Does 'Regime Change' in Iran Mean the same to Everyone?

Caveat: We must define 'Regime Change' more precisely. As it may mean different outcomes to different interests jockeying for position for the future of Iran.

Currently, as in the past before Ahmadinejad, there are missions and efforts by some political elite in the west (mostly in European capitals, and also amongst US Democrats who sing the same tune as EU vis a vis Iran, e.g., Iranian regime appeasers like Kerry, Biden, Barack Hussein Obama, Jimmy Carter, etc.) who are pursuing the replacement of Ahmadinejad and Khamenei gang with Khatami and/or Rafsanjani faction to call it good in Iran. Now, THAT’s NOT Regime Change. The Iranian people have already been down that trap and they do not wish a repeat or return to the same, old ‘smiling wolf disguised as a sheep’ rule of the ‘reformists.

The definition of "Regime Change", as far as the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people are concerned, is a total and complete elimination of the current Islamic 'Republic' including all of its parts: i.e., the eradication of all the hardliners as well as the total decapitation of all the the so-called 'reformists' with various European ties (i.e., led by the left over Euro-mullahs like Khatami brothers and the Rafsanjani Mafia group.)

"Regime Change", as far as the Iranian people are concerned, is a total and complete elimination of the current Islamic 'Republic' including all of its parts: i.e., the eradication of all the hardliners as well as the total decapitation of all the the so-called 'reformists' with European ties (i.e., led by the left over Euro-mullahs like Khatami and Rafsanjani.)

The Regime Change that the Iranian people desire, is a flip and a 180 degree change to a secular democracy void of any religion wherein no clergy, and especially no former official(s) of the current Islamic 'Republic,' are allowed to participate in politics according to the revised Iranian constitution which will ban any such participation by clergy in the new government.

The Islamist 'reformists' like Khatami inside Tehran Theocracy of Terror only wished they had a little bit of Kerensky's guts or genuineness. Khatami and Rafsanjani and their cohorts are actually in cahoots with the Iranian Bolsheviks like Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, Jannati, etc, but they pretend otherwise just to deceive the west and the Iranian people alike. They are all in cahoots with one another to 'save' the regime at any cost to land and people. The only difference is that the Khatamites do it by being cunning and 'pragmatic' with the west, but the hardliners do it straight out without an apology. Both groups are evil, playing good cop/ bad cop for the west and the Iranian masses.

The question that begs to be asked here is this: Is everyone involved on the same page when they talk about the definition ‘Regime Change’ in Iran? Otherwise, it’s easy to fall into the same, old trap with a definition-less term, only to wake up one morning and see Rafsanjani as the president, and Khatami as the ‘Supreme Leader’, with a content EU and Democratic White House supporting both all the way ('Grand Bargain' anyone?) We have seen that farce before, and it ain’t pretty.
http://mor2com.blogspot.com/

Critical Iran Eventualities & Nuances

Anyone with a basic knowledge of history and race knows that Iran is no Iraq. Persians are ethnically distinct from Arabs, and the population in Iran, mostly composed of people under 30 years old, is the most pro-western, educated, and sophisticated bunch in the Middle East. What’s more, they loathe and despise the Islamic regime and want it gone.

In fact, the people of Iran have not forgotten their close but short contemporary experience in the late 40s to early 50s, with democracy: the democratic, secular movement led by Dr. Mossadegh, the nationalistic popular leader. And even before that, the first Constitution in the entire Middle East was written around a 100-years ago by Constitutional revolutionaries in Iran who wanted to limit the powers of the Shah (King) through the establishment of the first parliamentary system of its kind in the greater region.

Yes, a religious dictatorship was imposed on Iran in 1979, but the Iranian people have not lost their identity, or their inherent creativity and intelligence. Nor have they lost their sense of history as descendants to a great civilization. In fact, the rulers of Iran today are considered by common people as "non-Persians", or they are referred to as the “2nd Arab Invasion” by regular Iranians. The people in Iran may sometimes seem too patient under dictatorship, persecution, and pressure until the pressure gets to the point of explosion. And when that occurs, they will use any opening, however small, to rise and stage a regime change. And you will not have a rebellion without conviction, or result once it does happen.

The reason for the sporadic nature of the protests so far is that the opposition has not united and gathered enough momentum to induce a solid and sure stage for the workers, women, ethnic minorities, students, etc. to all come out en masse in the streets with the intent to overthrow the Theocracy. However, there are now signs that the perfect storm may be starting to form.

