course, were only part of the pie. The
Zionist set eyes on the big baker, Iran, which was seen as the
leavening agent in the entire Islamic world. No soon was Saddam
Hussein overthrown, that Israeli foreign minister Silvan Shalmo told
the UN general assembly that "Iran has replaced Saddam Hussein as the
world's number one exporter of terror, hate and instability."
Following the lead of Amos Gilad, the Bush administration's 2006
National Security Strategy listed Iran as the greatest threat to the
United States, claiming that it was in violation of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Although Ritter possesses pieces of the puzzle, he has not completely
put them together. As part of its paranoia, Israel believes that it is
in a state of perpetual war. While the early zionists openly advocated
the creation of a Greater Israel, from the Nile to the Euphrates, they
soon realised that such a goal was not attainable militarily. Rather
than focusing on physical force in all circumstances, Israel invested
enormously in its intelligence service, seeking to influence and
eventually dominate regional powers. There was no need for annexation
if Israel could get engaged to Egypt, sleep with Saudi Arabia, "get
jiggy" with Jordan, elope with the Emirates, kiss Kuwait, tongue-twist
Turkey, and make love to Morocco. As for those who fail to submit to
Israeli seduction, they will simply be violated by means of regime
change in order to create a buffer zone. Like a mercenary mistress,
America has offered its services, reshaping the Islamic world, to
protect its persuasive pimp. Israel, of course, understands its image
and lack of credibility. In order to advance their agenda against
Iran, the Israelis have used intermediaries which include the Kurds
loyal to Mustafa Barzani, the Mujahidin-e Khalq, and US
neo-conservatives.
Kurdish separatists loyal to Mustafa Barzani's Kurdish Democratic
Party (KDP) have long maintained close ties with Israeli intelligence,
relations which expanded during the Iran-Iraq. Barzani initiated
contacts with Israel in 1963, and military cooperation began in 1965
with Kurdish guerrillas being led into battle by officers from
Israel's military intelligence. Thanks to the Kurd connection, Israel
created a number of intelligence-gathering networks in Iran and Iraq.
After the 1991 Gulf War, Israel greatly expanded its presence in
northern Iraq, using elite teams of spies drawn from the ranks of
Israeli Kurds of Iraqi origin which number around 50,000. By 1995,
this Kurdish network was providing Israeli intelligence with
information regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, evidence
which was used to support aggression and invasion against the country.
At the same time, of course, Israel was supporting the destruction of
the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey. In fact, it was largely due to
Israeli intelligence that Turkish authorities were able to apprehend
PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan.
Like the separatist Kurds, the People's Mujahidin of Iran, known as
the Mujahidin-e Khalq or MEK, has also been providing Israel with
information regarding Iran's military capabilities for decades. In
order to gather public support for the overthrow of the Islamic
Republic, Israeli intelligence started to feed false information to
the National Council of Resistance in Iran in Washington DC, often
using the Israeli lobby as an intermediary. The NCRI, of course, is
merely the official façade of the Mujahidin-e Khalq, which is
designated as a terrorist organisation by the US, Canada, the EU, and
Iran. The Israelis denounce Iran for its support of Hizbullah and
Hamas when the Israelis themselves support terrorist groups such as
the MEK.
 In the US, the Israeli agenda against Iran was further advanced by
extreme right-wing think-tanks like the Jewish Institute for National
Security Affairs, as well as the Project for the New American Century.
Both the JINSC and the PNAC have long advocated the neutralisation of
Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Libya by means of regime
change. Thanks to falsified information fed by Israeli intelligence to
counter-revolutionary Iranians, and continued pressure by the
America-Israel Public Relations Committee (AIPAC), members of Congress
started to express their support for regime-change in Tehran. By the
late 1990s, the US government had been convinced of the Israeli way of
thinking. With the rise to power of the Republicans in 2000, many
leading members of the JINSC and PNAC assumed positions of political
power, including: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Richard
Perle, James Woolsey, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, Zalmay Khalilzad,
Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, among many more. By
2004 the US House of Representatives had passed resolution 398, which
expressed the concern of the Congress over Iran's development of the
means to produce nuclear weapons, and calls upon the president to use
all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons.
Despite the fact that the IAEA concluded that there was no evidence of
a nuclear weapons programme in Iran, the head of the Mossad insisted
that Iran was on the point of no return.
