02-23-2006, 11:05 PM
<b>MY WASHINGTON DIARY</b> -by B. Raman
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->5. Let there be no doubt about it. There is a hardening of American public opinion against Islamic fundamentalism in the wake of the incidents of violence over the Danish cartoons. "The time for euphemisms is gone. Let us call a spade a spade. <b>It is not just jihadi terrorism. It is Islamic extremism, Islamic terrorism. </b>We do not want a clash of civilisations. It is Osama bin Laden and his followers, who are projecting their terrorism as a clash of civilisations. We have to confront it head-on." That is the argument I heard again and again from circles close to the neo-conservatives.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->9. Everybody in the US without exception is convinced that Iran should not be allowed to acquire a military nuclear capability. There is a difference of opinion as to how imminent is a nuclear Iran. The professionals argue it is still years away and hence there is time to give diplomacy a chance to find a solution. The ideologues argue that it is only months away. Some say that Iran must be presumed to be already nuclear and acted against immediately. A nuclear Iran is seen as a threat not only to Israel, but also to the US.
10. The ideologues blame the Clinton Administration for the present crisis relating to Iran. They criticise Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Madeline Albright, his Secretary of State, for trusting former Presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami and for placing the ideological opponents of the Teheran regime such as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq in the list of terrorist organisations as an overture to them. They say it is absurd to talk of moderates in the Iranian Islamic circles. Everybody in Iran wants to destroy Israel and damage the US interests. Mr. Khatami did not talk about it openly whereas the present President Mr. Ahmadinejad, does it openly. So they believe. They feel the Clinton Administration should have destroyed the Uranium Hexafluoride plant at Isphahan and the enrichment plant at Natanz even when they were under construction instead of allowing them to be completed. <b>If one points out that even the Bush administration had closed its eyes to the goings-on in Isphahan and Natanz till 2004 because it needed Teheran's complicity for its invasion and occupation of Iraq, one is disliked.</b>
<b>11. The ideologues, who feel that much time has already been wasted on diplomacy, demand the immediate announcement of a programme for bringing about a regime change in Teheran through political covert action and not through military invasion as was done in Iraq and an air strike against all nuclear establishments of Iran to be undertaken even before a regime change is achieved. </b>They argue that a regime change will take some time to bring about and insist that an air strike on the nuclear establishments should be undertaken within the next six months. As the first step in the exercise to bring about a regime change, they want the administration to remove the terrorist tab on the Mujahideen-e-Khalq.
12. Amongst the other arguments which I came across are:
It would be unwise for the US to encourage Israel to do the job without the US directly getting involved. It could unite the Islamic world behind Iran.Â
The US should do it, but not unilaterally. The ideal would be for the US to launch an air strike on behalf of the UN. However, it is unlikely due to a possible veto in the UN Security Council by Russia and China. The US should, therefore, do it on behalf of the NATO, which should not pose any difficulty since countries such as France and Germany share the US concerns over a nuclear Iran.Â
A purely US strike on behalf of the NATO could be projected by the jihadi extremists as part of the clash of civilisation between the Muslims and the Christians (crusaders). <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>The US should, therefore, build a coalition of the willing to back a NATO air strike consisting of some important non-Christian states such as India, Japan and Singapore. Hence, the importance of India. </span>The implementation of the civilian nuclear deal with India should be conditional on India going the whole way with the US till Iran's nuclear establishments are destroyed by a US air strike on behalf of the NATO.Â
<b>13. At an interaction on Iran led by two retired senior officers of the US army who have been advocating a quick US air strike by the middle of this year followed by covert political action for a regime change, I intervened and said as follows:" I will project a scenario, which none of you seem to be envisaging. Supposing before you make an air strike on Iran's nuclear establishments and bring about a regime change, the jihadis bring about a regime change in Islamabad and capture power after overthrowing Musharraf. You will be faced with a cruel dilemma---- should you act against the Iranian nuclear establishments first or against the Pakistani ones. What will you do?"</b>
<b>14. All I got in reply was a reiteration of their faith in Musharraf and an expression of their confidence that such an eventuality is unlikely to arise</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't agree with him. Why to drag India into mess? Who will handle Islamic fundoos and commies of India?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->5. Let there be no doubt about it. There is a hardening of American public opinion against Islamic fundamentalism in the wake of the incidents of violence over the Danish cartoons. "The time for euphemisms is gone. Let us call a spade a spade. <b>It is not just jihadi terrorism. It is Islamic extremism, Islamic terrorism. </b>We do not want a clash of civilisations. It is Osama bin Laden and his followers, who are projecting their terrorism as a clash of civilisations. We have to confront it head-on." That is the argument I heard again and again from circles close to the neo-conservatives.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->9. Everybody in the US without exception is convinced that Iran should not be allowed to acquire a military nuclear capability. There is a difference of opinion as to how imminent is a nuclear Iran. The professionals argue it is still years away and hence there is time to give diplomacy a chance to find a solution. The ideologues argue that it is only months away. Some say that Iran must be presumed to be already nuclear and acted against immediately. A nuclear Iran is seen as a threat not only to Israel, but also to the US.