Economic sanctions will help in creating more momentum for such a popular uprising, but they are not enough. There needs to be a united front, a unifying figure, or ideology through which all opposition can amalgamate with a common goal of ending the Islamic regime in its totality, and forming the basis for a secular democracy.

The pitfall to be avoided though, is that certain European faction “reformist” mullahs like Khatami and Rafsanjani may succeed to take advantage of the peoples' revolt to their own advantage and attempt to “steal the ball” from the people. If the ‘reformists’ succeed in that effort, it will mean a renewal of life for the Islamic regime for the foreseeable future. This is contrary to what the people of Iran want: a secular democracy.

Same caveat must be applied to any military strikes. We must be very careful where and how we apply military pressure for optimum results. Military strikes could be a two-edged sword when it comes to the eventuality of the total elimination of the regime in Iran.

For instance, if ALL the power centers and interests of the entirety of the regime (i.e., both hardliners as well as the reformists) are hit militarily, or their leaders (both hardliner and reformist) are eliminated (physically if possible) covertly or by military means, this will be quiet effective since any such comprehensive shock to the regime as a whole will most likely provide the final the spark needed for a people to finally rise up and eradicate the Islamic regime as a whole. For after all, a snake without a head is easier to conquer.
If, however, ONLY the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) or the Ghods Force alone are the targets of military strikes, that will weaken only the hardliners (Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, et al) in the regime and actually boost the chances for the ‘refromists’ (EU-supported Khatami, Rafsanjani, et al.) to position themselves for a pounce on the opportunity to return to power again.

And if the ‘reformist’ Khatamites return to power again this way, it will pave the way for the resuming of activities on the part of US liberals, or a Democrat in the White House, to rekindle the “Grand Bargain” all over again with Khatami and Rafsanjani which will guarantee a brand new lease on life for the Islamic regime, but deny the people of Iran their chance to establish their desired secular democracy.

Iran Appeasers Leverett and Mann Worked for Condi

In the years after 9/11, Iran Appeasers Flynt Leverett and his wife Hillary Mann worked at the highest levels of the Bush administration as Middle East policy experts for the National Security Council. Mann conducted secret negotiations with Iran. The goal was to strike a "Grand Bargain" with the Iranian regime guaranteeing that US will not try to change the form of government in Iran, in return for certain "promises" by Tehran not to support Islamic terrorist organizations.

Below is a part of their report.

The full report can be found at: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E0DE1131F931A15751C1A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Alos in Esquire article: http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107


Iran will only cooperate with the United States, whether in Iraq or on the nuclear issue, as part of a broader rapprochement addressing its core security concerns. This requires extension of a United States security guarantee -- effectively, an American commitment not to use force to change the borders or form of government of the Islamic Republic -- bolstered by the prospect of lifting United States unilateral sanctions and normalizing bilateral relations. This is something no United States administration has ever offered, and that the Bush administration has explicitly refused to consider.

Indeed, no administration would be able to provide a security guarantee unless United States concerns about Iran's nuclear activities, regional role and support for terrorist organizations were definitively addressed. That is why, at this juncture, resolving any of the significant bilateral differences between the United States and Iran inevitably requires resolving all of them. Implementing the reciprocal commitments entailed in a ''grand bargain'' would almost certainly play out over time and in phases, but all of the commitments would be agreed up front as a package, so that both sides would know what they were getting.

Unfortunately, the window for pursuing a comprehensive settlement with Iran will not be open indefinitely. The Iranian leadership is more radicalized today, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president, than it was three years ago, and could become more radicalized in the future, depending on who ultimately succeeds Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as supreme leader. If President Bush does not move decisively toward strategic engagement with Tehran during his remaining two years in office, his successor will not have the same opportunities that he will have so blithely squandered.

Is the Vice President Rooting for the Return of the "Reformists"?

Bin Laden released a video today in which he admitted that mistakes were made by Al-Qaeda in Iraq. It seems that Al-Qaeda and the Iranian regime operatives in Iraq have been dealt effective blows after the US military surge.

But, this is not the time for us to rest on our laureates. This is a window of opportunity to go in for ‘complete kill’ of the forces behind the insurgency in Iraq, mainly Iran and to some degree its lackey Syria.

