[Peace-discuss] This is why we still need P4P

[Ricky Baldwin]

Hawks Set Sights on Iran, Syria as Baghdad Falls

By Arshad Mohammed, April 10, 2003

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Emboldened by the U.S.
military's apparent quick rout of Iraqi forces,
conservative hawks in America are setting their sights
on regime change in Iran and Syria. 

"It's time to bring down the other terror masters,"
Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute
wrote on Monday -- two days before U.S. troops swept
into the heart of Baghdad -- in a piece entitled
"Syria and Iran Must Get Their Turn." 

"Iran, at least, offers Americans the possibility of a
memorable victory, because the Iranian people openly
loath the regime, and will enthusiastically combat it,
if only the United States supports them in their just
struggle," he added. "Syria cannot stand alone against
a successful democratic revolution that topples
tyrannical regimes in Kabul, Tehran and Iraq." 

No one is explicitly advocating force against Syria or
Iran but conservatives inside and out of the U.S.
government hope the Iraq war will signal to Damascus
and Tehran that seeking weapons of mass destruction
may be hazardous to their health. 

"I hope we could change the regimes without military
force and I would not contemplate using military force
in those places," said Kenneth Adelman, a former
Pentagon aide and early advocate of toppling Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein by force. 

"The combination of totalitarianism and weapons of
mass destruction is a deadly combination for the
world," he added. 

While some conservatives believe the example of Iraq
could serve to undermine the governments of some of
its nondemocratic neighbors, others simply hope it
will dissuade them from seeking biological, chemical
and nuclear weapons. 

GETTING THE MESSAGE 

John Bolton, under secretary of state for arms control
and international security, told reporters in Rome he
hoped Iran, Syria and North Korea  -- which the United
States believes is pursuing a nuclear weapons program
-- will get the message. 

"We are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the
appropriate lesson from Iraq that the pursuit of
weapons of mass destruction is not in their national
interest," he said, citing the three when asked what
the post-war period may hold. 

A U.S. official played down the idea that the United
States was contemplating using force against Iran or
Syria, suggesting the hawks were simply reflecting the
"strategic ambiguity" that the U.S. has long practiced
with potential adversaries. 

"When talking about threats from countries that have
really bad track records and don't wish you well, U.S.
policy has been to never rule anything out," he said.
"That doesn't mean you're actively contemplating an
invasion or the use of force." 

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who on March 28
warned Syria and Iran not to meddle in the Iraq war,
said on Wednesday the United States had evidence
Damascus might be helping Saddam's relatives and
supporters flee the country. 

While he did not cite Syria or Iran by name, Vice
President Dick Cheney said in a speech to newspaper
editors that the United States must "do whatever it
takes" to defeat terrorism and must confront nations
that sponsor it. 

The United States regards Iran and Syria as state
sponsors of terrorism. U.S. officials believe both are
pursuing weapons of mass destruction, accusing Iran of
seeking nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program
aims to produce electricity. 

"In removing the terror regime from Iraq, we send a
very clear message to all groups that operate by means
of terror and violence against the innocent," Cheney
said. "The United States and our coalition partners
are showing ... we have the capacity and the will to
wage war on terror and to win decisively." 

"We have a further responsibility to help keep the
peace of the world and to prevent the terrorists and
their sponsors from plunging the world into horrific
violence," he added. 

Frank Gaffney, a senior Pentagon official under former
President Ronald Reagan  said he believed that regime
change should be the U.S. policy toward Iran and Syria
and said the United States could not rule out the use
of force. 

"If the threat metastasizes in such a way that we
consider it to leave us no choice but to use military
force then that would have to be an option," he said. 

Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy think
tank, said many Iranians would like to see their
government change and the United States should help
them through information flows, economic assistance
and possibly covert activity. 

"The use of military force is probably genuinely the
last resort here, but I certainly think it's like that
we're going to see efforts made to bring about change
in Iran as well as Syria ... and perhaps elsewhere in
the region as a matter of the natural progression of
this war on terror," he added. 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com