‎‏

Omid Memarian ‎
o.memarian@roozonline.com

Journalist and political analyst Mashallah Shamsolvaezin told Rooz in an interview that ‎America has no intention of overthrowing the Iranian regime, but strives to change its ‎behavior. Below is the text of this interview. ‎

Rooz (R): In recent days, George W. Bush has likened Iran to Al Qaeda on at least two ‎occasions, once even claiming that Iran is a bigger security threat than Al Qaeda. How ‎do you evaluate the harshening of America’s rhetoric in recent days, after General ‎Petraeus presented his report on Iraq to Congress? ‎

Mashallah Shamsolvaezin (MS): Let us not forget that George Bush had promised to ‎Congress and those opposed to the Iraq war that starting in May, 25 thousand soldiers ‎would be returned to the US from Iraq each month. A timetable was even drawn up for ‎reducing troop levels in Iraq. The American ambassador in Iraq and General Petraeus ‎told Congress in their last report that they would be able to reduce troop levels in Iraq ‎starting from May of 2008, gradually transferring all security tasks to Iraqi troops. ‎Recent events in Basra and Sadr City, however, demonstrated that the United States is ‎unable to reduce its military presence in Iraq. As a result, the U.S. announced that it ‎would put a 45-day freeze on reducing troop levels in Iraq and blamed Iran for the ‎setback. ‎

R: In 2002, George Bush named Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil, and harsher ‎stances have been taken towards Iran ever since. In your opinion, is it part of a larger ‎plan to claim that Iran is more dangerous than Al Qaeda? In general, what are the ‎political and security implications of such a claim? ‎

MS: Iranian and U.S. officials have begun employing harsher rhetoric against one ‎another. Therefore, claiming that Iran is worse than Al Qaeda and making claims of that ‎nature are mostly for domestic American consumption. Look, we have a copy of Bush in ‎Iran, called Mr. Ahmadinejad, who blames every domestic problem on America; for ‎example, he claims that foreign elements planned to increase inflation to 70 percent and ‎his government successfully kept the inflation rate at 18 percent. Both sides have learned ‎the game, which is to project their domestic and internal problems outside toward the ‎enemy’s post. ‎

I believe that George Bush prefers that John McCain becomes the next President, because ‎he will continue the neoconservative agenda toward Iran and Iraq. But Iranians should ‎not believe that they will benefit from a change in US administration from Republican to ‎Democrat because when it comes to Iran, all political parties in America have a ‎consensus. In other words, they have fewer differences on this issue than any other, even ‎Palestine. The various political factions in the United States share many opinions ‎regarding Iran. ‎

R: There is an analysis in America that if a national security issue arises in the United ‎States, among the three remaining candidates in the presidential race, John McCain will ‎benefit the most. According to this analysis, some Republicans do not mind increasing ‎John McCain’s popularity by orchestrating a strange event. In your opinion, and ‎especially given the developments of the past few days, is it possible that Republicans ‎would orchestrate a military attack against Iran – even a limited one – to change the ‎landscape of the presidential elections? ‎

MS: Such attempts have been underway for a long time, and Democrats have apparently ‎reached the conclusion that, by destabilizing the region, George Bush intends to keep ‎radical policies in the White House with the election of John McCain. I see many ‎analyses from Westerners where they analyze the recent events in Basra and the delay in ‎returning American troops from Iraq within this framework, which is very true. My ‎opinion is that we will see escalating tensions in Iraq in the coming months. It is not in ‎Iran’s interest for tensions in Iraq to escalate, because that would strengthen the logic of ‎radical Republicans. Actually, from a logical point of view, it is in Iran’s interest to calm ‎the situation and increase the incentive for American troops to leave Iraq, thereby ‎weakening the logic of American conservatives in the presidential elections. However, it ‎is to America’s advantage to exaggerate the Iranian threat in Iraq and boost the position ‎of neoconservatives that it is necessary to remain in Iraq. ‎

R: In your opinion, will destabilizing Iran rescue America from Iraq or – as you have ‎mentioned in another interview – conjoin the centers of crises from Afghanistan to ‎Lebanon? ‎

MS: Until further notice, I am of the opinion that the United States does not want to ‎destabilize Iran, politically or militarily, meaning that more than any other country in the ‎world America opposes the destabilization of Iran under current conditions. America ‎does not want to change the Iranian regime, because America knows that there are no ‎serious alternatives to the current regime, and a new crisis would entangle the United ‎States. Iran’s territorial disintegration would spark a giant explosion. ‎