This struggle against Islamic Fascism will not be over, until such time as we face the instigator and financer of all Islamic terror, our enemy: the Iranian regime, once and for all with resolve and serious action.

But, judging by the hollow rhetoric (with no action backing it) that is coming out of US administration, it is very doubtful that we are planning to face Iran in a serious or meaningful way anytime soon. Case in point, Vice President Cheney’s comments on Sunday that “We are prepared to impose serious consequences” if Iran “stays on its current path”. This statement was made, apparently, in a reaction to the firing of Iran’s Ali Larijani (a ‘Reformist’ with British ties) who headed the nuclear negotiations with EU’s Solana. Larijani was replaced by a hardliner who is a close associate of Ahmadinejad. The Vice President’s conditional statement for penalties “if Iran stays on its current path” is interesting in that it could be construed as US administration still hopeful that the European mullahs like Khatami and Rafsanjani could take over power in an internal coup against Ahmadinejad and company.

The fact is that our lack of any decisive, serious action with resolve to confront the regime as a whole could be interpreted as the hope for compromise with another “form” of the same regime in Iran. Despite the innuendo and rhetoric, Washington seems to be going towards appeasement of the European faction within the regime in Iran (the “Reformists”.) And any coming military strike by us would be limited and will be targeted on the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) power centers to weaken the hardliners' position vis a vis the "Reformists" within the regime in Tehran. It is then hoped that the clergy "Reformists" with European ties could take power out of the hands of a weakened Ahmadinejad and company.

So much for regime change.

Putin & The Price of Desperation

The price that the Islamic Republic of Terror in Iran had to pay the murderous "Polonium" Putin for his 2-bit support of Iranian nuclear weapons activities was for Iran to give HUGE concessions to Russia on the Caspian Basin legal rights and boundaries. The Iranian National Front has a declaration about this, and calls this shameful concession the worst Caspian Sea concession against Iranian interests since the Ghajar Dynasty's rule in Iran. (http://jebhemelli.net/htdocs/statements/2007/10_October/INF_Russia_Cspi an%20Sea.htm)

Such is the background to Putin, the Rouski Dictator who poisons his enemies with Polonium, officially teaming up with the Theocracy of Turds in Tehran, the murderous regime of Islamic Republic of Terror in Iran. What a truly appalling pair!

We must face the music, and prepare ourselves for the ultimate conflict that is looming ever so closer by each passing day.

We cannot run away from this battle like the state department is doing now. Bush administration's Iran policy, with appeasers like Condi Rice and Robert Gates in charge, is a total disaster so far.

The President must take things into own hands and be the "Decider" soon, or all will be lost for a very long time in Iran and the region. So far, our response to the Iranian dictatorship as well as its long time "Sugar Daddy" Russia has been very anemic and disappointing.

As such, we cannot continue to take a holiday from the history that is taking shape before our very eyes, due partly to our inaction and timid abstinence on confronting Iran and its band of gangster supporters in a serious and meaningful way.

TAHKIM VAHDAT: A Tool of the Iranian Regime Disguised as Opposition

Although it is true that certain Iranian pundits in the US are working for the Islamic dictatorship in Iran (e.g., Vali Nasr, Trita Parsi, etc.); but Iranian people loathe and reject ALL officials in the regime.The notion that the regime can 'reform' itself through "European mullahs" like Khatami and Rafsanjani is deceitful and totally and wholly rejected by the Iranian people. In fact, the so-called "Reformists" in Iran have been more treasonous and even more dangerous for the future secular Iran than any other faction inside their Theo-dictatorship. Iranians want total destruction of the Islamic Republic regime: "Hardliners" AND "Reformists" both, not the same pig but made-up with European lipsticks on it!

The student gouplet,"Tahkim Vahdat", was created by the "Reformist" camp within the Islamic fascist regime in Iran as a political and propaganda tool to re-install Khatami and the rest of the "European mullahs" back in power. What Tahkim Vahdat leaders promise is 'change'. But in fact what they have to offer is not 'change', it is more of the same rubbish as when Khatami and Rafsanjani were in power.

All democratic-minded Iranians reject the notion of reformability of a regime, especially if the new make-up is applied by mullahs like Khatami with strong European ties.

The Treason of Trita Parsi and Co.

The Theocratic dictatorship in Iran has many operatives in the west in the areas of intelligence gathering, as well as through organizations like National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and TV and media pundits such as Trita Parsi, Ray Takyeh, Vali Nasr, and others(http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hY9waWoRD
eOgWYzFjy5ZWEv9vkeg).

