Cheney raises anti-Iran rhetoric By Jim Lobe

Dandelion Salad

By Jim Lobe
Asia Times
Inter Press Service
Oct. 22, 2007

In the harshest speech against Iran given by a top George W Bush administration official to date, Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday warned the Islamic Republic of “serious consequences” if it did not freeze its nuclear program and accused it of “direct involvement in the killings of Americans”.

“Given the nature of Iran’s rulers, the declarations of the Iranian president, and the trouble the regime is causing throughout the region – including the direct involvement in the killing of Americans – our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions,” Cheney warned in a major policy address to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).

“The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences,” he added. “The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

In his nearly 30-minute speech, an uncompromising defense of the Bush administration’s record in the Middle East, Cheney also claimed that, with Washington’s “surge” strategy working well against al-Qaeda in Iraq, the “greatest strategic threat that Iraq’s Shi’ites face today in consolidating their rightful role in Iraq’s new democracy is the subversive activities of the Iranian regime”.

And he accused “Syria and its agents” of using “bribery and intimidation … to prevent the democratic majority in Lebanon from electing a truly independent president”.

“Lebanon has the right to conduct the upcoming elections free of any foreign interference,” he declared, adding, “The United States will work with Free Lebanon’s other friends and allies to preserve Lebanon’s hard-won independence, and to defeat the forces of extremism and terror that threaten not only that region, but US countries [sic] across the wider region.”

Cheney’s speech comes at a moment of rising tensions between the US and Iran. Just last week, Cheney’s boss, George W Bush, warned during a brief press appearance that Tehran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon – or even the expertise needed to make one – could lead to a new world war.

“I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,” he told reporters, although the White House later insisted that the president was merely making a “rhetorical point” and still believed that the nuclear issue could be resolved diplomatically.

Two days later, Iran’s lead nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, had resigned and would be replaced by a less prominent diplomat Saeed Jalili. Although the government later announced that both Larijani and Jalili will attend talks Tuesday in Rome with European Union (EU) foreign-affairs chief, Javier Solana, the move was widely interpreted in Washington as a major victory for the hardline anti-Western faction behind President Mahmud Ahmadinejad against more pragmatic elements in the regime.

While Jalili lacks experience, noted Farideh Farhi, an Iran expert at the University of Hawaii, “What Jalili does have is a very close relationship with Ahmadinejad. As such, the move, if it is confirmed, reflects yet another enhancement of Ahmadinejad’s fortunes in Iranian politics.”

Like Ahmadinejad, Cheney has long been seen as the leader of hardline forces within the administration, and the mere fact that his speech – which must have been cleared at the highest levels – was as belligerent as it was, especially in accusing Iran of “direct involvement in the killings of Americans”, suggests that the hawks are trying to take the offensive.

Neither Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice nor Pentagon chief Robert Gates has made such an unequivocal accusation; indeed, Gates has tried to downplay such charges when they have been voiced by military commanders in Iraq.

The forum chosen by Cheney to deliver his speech was in many ways as significant as its timing and context. WINEP, a generally hawkish think-tank, was founded some 20 years ago by the research director of the highly influential lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and is funded by many of the same donors.

AIPAC, in turn, has led a high-powered effort to persuade Congress to impose tough new sanctions against Iran and foreign companies that do business with it, and, more recently, to have Tehran’s Revolutionary Guard declared a “terrorist” organization.

As Cheney himself noted Sunday, his own national security adviser, John Hannah, once served as WINEP’s deputy director. While WINEP does not take specific positions on pending legislation or policies, it is generally regarded as at least sympathetic to AIPAC’s efforts and often provides the research AIPAC uses in its lobbying activities.

Cheney’s speech was remarkable on several counts, beginning with the fact that it came less than a week after Gates gave a much more restrained presentation on US Middle East policy and the threat posed by Iran to a yet more-hawkish pro-Israel group, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

While Gates called Tehran’s government “an ambitious and fanatical theocracy”, he also stressed the importance of diplomatic pressure and, in marked contrast to Cheney, dwelt much more heavily on the threats posed by al Qaeda and other Sunni jihadi movements.

Indeed, the rhetorical differences – including Gates’ effort to distinguish between Sunni jihadism and Iran and Cheney’s attempts to blur the two – could not be more pronounced.

Cheney’s speech was also notable for its aggressive and unapologetic defense of the Bush administration’s conduct of its “war on terrorism”; its insistence that the “surge” has turned the tide of the war in Iraq; and its repetition of neo-conservative notions about the importance of reacting with “swift and dire” punishment against challenges to US power in the region and the possibility that Tehran is deeply threatened by the emergence of “a strong, independent, Arab Shi’ite community” in Iraq.

He charged that Iran is a “growing obstacle to peace in the Middle East”, and he recited a long litany of grievances against it. “This same regime that approved of hostage-taking in 1979, that attacked Saudi and Kuwaiti shipping in the 1980s, that incited suicide bombings and jihadism in the 1990s and beyond, is now the world’s most active state sponsor of terror,” he declared, quoting the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus for the proposition that it is fighting a “proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq”.

“Fearful of a strong, independent, Arab Shi’ite community emerging in Iraq, one that seeks guidance not in Qom, Iran, but from traditional sources of Shi’ite authority in Najaf and Karbala, the Iranian regime also aims to keep Iraq in a state of weakness that prevents Baghdad from presenting a threat to Tehran,” he added, blaming the Quds Force, an elite branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, for providing “weapons, money and training to terrorists and Islamic militant groups abroad, including Hamas; Palestinian Islamic Jihad; militants in the Balkans, the Taliban and other anti-Afghanistan militants; and Hezbollah terrorists trying to destabilize Lebanon’s democratic government.”

He also strongly implied that Washington continues to seek “regime change” in Tehran, noting that “the irresponsible conduct of the ruling elite in Tehran is a tragedy for all Iranians” and insisting that “the spirit of freedom is stirring Iran … America looks forward to the day when Iranians reclaim their destiny; the day that our two countries, as free and democratic nations, can be the closest of friends.”

Iran, indeed, dominated the last 10 minutes of the speech. By contrast, Lebanon received only two paragraphs while the administration’s efforts to renew US-Palestinian peace talks drew only the briefest of mentions.

Bush, he said, has “announced a meeting to be held in Annapolis later this year to review the progress towards building Palestinian institutions, to seek innovative ways to support further reform, to provide diplomatic support to the parties, so that we can move forward on the path to a Palestinian state”.

(Inter Press Service)

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

2 thoughts on “Cheney raises anti-Iran rhetoric By Jim Lobe

  1. There are several reasons why Washington today “needs” a war with Iran, as I discussed recently on One of these reasons is, in effect, “When you have a hammer…” That is, if you want something, you will use whatever tool you have rather than the tool that is appropriate. Killing a mosquito with a sledgehammer may not be the way to do it, however, especially if the mosquito is sitting (with a smirk) on your own forehead, assuming that you will have enough brains not to use the sledgehammer. (Some artist please send me the cartoon!)

    Superpowers are expected to exert their power, but U.S. power in all aspects except military has been undergoing a relative decline in recent years. Our national economic irresponsibility in living beyond our means by borrowing from the Chinese and living for current consumption rather than investing in the future is undermining our economic leadership. The administration’s penchant for trying to solve all problems with force and violating international norms is undermining our moral leadership. The administration’s clear preference for unilateralism rather than diplomacy is undermining our political leadership. War is what we’re good at, and we’re a superpower. I mean, we have to do something, don’t we? If the only tool you have is a hammer…

  2. Pingback: On the Eve of Destruction By Scott Ritter « Dandelion Salad

Comments are closed.