[R-G] Cheney Raises the Rhetoric Against Iran

[Anthony Fenton]

POLITICS-US:  Cheney Raises the Rhetoric Against Iran
By Jim Lobe
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39747

WASHINGTON, Oct 21 (IPS) - In the harshest speech against Iran given  
by a top George W. Bush administration official to date, Vice  
President Dick Cheney Sunday warned the Islamic Republic of "serious  
consequences" if it did not freeze its nuclear programme 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 Untied 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 defence 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 Shiites 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 U.S.  
countries (sic) across the wider region."

Cheney's speech comes at a moment of rising tensions between the U.S.  
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  
here as a major victory for the hard-line anti-western faction behind  
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against more pragmatic elements in the  
regime.

While Jalili lacks experience, noted Farideh Farhi, an Iran expert at  
the University of Hawaii, "(w)hat 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 hard- 
line 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" organisation.

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 U.S. Middle East policy and the threat  
posed by Iran to a yet more-hawkish pro-Israel group, the Jewish  
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

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 "jihadist" 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  
defence 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  
U.S. power in the region and the possibility that Tehran is deeply  
threatened by the emergence of "a strong, independent, Arab Shia  
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 U.S.  
commander in Iraq, Gen. 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 Shia community emerging in  
Iraq, one that seeks guidance not in Qom, Iran, but from traditional  
sources of Shia 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 Revolutionary Guard, 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 U.S.-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."

(END/2007)