These individuals do everything they can to soften the perceptions towards the Iranian regime in the west, and to be the apologists for the regime in the United States. They are on a mission.In fact inside the US media, there are also pro-Islamists elements with ties to certain European factions, who like their Iranian counterparts above, promote appeasement of the Iranian regime and portray them as "misunderstood", examples of such reporters are Christian Amanpour, Charlie Rose, John McLaughlin (of the PBS program McLaughlin Report), Fareed Zakaria and other similar Iran-appeasers and pro-Islamist 5th column.

Reformists Protests Against Ahmadinejad

We must be careful to discern staged protests instigated (and most likely financed) by the "Reformist" faction within the Islamist Regime with genuine peoples protest with the intention to end the Islamic regime.Unfortunately even the analysts on the right, are avoiding or ignoring the fact that Euro-mullah 'Reformists' inside the regime, led by Rafsanjani and Khatami, have been and are preparing themselves for a sort of a Coup to pounce back into power by ousting Ahmadinejad, and hence save the regime from being destroyed.

These student 'protests' should be looked upon more in that light rather than a call for ending the regime by the protestors. The protests and slogans are mainly against Ahmadinejad and indirectly aganist Khamenei who lead the faction of the Hardliners in the regime. This is just infighting between the 'Reformists' and 'Hardliners' over which one will continue to lead the regime.

And as such, analysts should take care not to fall into the notion that the cause of these small, anemic, scattered, and isolated protests have anything to do with ending the regime as a whole.

This coming "change" is actually not a "change", but just a reversion to what the form of the regime was before Ahmadinejad came into power in June 2006 under Khatami, Europe's darling mullah.And as such, this is exactly what is coming for Iran if US continues to sit on its hands and not do something drastic to change the situation around soon. Unless, of course, we like to see an Islamic Republic pig albeit decorated with European lipstick come into power in Iran in the near future.

For more articles and blogs on Iran, please go to: http://mor2com.blogspot.com/

The Coming Return of Euro-mullahs to Iran

Certain factions within the EU aristocractic political elite who support appeasement/sleeping-in-the-same bed foreign policy towards Islamists (remember Jack Straw?). We have our own share of this breed in the US: Kerry, Soros, Obama, Biden, and other Euro-politicians, and their supporters in the media (NBC, Charlie Rose, McLaughlin, to name just a few.) These same appeasers, who have always had soft spots in their hearts for the Iranian mullahs, are trying to prevent any serious action against the regime by the US. And the Archbishop of Canterbury is the lates convenient mouthpiece spewing the same line of appeasement towards the Iranian regime in his latest utterings(see:http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/10/06/the_archbishops_sermon.php#comments. Afterall, the said Archbishop is basically acting like a Christian Ayatollah.


What the Europeans are trying to do (maybe minus France now) is to see if they can get their own elements, i.e, Rafsanjani and Khatami gang, back into power in Iran. That will kill 3 birds with one stone in that they get rid of Ahamdinejad and Khamenei(eventually and later, as the new head of the council, Rafsanjani can convince the 'Council of Experts' to replace Khamenei upon his death, or sooner, with Khatami. It was initially Rafsanjani who made the same council elect Khamenei himself as the Supreme Leader many years ago.)


Second, Rafsanjani and Khatami will most likley put a freeze on the nuclear activities of Iran, hence satisfying US and Israel.


The third is a point of slefish economic profit for Europe itself: Under Rafsanjani and/or Khatami, EU will reclaim all the contracts they lost to the Russians and the Chinese under Ahmadinejad's reign.


And frankly, judging by President Bush's back-pedalling on Iran in the last few days, people who back the archbishop are winning in their effort to neuter US into inaction against the regime.
The only losers, as usual, will be the Iranian democracy and people; and of course American interests in the region.



Any 'limited strike' against the Ghods Force and/or the Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) which may occur should be looked at with the same eye. Gordon Brown is reportedly a string proponent of such a strike on the IRGC. The 'limited strike' is not designed for, nor will it be effective as, a tool for regime change in Iran. Regime change may only happen if a massive bombing campaign of all the regime's power centers (not only the IRGC) is conducted with the specific intention of targeting the regime and prompt it to fall. This outcome is far from what the European powers, who have lucrative and vested economic interests in Iran, want. So why is the UK supporting a purported 'limited strike' against the IRGC? We need some background to be able to answer that question.



