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.
