[ARTICLE] REGIME CHANGE Some ask who's next after Iraq?

gandalf

I was doing my trawl of online newpapers this morning and came across this article. Just reading some portions of this sent a chill through my body.

As I feared it looks like Iran are next on the hitlist with some hawks calling for a internal revolt. Now am I wrong but isn't it illegal for countries to opening try to interfere in the internal workings of a soverign nation. As regards the "cleansing of islamic" influence in schoolbooks in Egypt is that not sectarian and racist ?

Gandalf.

REGIME CHANGE

Some ask who's next after Iraq?

Mideast leaders, analysts wonder about US goals

By Geneive Abdo, Globe Correspondent, 3/14/2003

ASHINGTON - With war in Iraq perhaps only days or weeks away, a guessing game is under way among politicians, foreign policy analysts, and Middle East leaders: Once the dust settles over Baghdad, who is next on the Bush administration's list for regime change, or at least regime reform?



Increasingly confident of overthrowing President Saddam Hussein by force, many in and close to the US administration are openly planning for change across the region, say Washington foreign policy analysts and Arab diplomats.

That vision includes encouraging internal rebellion in Iran to oust the clerics from power and pressing Syria to end its support for radical Islamic and Palestinian groups. It also entails far-reaching social engineering projects, such as educational reform in Egypt to cleanse schoolbooks of Islamic influence and promote a more favorable image of Israel.

Proponents say the strategy will increase US security by opening up Muslim societies, enhancing economic growth, and retarding the spread of radical Islam. But many Arabs see it as unwarranted interference in their internal affairs, warning that it could easily provoke an anti-American backlash and bring to power opposition groups determined to undermine US interests in the region.

''I think there is no question the Bush administration would like to see regime change in other countries in the region,'' said Kenneth Pollack, a former military specialist for the Central Intelligence Agency and now a fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

''I think a very successful campaign in Iraq might prompt them to pursue other countries,'' he said.

''But at the moment, they are bogged down in Iraq, because the campaign for war hasn't gone as smoothly as they had hoped,'' Pollack said.

Bush administration officials and their advisers speak openly about their desire for regime change, not just in Baghdad, but also in other Muslim countries. From hard-liners to moderates, the definition of regime change varies from tossing out the current leaders to more cautious changes such as education reforms.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell reiterated the administration's appeal to the Iranian people to press their leaders for change, in comments at a congressional hearing yesterday.

''All the people of Iran believe a better life is ahead of them if they could somehow get their leaders to understand this,'' he said. ''We continue to put out a message to the Iranian young people and to the Iranian people that the United States supports them in their efforts.''

One high-ranking Bush administration official who has the ear of Vice President Dick Cheney explained recently that the administration was actively searching for ways to undo the 1979 Islamic revolution that created the modern world's first theocracy.

''How could the United States inspire young Iranians to bring out a change in leadership?'' the official asked. ''Once we liberate Iraq and create a democracy there, this will surely provide inspiration for young people in Iran.''

In the respected Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, a leading hawk, was quoted last month as telling Israeli officials that Iran would be ''dealt with'' after the war with Iraq. Bolton declined requests for an interview.

Members of Congress have also developed strategies for change in the region. The Syrian Accountability Act, cosponsored by Representatives Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York, and Robert Wexler, Democrat of Florida, provides that Syria must meet seven demands, including an end to support for radical Islamic groups and withdrawing its remaining forces from Lebanon, or the United States will impose sanctions and take other punitive actions.

''Everything President Bush has alleged with respect to Iraq is also true and, in many cases, even more true with respect to Syria,'' Wexler told the House International Relations Committee. ''I support a policy of regime change and disarmament in Iraq, but what seems to run contradictory to America's foreign policy is our inaction against Syria, even though the case against [President] Bashar Assad can be considered more pronounced and obvious than that against Saddam Hussein.''

The extent to which the Bush administration will press its new vision for the Middle East will depend in part on its degree of success in Iraq, analysts say. If the war is swift and if reconstruction occurs with ease, they say, administration hawks will be emboldened to intimidate and pressure countries such as Iran and Syria and even allies like Saudi Arabia.