These are just 4 of the main units created by the Iranian regime to ensure its survival by having many separate entities-- distribution of power-- in order to have redundancy in its safety and security against any foreign or internal enemies who may try to topple the regime militarily or otherwise:



--The IRGC: separate entity form the Iranian army, akin to Sadam's Elite Republic Guards involved in everything from oil industry contracts to protecting the regime. The SS gaurds of the regime.



-- The Baseej Force: paramilitary urban Gestapo to quash urban unrest, civil disobedience, workers, women, student anti-regime demonstrations, etc.



--The Ghods Force: an offshoot of the IRGC with special operations over-the-border raid capability, foreign insurgency terrorist training, and conducting of terrorist operations inside the neighboring countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and now in Azerbaijan to try to topple the neighboring governments and help install Islamist states with ties to Tehran in those countries.



--The Mahdi Army (Jaysh-Al-Mahdi): an 'army' created by the Iranian regime plan and financing which operates in southern Iraq and is headed by Tehran-supported radical Shiite mullah, Moghtada Al-Sadr, to create instability across Iraq. The goal is to cause as much mayhem and unrest for US forces as possible, and to ultimately establish an Islamist Iranian sattelite state in Iraq under Iranian control.



The IRGC, and the Baseej in particular, are close allies of the current President n Iran, Ahamdinejad and his cohorts, radical Ayatollahs like Jannati, Mesbah-Yazdi, and of course the Supreme Leader Khamenei himself.



The "Reformists" on the other hand, are the likes of Rafsanjani and Khatami who both have European ties. Khatami was the President before June 2006 when Ahamdinejad came into power. In his younger years, Khatami studied Islam in Germany. Khatami's classmate was none other than Ayatollah Beheshti who later died in a bombing incident where 72 of the top elite leadership of the regime were killed in the early years after 1979 Islamists take over of Iran. Beheshti had German citizenship and a German wife. Khatami and his classmate Beheshti both attended the Hambourg Islamic Institute.



Rafsanjani too, is a shadowy, multi-faced character, who when President of Iran before Khatami, had extensive ties with western European countries, as well as with the Canadian government under Chretien. He was responsible for many assassinations and executions of dissidents in Europe and in Iran. He has also been named as an accomplice in ordering the bombing of the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina during his presidency. He has enormous wealth due to his family's monopoly of the oil industry and receiving illegal kick-backs from European corporations in return for allowing them concessions in doing business in Iran. It has also been reproted in Iran and other international sources that Rafsanjani owns several real estate mega-properties in Canada, including shopping malls, and even a small town.



It is then no surprise that certain European political and economic elite desire a return of pro-Europe elements inside the Iranian regime. In its history, Iran and Europe never had the huge trade volumes achieved under Rafsanjani and Khatami.



And as such, Iran turned into a 'Cash Cow' for European corporate interest. After 1979, and especially in the 80s and 90s, Europeans were awarded huge economic advantage in Iran that they could not have dreamt of when the Shah was in power.



In return, throughout 80s and 90s, Europe provided ample political support for the regime in international forums, and even indirectly allowed Tehran to do its dirty work on European soil through numerous assassinations of dissidents who the regime perceived as threats to it.

Iran Ship Sailing Away from US

Certain factions within the EU aristocratic political elite who support appeasement/sleeping-in-the-same bed foreign policy towards Islamists (remember Jack Straw?). We have our own share of this breed in the US: Kerry, Soros, Obama, Biden, and other Euro-politicians, and their supporters in the media (NBC, Charlie Rose, McLaughlin, to name just a few.) These same appeasers, who have always had soft spots in their hearts for the Iranian mullahs, are trying to prevent any serious action against the regime by the US. And the Archbishop of Canterbury is the latest convenient mouthpiece spewing the same line of appeasement towards the Iranian regime in his latest moans where the Archbishop is basically sounding like a Christian Iranian Ayatollah.(see: http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/10/06/the_archbishops_sermon.php#comments.)

