Operation "Sandblast"

Alan Peters, The Free Republic: Some who do not believe a non-violent approach is possible in Iran are advocating the U.S. support a radical rethinking of U.S. policy. The following is an example of one such approach.

RaceBannon, introduced Alan Peters as:

... an expert on Middle Eastern affairs, especially Iran. I have met the man online and have had his bona-fides confirmed: He is who he says, and knows what he knows.

I cant tell you more without giving away promised confidentiality, but I can personnaly assure the readers that he is an EXPERT on Iranian affairs and once worked in the government of the Shah of Iran.

Below is an analysis and suggestion of what just might work to destabilize the government of Iran and allow the ruling Mullahs to be overthrown.

His approach is not one that we Westerners would consider at first glance in the details, but those who pay attention to the histories of movements that overcame governments that were oppressive can see the likelihood of success. While any movement from the start sounds like a longshot, and is controlled by the inertia of the movements themselves, this plan is one of many that might work.

Those who are familiar with my website might reognize the name of the author as the man who compiled the evidence of Jimmy Carter's abandonement of the Shah, hastening the downfall of the Shah in 1979.

NEW OPPORTUNITY Operation "Sandblast"

For some time now, nobody in power in the USA, nor in Europe seems to be able to think outside the box or even to set in motion anything to remove the clerics, who now threaten civilization, not just the USA and Western culture. But I'm not here to criticize, only to propose a viable solution with a still familiar yet creative box. READ MORE

Specially in the light of a battered, no longer effective student or any other anti-Mullah movement in or out of the country nor any charismatic figure behind which those inside Iran can rally.

Proponents of using the Ukraine "Orange" revolution methodology have gone on record to suggest using "green" - THE COLOR OF ISLAM - as the Iranian Orange, so even ideas with some potential merit, though only if tailored down to minutia to fit the country and culture instead of a general concept that worked in a totally different environment and level or repression, appear to be "mis-thought" out in advance.

The recent "selection" of Ahmadi-Nejat as President of Iran has opened a door that wasn't there before - for removing the Mullah regime in several steps - (brevity for this posting prevents expanding much on headings but others can sit and expand on the concept portrayed here. I'd be glad to participate with any serious authorities who can get something done):

1. Get Rafsanjani out of there before they kill or arrest him for corruption, then isolate or kill him. Canada where he has large development interests offers other advantages, too, to center his forthcoming activities. (Tactical rather than strategic).

(Ignore Rafsanjani's call for unity inside Iran, he has no choice but to say this to stay in one piece).

2. Offer him support to contest the "election" result he recently lost and for him to form a "government in exile" to oppose the current regime (from his base in Canada). He is enough of a pragmatist to become a player with a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow offered him.

3. Link him up with the Mojaheddin Khalgh - MEK (currently designated a terrorist organization based on Clinton trying to appease the clerics) and thus provide Rafsanjani with a double approach and a motivated strike force for later entry back into Iran. A less than happy but still a practical "coalition" for both parties that can be expected to be conditionally accepted on a pragmatic basis.

Neither of these two can expect Western support otherwise. (Again details, advantages and drawbacks of the coalition require more space than can reasonably be used in this posting).

4. In return, promise USA (and to the extent possible Western) support if they quickly identify and REVEAL and once in power, drop all plans for nuclear sites and ambitions. (MEK will happily continue to do so). Russia will be miffed financially. But the nuclear advancement will stop, specially with MEK to ensure Rafsanjani plays it straight. And the consequent in-fighting that will scuttle covert plans.

5. After they do get into power, they will soon try to destroy each other as a matter of course - (or can be easily incited/encouraged to do so). Rafsanjani mullahs, even with the Reformists, cannot be the future of Iran, Neither can the MEK, which can muster an estimated 100,000 followers - boots on the ground inside Iran.

Individually neither group has enough strength, together they can rapidly sandblast the country clean for future generations and democracy. Neither truly supports the other to establish a durable co-operation.

6. In about two, maybe three years, vacuum up the debris and have a clean slate for future democracy in Iran with neither weakened "coalition" partner able to stop it. Probably the least blood shedding of any scenario and done by supporters of Rafsanjani and the MEK, neither of which are needed for the future of the country and thus do not need to keep their hands free of blood as would a Monarchy, or any other democratic movement.

Please notice simplicity of language (no effort to be erudite or a guru) and intentional lack of detailed exposition. Including how best to persuade 70-year old Rafsanjani to come on board (I doubt he will put up much resistance other than demanding monetary returns on projects he presently has for his family and heirs) and the MEK has already asked for a chance to govern Iran for six months before holding elections as their pre-condition.

I'm providing the strategy concept not the detailed tactics - though I could help furnish some of that, too. If nobody will think outside the box, here is a sufficiently "familiar" box within which to think and be successful. Even with this premature heads up to the enemy.

Want to bet they'll take the gamble to get into power despite knowing what the aftermath plan is?

The only serious fly in the ointment at this point might be the risk of President Putin of Russia deciding to later provide full Russian support for the Marxist Mojaheddin (and Fedayeen or various similar Iranian groups) and impede Western efforts to pull them out by the roots. The Soviets provided enormous support in 1979 to the MEK, which was the real instigator of the Khomeini revolution. (I was there at the time "before and after" till I was helped out).

By contrast the Ayatollahs and the fervent military Ahmadi-Nejat secular colleagues won't be removable in a matter of two or three years and Iran will have nuclear weapon capability, which will make future chances of removing them even more remote. Not so with operation "sandblast" outlined above.

Alan Peters Independent Analyst

I have several problems with this approach. It ignores the fact that the people of Iran already have rejected Rafsanjani and the MEK. It would destroy the trust of the many Iranian's who see the U.S. government as one of the few governments in the world standing with them. It also ignores the fact that the regime in Iran is already fractured. Even if you accept the regime's "election" results (which are fraudulent), Ahmadinejad has the support of no more than 30% of the Iranian people and many of the so-called 30% voted for Ahmadinejad out of dislike for Rafsanjani.

If Ahmadinejad tries to impose his view of Islam on the people of Iran he will further alienate the 70% (or more) that already distrust him. There are already reports that Iranian secularists, monarchists, and nationalists are seeking to form a united opposition against the regime.

My greatest concern is whether or not the pro-democracy forces in Iran can generate a workable plan and exhibit the discipline to execute the plan quickly enough to avoid those in the west from seeking alternative plans like the one outlined above.

Finally, a non-violent regime change would provide the best insurance that the nuclear technology presently in the hands of the Iranian regime does not fall into the hands of terrorist groups. The approach Alan advocates would leave the nation is chaos for a longer period of time, providing a much larger window of opportunity for the radical elements in Iran to export its nuclear resources to those terrorists groups.