Fear of such a future is reflected every day in the Arabic press across the Middle East. Commentators regularly speculate about which country is the most vulnerable to becoming the next US target.

''After Sept. 11, the United States started hinting about drastic changes in the Middle East. But since the war in Iraq became more likely, the hints have turned to pressure and intimidation,'' said one Arab diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

At an Arab summit held earlier this month in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm al-Sheikh, Arab leaders issued a statement saying there should be no outside interference in the region or attempts to restructure political regimes.

''There are two theories among the Arabs: One is that Washington will try to make changes in Syria or Iran, and the other is that there could be military action against Libya,'' said another Arab diplomat.

Some countries are trying to head off such action. Late last year, Syria began withdrawing some of its troops from Lebanon, a long-time demand of Washington. Syrian intelligence has also reached out to its US counterparts, sharing information on Al Qaeda suspects.

So far, however, the assistance Syria has offered the United States has done little to abate Washington's harsh criticism of Assad's government. Syria remains a harsh critic of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and of the US position in the Middle East peace process, which Syria says favors Israel.

''The United States is not pleased that Syria hosts and supports Palestinian organizations,'' said Mourhaf Jouejati, a Syrian specialist at the Middle East Institute in Washington. ''And Syria will never change its policies on that score, because it will never give up its principles.''

Syrian analysts say there is a fear in Syria that the United States will try during the war with Baghdad to destabilize the country by giving the green light to the Kurds, who make up about 10 percent of Syria's population, to break away and join with their ethnic brethren in neighboring Iraq. In response, Assad has traveled the country, meeting Kurdish leaders to try to head off any separatist movement.

In Saudi Arabia, officials recently announced a sweeping democratic reform plan. The Saudis' poor record on human rights and civic freedoms had escaped official US criticism until Sept. 11; 15 of the 19 hijackers were found to have been Saudi nationals. But few Arab specialists see any chance that the plan will be implemented.

Egypt, long considered Washington's friend in the region for its help in trying to bring about peace between Arabs and Israelis, is also now on Washington's wish list for internal political and social reform.

The Bush administration - fearful that if Islamists gained more power in Egypt, the most populous Arab nation would become a foe of the United States - is now pressuring Mubarak's government to permit more press freedom and to reform the educational system to introduce Western values.

''Democrats and Republicans have all come to the conclusion that the political status quo in the Middle East is unacceptable,'' said Pollack. ''But there are disagreements over how to bring about a transformation and how fast.''

This story ran on page A22 of the Boston Globe on 3/14/2003.

Hobbes

I recall a person on Sky News many months ago talking about Iran. He mentioned it's kind of three different Irans now. One of which is very like the western world. However destablising Iran will probably just help the nutters over there.

bug

I put up thread on a similar topic about a week ago when Richard Dimbleby interviewed Donald Rumsfeldt. If the above article does reflect the opinion of the current American administration then I would ask this..

. It [their strategy]also entails far-reaching social engineering projects, such as educational reform in Egypt to cleanse schoolbooks of Islamic influence and promote a more favorable image of Israel.

Proponents say the strategy will increase US security by opening up Muslim societies, enhancing economic growth, and retarding the spread of radical Islam.

What right have they to interfere in middle-eastern policies?
Imagine if Islamic fundamentalists decided to come here and change our educational system. There would be a huge backlash.
According to this article this is what they intent to attempt to implement? and they dont expect a backlash?????:mad: Crusaders all over again. It comes from the concept - I know your different, I know your culture is different but my way is better. How utterly ignorant. Will the educational reform system be sponsored by Coca-Cola, mmm refreshing, can you spell refreshing, little egyptian boy?

Éomer of Rohan

Will the educational reform system be sponsored by Coca-Cola, mmm refreshing, can you spell refreshing, little egyptian boy?

Like in America?