10. The ideologues blame the Clinton Administration for the present crisis relating to Iran. They criticise Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Madeline Albright, his Secretary of State, for trusting former Presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami and for placing the ideological opponents of the Teheran regime such as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq in the list of terrorist organisations as an overture to them. They say it is absurd to talk of moderates in the Iranian Islamic circles. Everybody in Iran wants to destroy Israel and damage the US interests. Mr. Khatami did not talk about it openly whereas the present President Mr. Ahmadinejad, does it openly. So they believe. They feel the Clinton Administration should have destroyed the Uranium Hexafluoride plant at Isphahan and the enrichment plant at Natanz even when they were under construction instead of allowing them to be completed. <b>If one points out that even the Bush administration had closed its eyes to the goings-on in Isphahan and Natanz till 2004 because it needed Teheran's complicity for its invasion and occupation of Iraq, one is disliked.</b>
<b>11. The ideologues, who feel that much time has already been wasted on diplomacy, demand the immediate announcement of a programme for bringing about a regime change in Teheran through political covert action and not through military invasion as was done in Iraq and an air strike against all nuclear establishments of Iran to be undertaken even before a regime change is achieved. </b>They argue that a regime change will take some time to bring about and insist that an air strike on the nuclear establishments should be undertaken within the next six months. As the first step in the exercise to bring about a regime change, they want the administration to remove the terrorist tab on the Mujahideen-e-Khalq.
12. Amongst the other arguments which I came across are:
It would be unwise for the US to encourage Israel to do the job without the US directly getting involved. It could unite the Islamic world behind Iran.Â
The US should do it, but not unilaterally. The ideal would be for the US to launch an air strike on behalf of the UN. However, it is unlikely due to a possible veto in the UN Security Council by Russia and China. The US should, therefore, do it on behalf of the NATO, which should not pose any difficulty since countries such as France and Germany share the US concerns over a nuclear Iran.Â
A purely US strike on behalf of the NATO could be projected by the jihadi extremists as part of the clash of civilisation between the Muslims and the Christians (crusaders). <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>The US should, therefore, build a coalition of the willing to back a NATO air strike consisting of some important non-Christian states such as India, Japan and Singapore. Hence, the importance of India. </span>The implementation of the civilian nuclear deal with India should be conditional on India going the whole way with the US till Iran's nuclear establishments are destroyed by a US air strike on behalf of the NATO.Â
<b>13. At an interaction on Iran led by two retired senior officers of the US army who have been advocating a quick US air strike by the middle of this year followed by covert political action for a regime change, I intervened and said as follows:" I will project a scenario, which none of you seem to be envisaging. Supposing before you make an air strike on Iran's nuclear establishments and bring about a regime change, the jihadis bring about a regime change in Islamabad and capture power after overthrowing Musharraf. You will be faced with a cruel dilemma---- should you act against the Iranian nuclear establishments first or against the Pakistani ones. What will you do?"</b>
<b>14. All I got in reply was a reiteration of their faith in Musharraf and an expression of their confidence that such an eventuality is unlikely to arise</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't agree with him. Why to drag India into mess? Who will handle Islamic fundoos and commies of India?