What the Europeans are trying to do in Iran (minus France now, perhaps) is to see if they can get their own elements, i.e., Rafsanjani and Khatami gang, back into power in Iran. That will kill 3 birds with one stone in that they get rid of Ahamdinejad and Khomeini(eventually and later, as the new head of the council, Rafsanjani can convince the 'Council of Experts' to replace Khamenei upon his death, or sooner, with Khatami. It was initially Rafsanjani who made the same council elect Khamenei himself as the Supreme Leader many years ago.)Second, Rafsanjani and Khatami will most likely put a freeze on the nuclear activities of Iran, hence satisfying US and Israel.The third is a point of selfish economic profit for Europe itself: Under Rafsanjani and/or Khatami, EU will reclaim all the contracts they lost to the Russians and the Chinese under Ahmadinejad's reign. Any 'limited strike' against the Ghods Force and/or the Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) which may occur should be looked at in the same vein. Gordon Brown is reportedly a strong proponent of such a limited strike on the IRGC (but not a massive bombing campaign desigen to topple the regime.)

The 'limited strike' is not designed for, nor will it be effective, as a tool for regime change in Iran. Regime change could only happen if a massive bombing campaign of all of the regime's power centers (not only the IRGC) is conducted with the specific intention of targeting the regime and prompt it to fall. This outcome is far from what the European powers, who have lucrative and vested economic interests in Iran, want. So why is the UK supporting a purported 'limited strike' against the IRGC? Read on.
**************************************************************************************************
There are at least 4 armed main units created by the Iranian regime to ensure its survival, and ideological expansion by having many separate entities-- distribution of power-- in order to have redundancy in its safety and security against any foreign or internal enemies who may try to topple the regime militarily or otherwise:

--The IRGC: separate entity form the Iranian army, akin to Saddam's Elite Republic Guards involved in everything from oil industry contracts to protecting the regime. The SS guards of the regime.

-- The Baseej Force: paramilitary urban Gestapo to quash urban unrest, civil disobedience, workers, women, student anti-regime demonstrations, etc.

--The Ghods Force: an offshoot of the IRGC with special operations over-the-border raid capability, foreign insurgency terrorist training, and conducting of terrorist operations inside the neighboring countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and now in Azerbaijan to try to topple the neighboring governments and help install Islamist states with ties to Tehran in those countries.

--The Mahdi Army (Jaysh-Al-Mahdi): an 'army' created by the Iranian regime plan and financing which operates in southern Iraq and is headed by Tehran-supported radical Shiite mullah, Moghtada Al-Sadr, to create instability across Iraq. The goal is to cause as much mayhem and unrest for US forces as possible, and to ultimately establish an Islamist Iranian satellite state in Iraq under Iranian control.


The IRGC, and the Baseej in particular, are close allies of the current President n Iran, Ahamdinejad and his cohorts, radical Ayatollahs like Jannati, Mesbah-Yazdi, and of course the Supreme Leader Khamenei himself. The "Reformists" on the other hand, are the likes of Rafsanjani and Khatami who both have European ties.

Khatami was the President before June 2006 when Ahamdinejad came into power. In his younger years, Khatami studied Islam in Germany. Khatami's classmate was none other than Ayatollah Beheshti who later died in a bombing incident where 72 of the top elite leadership of the regime were killed in the early years after 1979 Islamists take over of Iran. Beheshti had German citizenship and a German wife. Khatami and his classmate Beheshti both attended the Hambourg Islamic Institute.

Rafsanjani too, is a shadowy, multi-faced character, who when President of Iran before Khatami, had extensive ties with western European countries, as well as with the Canadian government under Chrétien. He was responsible for many assassinations and executions of dissidents in Europe and in Iran. He has also been named as an accomplice in ordering the bombing of the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina during his presidency. He has enormous wealth due to his family's monopoly of the oil industry and receiving illegal kick-backs from European corporations in return for allowing them concessions in doing business in Iran. It has also been reported in Iran and other international sources that Rafsanjani owns several real estate mega-properties in Canada, including shopping malls, and even a small town.

In all of their history, Iran and Europe never had the huge trade volumes achieved under Rafsanjani and Khatami. And as such, Iran turned into a 'Cash Cow' for European corporate interest. After 1979, and especially in the 80s and 90s, Europeans were awarded huge economic advantage in Iran that they could not have dreamt of when the Shah was in power.In return, throughout 80s and 90s, Europe provided ample political support for the regime in international forums, and even indirectly allowed Tehran to do its dirty work on European soil through numerous assassinations of dissidents who the regime perceived as threats to it.