Sand

Perhaps you feel radical islamic fundamentalism is a valuable part of the curriculumn. You know, the enemy of your enemy isnt neccessarily your friend.

What right have they to interfere in middle-eastern policies?

Bit of chicken and the egg here, but when middle eastern policies interfere with them I imagine its wise to take an interest in middle-eastern policies.

The Bush administration - fearful that if Islamists gained more power in Egypt, the most populous Arab nation would become a foe of the United States - is now pressuring Mubarak's government to permit more press freedom and to reform the educational system to introduce Western values.

Those bastards!!!!!

One high-ranking Bush administration official who has the ear of Vice President Dick Cheney explained recently that the administration was actively searching for ways to undo the 1979 Islamic revolution that created the modern world's first theocracy.

Isnt that also the goal of the Iranian reform movement? To bring about the end of the theocracy and replace it with a government accountable to the people? Is the US evil to seek the same goal? To state it hopes a democratic Iraq it hopes to create will act as an inspiration for young Iranians?

''Democrats and Republicans have all come to the conclusion that the political status quo in the Middle East is unacceptable,''

About time. Perhaps all the talk about supporting dark age but also encouraging reform will actually mean something now.

Éomer of Rohan

The Bush administration - fearful that if Islamists gained more power in Egypt, the most populous Arab nation would become a foe of the United States - is now pressuring Mubarak's government to permit more press freedom and to reform the educational system to introduce Western values

Those bastards!!!!!

Why does it not surprise me that some are perfectly willing to allow Western values to be instilled in people for whom they and their basis have no meaning? And that those selfsame people are aghast when such things as the Muslim religion can be taught in schools in the UK?

''Democrats and Republicans have all come to the conclusion that the political status quo in the Middle East is unacceptable,''

Oh well isn't that high minded of them? Great, we can all live happily ever after can't we? What political status quo is this? That Israel, created by the UK and US oppresses the native people of a region? That US allies are bought and that the human rights situation in those countries are ignored, while the same situation in non US allies is attacked and used as provocation for war? Or maybe that the US failed to usurp a revolution in Iran the first time around so they want a second crack at it? That Israel receives more aid from the USA than ANY OTHER COUNTRY and spends most of it on defence? Very highminded of these politicians indeed.

OfflerCrocGod

Eomer you are so strongly anti-american that you'd be pissed of at them for helping us here in Europe with WWII (and no I dont think they won it , but they did help) .It's obvious to anyone who reads up on the present state of Iran that any thing the americans do in helping the reformists come to power will be good for the country. I'm not saying that they(the iranians) will like it , no way:) , but it will be good for the country.

I say let the americans go ahead into Iraq the ppl of Iraq are better off with the americans than with Saddam, in the end it's the americans who pay for the priviledge not us.That's why I believe Toni Blair is going ahead with Shrub on this he's using the americans to liberate an opperessed ppl, he's not being used at all

In the end who would you rather have in charge Shrub or Saddam, Mr Hussein is there forever while Mr weed will soon be gone, the american ppl will not tolerate an overt ruled ppl thats why in the end the Iraqis will have free choice in the end. Hopefully the fool administation will take out some of those other dictatorships in the Middle -East.

LordAragorn

I think the experience of the US one year on from invading Iraq will tell the next time Bush thinks about taking on another country. With Al Qaeda being strengthened as a result of US actions post 9/11, they need to rethink strategically how they can achieve their aims. Ultimately they need to befriend peace loving muslims(which I dont think they can), and that will be more difficult for the Americans unless they can demonstrate how Al Qaeda will kill ordinary muslims in their path. A long road awaits us all, lets hope Nostradamus didnt see where it leads ..

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
I say let the americans go ahead into Iraq the ppl of Iraq are better off with the americans than with Saddam, in the end it's the americans who pay for the priviledge not us.

What about the 1000s of Iraqis who have been killed, or do they count?

I'm not saying that they(the iranians) will like it , no way , but it will be good for the country.

What give the Americans the right to dictate to them what is good or not for their own country?

bonkey

What is it with digging up months-old threads?

jc