During a trip to Germany, Donald Rumsfeld claimed that Iran has "a
very active program and are likely to have nuclear weapons in a
relatively short period of time." John Bolton claimed that the IAEA
report was "impossible to believe" and that it actually proved that
Iran was engaged in a "massive covert" effort to acquire nuclear
weapons. In his words, "There's just no doubt that for close to 20
years, the Iranians have been pursuing nuclear weapons through a
clandestine program that we've uncovered." According to Ritter, Bolton
has leaked Israeli provided information to US media outlets. The CIA,
which lied about the existence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program,
continued its campaign of falsehood, claiming that: "Tehran has been
pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program." As proof, the CIA
stated that its satellites showed Iran actively trying to bury the
centrifuge enrichment facility at Natanz.
As Ritter explains, the CIA position is absolutely absurd since the
facility in Natanz was under the total monitoring of IAEA inspectors,
who reported back that the plant was still very much under
construction and engaged in no activity whatsoever. Despite the
objections of the IAEA, the Bush administration continues to
misrepresent the capabilities of the Iranian uranium-enrichment
programme, irresponsibly inserting red herrings in their assessment.
The US even claimed that the Shahib-3 missile was designed to carry a
nuclear warhead. Since Israeli-US allegations regarding the Iranian
nuclear enrichment programme have been proved to be unfounded, their
propaganda machines have attempted to cast a broader net. As Condi
Rice now says, "it's not just Iran's nuclear program, but also their
support for terrorism around the world. They are, in effect, the
central banker for terrorism around the world." Iran is now accused of
arming insurgents in Iraq, along with a renewal of old accusations:
violation of human rights, oppression of women, suppressing democracy
and so on.
As Ritter explains, the Iranian nuclear power program dates back to
the time of the Shah of Iran. During the mid 1970s, the monarchy
decided to install a network of twenty nuclear reactors which would
supply the country with all of its energy needs. Iran is a signatory
to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and, according to Article IV, has the
inalienable right to develop, research, produce, and use nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination. At present, Iran
finds itself embroiled in a very difficult situation. If it walks away
from the IAEA, it jeopardises lucrative trade talks with the European
Union. The Russians have also made it clear that their assistance is
linked to Iran's continued cooperation with the IAEA. If Iran refuses
to cooperate with the IAEA or pulls out of the NPT, Israel and the US
will use it as proof of Iran's culpability. At the same time, the IAEA
is infiltrated with Israeli and American agents, who use the
inspection programme to acquire sensitive information regarding to
Iran's military capabilities. The hypocrisy of the world community
towards Iran is not lost on Ritter. One only has to look to Israel to
see the double standard. The Zionist regime has an undeclared nuclear
weapons program, and refuses to sign on to the provisions of the NPT.
Even El-Baradei admits that Iran is much more forthcoming and
cooperative about its nuclear programme than Israel has ever been.
Such an important issue never makes it to the mainstream media, which
is more concerned with demonising the present Iranian president.
Despite all the outrage caused by Ahmadinejad's statements against
Israel, and all the false allegations made regarding his
hostage-holding past, Ritter argues that these allegations cannot be
used as grounds to justify war against Iran. In the Islamic Republic,
he says, the president has no power whatsoever when it comes to using
force against any threat, domestic or foreign. All power resides with
the Supreme Leader, Imam 'Ali Khamenei. As Ritter reveals to those who
are unfamiliar with the Iranian political system, whatever the
president's views may be, he has no effective authority to do so
without the agreement of the Supreme Leader, whose public position is
very different. This is in stark contrast to the paranoid delusions of
John Bolton who presents Ahmadinejad as a Holocaust-denier with his
finger on a nuclear button. As Ritter points out, Imam Khamenei
clarified Iran's position after Ahmedinejad's statements had been
sensationally misreported, stating that Iran "will not commit
aggression towards any nations." In contrast, while Khamenei calls for
calm, President Bush calls for war, openly threatening to use nuclear
weapons against friends or foes who challenge US interests. The 2002
National Security Policy states that "the United States…will not
hesitate to act alone…by acting preemptively." When indirectly asked
about nuking Iran, Bush stated in September 2003 that "we don't take
options off the table." In May 2006, John Bolton told B'nai Brith that
if Iran did not play ball, it would not be allowed to stay in place.