A selective ‘limited strike’ against the IRGC and Ghods Force, and not a massive bombing of all of the regime’s power centers which could cause the regime to fall, is just what the “Reformists” in Iran need to weaken the hand of the Ahmadinejad’s faction and to strengthen them. If and when the strike occurs, Rafsanjani could easily use the military strike on IRGC as a convenient tool to scare and convince the ‘Council of Experts’ which he leads, to strip Ahamdinejad of all his powers, declare state of emergency, and pave the road for Rafsanjani and the “Reformists” to return to power.

And eventually if not sooner, the western pro-regime appeasers both in Europe and America hope, that Khamenei himself could be ousted from the Supreme Leadership seat and replaced, perhaps, by Khatami. And there you will have the start of a new phase of and Islamic Republic which the west can actually live and trade with. And as soon as the new, pro-European Islamic regime is established in Tehran, an immediate and indefinite suspension or freeze of all Iranian nuclear activities will be declared, and all will be verified and forgiven.

Frankly, judging by President Bush's back-pedaling on Iran in the last few days, people who back the esteemed Archbishop are winning in their effort to neuter US into inaction against the regime.

Meanwhile, while Washington is bogged down with weakness, inaction, and indecision due to internal strife on what, if anything, to do about Iran, it seems that the American political advantage and leverage in Iran is disappearing fast, and as such, potentially for a long time to come.

And then, the only losers, as usual, will be the Iranian democracy and people; and of course American interests in the region.

The Real Danger for Iran

The term Islamo-fascist is too broad a brush. But Having said that, it is fitting to the Theocracy in Iran.

Condi, the Mistress of Dominatrix outfits, is of the Madeleine Albright school of thought in that she is against military attack on Iran, and pro appeasement of the mullahs, and "sleeping with the enemy" (no pun intended) within the framework of a "Grand Bargain" which will gaurantee that US will not try to overthrow the regime, if and only if Iran stops supporting Islamic terrorists around the world, and also stop its nuclear activities (like THAT's gonna ever happen, even if the mullahs promise all!). Suffice it to say, Condi is no friend of the Iranian people or a future Iranian democracy, either.

The term Mao-Islamist was a label that was placed on certain political dissident groups under the Shah in the 70s. There were actual groups proclaiming they were Mao-Islamists in Iran in the 70s, it was a sort of mix of Chinese socialism and Islam. Rumour has it that Ahmadinejad's "career" started off as an active member of such groups back in the early 70s. And of course, we see today that Beijing is one of the most ardent supporters of the current Iranian regime, albeit more for cheap oil and other economic advantages for itself than anything else. But geopolitically, China also see the Islamic Republic of Terror in Iran, as its pseudo-proxy to ward off further US expansion in the region. Other than that, I am not even sure that the Red Chinese are "Maoists" themselves. They are more like "Profiteers", like the "Farangi" in Star Trek Next Generation, without ethics or scruple. Further it seems that Myanmar too is now closing in on a shift away from China and into the British circle of influence. As Pakistan is shifting away from US and back to its traditional British roots, as well, if Benazir is back on the saddle there soon. That leaves Iran...

And that is exactly the danger that threatens Iran, even more than war with the US: An internal "coup" within the Iranian regime, supported by the Brits (among other Europeans) to oust Ahmadinejad (Russian/Chinese faction) with their own Rafsanjani (British ties) and/or Khatami (German and Austrian ties) and their cohorts. If successful, this is extremely dangerous for Iran's future since it will basically give a renewed lease on life for the regime to survive as a "pig with lipstick" for perhaps another 28-years, or so. The bombing of the Rev Guards, IRGC, base, if it occurs, could be exactly what Rafsanjani and the Khatamites need to convince the Supreme Leader to back off, and allow the phony "Reformists" and the fake "Pragmatists" back at the helm of power in Iran with full support from Europeans (as it was during Khatami's reign). And that may be exactly why Gordon Brown is reportedly so eager and excited in his approval of such a "limited strike" against the IRGC.

Iranian people reject this kind of just 'changing of the guards' solution to their current problem. As an Iranian saying goes, that will be akin to having "the same mule, but with a different pack-saddle". An overwhelming majority of Iranians detest the Islamic dictatorship imposed on them since 1979 (with Europe's backing). They want change, real change, and that means the total up-rooting of this nasty regime, "Reformists" and all.

Too bad, they are too numb and disillusioned to act on that desire. They have a lot to learn from Myanmar and its budding Saffron Revolution.