The US puts “regime change” in Iran on agenda

[Hannah Bell]

As part of its drive for punitive new sanctions over Iran’s nuclear programs, the Obama administration launched a major diplomatic offensive in the Middle East this week to enlist the support of its allies in the region. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, Central Command head General David Petraeus and top State Department officials are taking part in the operation...

While Clinton did not use the phrase “regime change,” Obama’s national security adviser, retired general James Jones, was not so hesitant. “We know that internally there is a very serious problem,” he told Fox News Sunday. “We’re about to add to that regime’s difficulties, by engineering, participating in very tough sanctions, which we support. Not mild sanctions. There are very tough sanctions. A combination of those things could well trigger a regime change—it’s possible.”

The Obama administration has clearly decided to recalibrate its strategy. In the process, the US is modifying its previous campaign—following Iran’s presidential elections last June—in support of the so-called “Green Revolution” led by defeated opposition candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi. By focussing on the Revolutionary Guards, Washington is trying to seek out bases of discontent in the highest echelons of the regime, including those close to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Clinton’s overture has nothing to do with defending the democratic rights of ordinary Iranians. Rather the aim is to consolidate an opposition among layers of businessmen, bureaucrats and even military officers with grievances against the Revolutionary Guard, which has certainly extended its economic and political influence under President Ahmadinejad, but is far from controlling the government. Like Moussavi, the “leading clerics and political figures” to whom Clinton is appealing, all support the Islamic regime and have backed its repressive methods in the past...

As if on cue, the American media has begun to swing behind Clinton’s new propaganda line. A comment published in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal entitled “Iran’s emerging military dictatorship,” chimed in. “Perhaps it is time to consider regime change a possibility,” it declared. “Even so-called realists must concede that the Khomeinist establishment, under the emerging leadership of the IRGC, is not the only actor on the Iranian scene. There is another actor: the popular movement for change...”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/iran-f17.shtml

[Hugabear]

1. Have we learned NOTHING from Iraq?

Seriously - what the fuck is going on here?

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. BIG FUCKING MISTAKE.

Don't these RW asshats ever learn? The more we meddle, the more the people line up behind their government.

The DLC neo-lib strategy is NO DIFFERENT from the Republican neocon strategy - meddle, meddle, meddle. Piss people off at US, and make us some enemies. Alienate people who would otherwise look to us as examples of good democratic government.

Clinton's had a hard on for hitting Iran for years. I hoped that Obama would keep that in check.

I FUCKING GIVE UP.

[leftstreet]

3. K&R

[PeaceDreamer]

4. OMG

what are these guys thinking?

[Flaneur]

5. Regime change begins at home.

[bamacrat]

6. WTF?!?! I mean seriously? Hopefully this isnt done militarily.

If they want to use covert agents to sow the seeds of revolt and cause the Iranian people to rise up, it's stupid, but i get it. But please no more American wars. Russia is on our side in the sanctions and Saudi Arabia has told China they will make up for lost Iranian oil, so just sanction them to the point there is a revolt don't attack. Or here is a novel idea, let the Revolutionary Guard know that we have given Isreal the green light to nuke them back to biblical times if they attack anyone. Then sanction them. Well no, Im sleepy right now this is just Sarah Palin. (pun = retarded)

[amborin]

7. they're gearing up, way more so in the past few wks n/t

[Chulanowa]

8. And this is where my support finds a stop sign.

Not a yield, a flat-out fucking stop sign.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Alternative headline: Obama uses the same "regime change" strategy we've been using since 1979

Here's basically how it works

Step 1) Iran (insert Iraq, Libya, North Korea, etc here as well) does something that we don't like (in this case not allowing us to completely dismantle their nuclear program)

Step 2) US imposes sanctions that will in theory cause regime change because of some change in the domestic political calculus of the country we are sanctioning, but in practice do not weaken the regime and actually sometimes strengthen it.

Step 3) US President is satisfied because they were able to take a "tough" action against Iran that they can campaign but didn't have to go to war in the process.

Step 4) Repeat Step 1

Of course Jim Jones says they're "very tough sanctions". Part of his job is to make the President look "tough" on national security issues. But the fact is this that sanctions are easy to get around especially if it's just one country doing the sanctioning.

Seems to me that the WSWS is just arguing for the highly speculatively (and usually wrong) theory that sanctions lead to regime change.

[jeanpalmer]

10. It must be getting close to election time

Time for a war.

[malaise]

11. Regime change is a euphemism

The US is trying to overthrow the government of Iran.