As Ritter shows, the US and Israel are paranoid players in the Iran
crisis, the French and the Germans are appeasers, and the Russians are
the only rational players. Interestingly enough, the solution to the
crisis will not come from Western powers. According to Ritter,
"Ayatollah 'Ali Khamenei may represent the best hope for a diplomatic
resolution of the Iranian nuclear crisis." As the author explains,
Khamenei has reached out to the US on several occasions by means of
ambassadorial intermediaries. In its stubborn-minded arrogance, the
diplomatically-deficient Bush administration has failed to respond in
any fashion. Khamenei, however, was not swayed, and continues to
articulate a moderate approach towards resolving the differences
between Iran and the US. Strategically silenced by the mainstream
media in the Western world, Imam Khamenei seems to be the sole hope
for saving Iran.
As Ritter has revealed in his book, "the conflict currently underway
between the US and Iran is, first and foremost, a conflict born in
Israel. It is based upon an Israeli contention that Iran poses a
threat to Israel, and defined by Israeli assertions that Iran
possesses a nuclear weapons program. None of this has been shown to be
true, and indeed much of the allegations made by Israel against Iran
have been clearly demonstrated as being false. And yet the US
continues to trumpet the Israeli claims." The author denounces the
unparalleled influence the Israeli lobby exerts over the US Congress
and the executive branch of government. He reminds Americans that
while many of them may feel compelled to support Israel out of sense
of moral duty and obligation, Israel in the end does not share the
same moral bond in terms of supporting the United States. As Ritter
explains, Israeli security policy makers view America as but a tool to
be wielded in support of larger Israeli interests.
Whether reason will prevail remains to be seen. The outlook, however,
is far from promising. As Ritter admits, "When it comes time to Iran,
the Bush administration ultimately has only a single policy objective:
regime change, at any cost." As the author explains, US military and
intelligence officials had reviewed the possibility of a decapitating
strike against Iran's nuclear programme, and the results were not
encouraging. Unlike Iraq, Iran does not possess a single target that
could be bombed to destroy a nuclear programme. In Iran there are
numerous targets, spread out over a vast territory, requiring a
massive military effort. According to military planners, a war against
Iran lacked the certainty of success, risking a rapid escalation of
violence which could not be contained. In short, "according to U.S.
military planners, an attack on Iran, even if it was limited in scope
to Iran's nuclear activities, would rapidly spin out of control into a
regional conflict that could not be contained."
Ritter's conclusion is gripping:
Iran is not Iraq…Iran remains a very modern nation state…with access
to the complete spectrum of technologies…This includes military
technology. Iran is a vastly larger country than Iraq, with a
correspondingly larger population and military. The Iranian people are
a proud people who cherish their culture history, and independence.
Any notion that the Iranian people who somehow stand idly while the
United States bombarded their nation or occupied their soil is
tragically unfounded. Iran would resist any attack against its soil
with all of the considerable means available. Any aerial bombardment
of Iran would result in an immediate attack by Iranian missiles on
targets in Israel, followed by a major Hezbollah rocketing from
northern Israel. If U.S. military forces were deployed from the soil
of any nation within striking distance of Iran, those nations too
could be expected to come under Iranian attack. Iran will fire missile
barrages against American forces in Iraq, and then engage the entire
collation occupation force on the ground…Iran will do its utmost to
play the oil card, not only shutting off its exportation of oil and
natural gas, but also threaten the oil production of Iraq, Kuwait,
UAE, and Saudi Arabia… US naval forces operating in the Persian will
be put at risk… There is a better than even chance that Iran would
succeed in shutting down the straight [sic.] of Hormuz, chocking
[sic.] off the global oil supply…The Iranian reaction will have global
reach, with …terror bombings, kidnappings and/or assassinations…
Attacks will definitely occur in Europe, and may even spread to
American soil…Any American ground invasion of Iran would be doomed to
fail…America simply does not have the conventional combat power to
fight a sustained ground combat action in Iran…Faced with such a
disaster, the United States would have to no choice but to escalate
the conflict along military lines, which means engage Iran with
nuclear weapons. At this juncture, the equation becomes unpredictable,
the damage done incalculable, and the course of world history,
including America's role as a viable global leader.
Ritter's vision may be realistic; let us hope that it is not prophetic.