[Mb-civic] FW: Why Iran Wants Four More Years

[Golsorkhi]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Kambiz Atabai <simorgh at covad.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:30:45 -0400
To: "Kamran Atabai Sr." <kamran.atabai at graniteloan.com>
Cc: Shahla Samii <shahla at thesamiis.com>, Reza Golesorkhi
<grgolsorkhi at earthlink.net>
Subject: Fwd: Why Iran Wants Four More Years

No comments, interesting!

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Subject: Why Iran Wants Four More Years
>
> Why Iran Wants Four More Years
>
> by David Jagernauth
>
>  
>
> The president got an unusual endorsement Tuesday; Hasan Rowhani, the
> head of Iran's security council, told local media that Tehran's best
> interest is served by the re-election of George W. Bush. Does it seem
> strange that a member of the "axis of evil" would support our current
> administration? Not if you understand the circumstances surrounding
> our attack on Iraq.
>
>  When future historians write about this war, I suspect they will sum
> it up like this: In the year 2003, neoconservatives within the Bush
> Administration were duped by an Iranian double agent into attacking
> Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein in order to pave the way for a
> pro-Iran, Shia-controlled Iraq. It was one of the greatest acts of
> espionage ever perpetrated against the superpower.
>
>  Who is this Iranian double agent? His name is Ahmed Chalabi, the
> founder of the anti-Saddam Iraqi National Congress (INC). The CIA now
> knows that the INC was either a front for, or had deep links to,
> Iranian intelligence and that Chalabi was passing U.S. secrets to
> Tehran. How was Chalabi getting ahold of our secrets? The neocons in
> the Bush Administration were giving our secrets to him!
>
>  Who were these neocons? Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard
> Perle and Dick Cheney, to name a few. Their plans for the invasion of
> Iraq did not begin after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks or even when
> they took office in 2001. It began in 1997 when they founded the
> nonprofit organization Project for the New American Century.
>
>  The neocons laid out their vision for "American global leadership"
> (i.e. world domination) in their Statement of Principles on June 3,
> 1997. They wrote: "It is important to shape circumstances before
> crises emerge" (i.e. military preemption); to "promote freedom abroad"
> (i.e. occupy totalitarian regimes); and to institute the "Reaganite
> policy of military strength and moral clarity" (i.e. kill Muslims).
>
>  In January 1998, members of the Project wrote to President Clinton,
> urging him to "remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power." They argued
> that he was responsible for a destabilized Middle East that was
> putting American troops, Israel, moderate Arab states and oil in
> jeopardy.
>
>  Clinton rejected their argument, choosing a policy of containment
> over regime change. Containment was effective in keeping WMDs away
> from Saddam, but sanctions were helping to keep him in power by
> weakening resistance movements. This angered the neocons. Once they
> realized that the Project couldn't be achieved with Clinton in power,
> plans were set in motion to steal the 2000 election.
>
>  Or so I suspect. There is no smoking-gun proof of this, but if you
> look at that list of Project signatures back in 1997, you will find
> Jeb Bush's name right next to Dick Cheney. Could it only be a
> coincidence that the voter fraud, which ultimately won Bush (and more
> importantly Cheney) the White House and ensured the implementation of
> the Project, occurred in the state headed by Jeb Bush, a signatory to
> the project? Maybe. But I doubt it.
>
>  Even before the neocons hijacked America, Ahmed Chalabi was their
> handpicked, pro-U.S. puppet leader primed to assume power through
> "democratic" elections after Iraq's liberation. Chalabi was the
> primary, if only, source for the administration's false claims that
> Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and connections to al
> Qaeda. He was feeding the administration (and The New York Times, it
> turns out) the disinformation they wanted to hear. Bush, the neocons
> and the media took Chalabi's chum like a bunch of chumps, ignoring our
> own intelligence officers who were suspicious of Chalabi and his
> claims from the very beginning.
>
>  Chalabi's lies became the uncontested truth after the Sept. 11
> terrorist attacks. The United Kingdom's The Guardian newspaper reports
> that an Iranian spy (not Chalabi) warned the United States of the
> impending attacks but was not believed. If true, that means Iran knew
> about the attacks and, perhaps, even helped to plan and/or finance
> them. The 9-11 Commission confirmed that Iran has had connections to
> al Qaeda since 1991.
>
>  Iran might have foreseen that the attacks would provide a catalyst
> for the invasion of Iraq. And now Iran has exactly what they wanted:
> Saddam is gone and Iraq is up for grabs. If you are afraid Bush will
> send us to war against Iran, I've got news for you: We already are.
> The majority Shia population of Iraq is attacking our troops everyday.
> They are being supported by Iran -- which is 90 percent Shia --
> because Tehran wants an ally in the Middle East to help them spread
> their version of fundamentalist Islam and increase international
> terrorism.
>
>  To summarize: Bush's foreign policy decisions were actually being
> controlled by Iran through Chalabi. Bush allowed an Iranian spy to
> access high-level U.S. secrets that more than likely ended up in the
> possession of al Qaeda terrorists. Hundreds of our troops died doing
> Iran's dirty work, and now they are killing more Americans everyday
> without consequence in a power struggle over Iraq.
>
>  Is there any wonder why Iran supports the re-election of George W.
> Bush?
>
>  David Jagernauth is editorial editor of the Oregon Daily Emerald. He
> can be reached at davidjagernauth at dailyemerald.com.
>  
> Published on Saturday, October 23, 2004 by CommonDreams.org


------ End of Forwarded Message