Ryan Mauro's
WORLD THREATS.COM

RM: Why do you feel regime change is necessary in Iran?

MH: The regime threatens the national security of the United States by pursuing nuclear weapons (which could trigger a nuclear arms race with Egypt and Saudi Arabia), assisting the Iraqi insurgency, supporting Hezbollah and Hamas terrorism, opposing a Middle East peace settlement, detaining Iranian-Americans on concocted allegations of conspiring to overthrow the government (hoping to swap them for Iranians captured in Iraq), and controlling the Straits of Hormuz through which 40% of global oil supplies navigate. The regime also aims to radicalize the entire Middle East against the US and other Western nations by seeking to manipulate the politics of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States. Finally, the Iranian mullahs aid and abet the effort in some Turkish quarters to renounce the secularism of Ataturk for a theocracy. If that occurs, Turkey's relations with the US--which are already cool-would turn frigid.

RM: Why haven’t Democratic and many Republican politicians moved towards this goal?

MH: For good or for ill, the President makes foreign policy. The role of Congress is marginal. Both Republican and Democratic Presidents have declared in favor of regime change after the Khomeini revolution, buts have done little to advance that objective. In addition, Americans view of "regime change" or "nation-building" currently have a negative connotation. The strategy in my opinion is recognition of a policy more toward reconciliation and restoration of the Mossadeq secular democracy that was interrupted. At present, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan monopolize the President's foreign policy agenda, which leaves little energy or imagination to address Iran.

Republican and Democratic Presidents have foolishly endorsed publicly funded democracy support programs, which are then instantly discredited in the eyes of Iranians as the voices of Americans and not Iranians, especially in light of the legacy of the Mossadeq overthrow. Both parties have failed to recognize that Iran is more important to the U.S. than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, and have thus shortchanged resources in exploring restoration of secular democratic options. At present, the parties conceive of but two unappealing options: a pre-emptive military strike, or support for the MEK, which commands no indigenous adherents in Iran. The consequence is policy paralysis.

RM: Why did you establish your own think-tank, rather than join one of the many others that exist such as the Iran Policy Committee or Ken Timmerman’s Foundation for Democracy in Iran?

MH: I established my own think-tank because I wish to promote an agenda concerning Iran uncompromised by competing loyalties or other motives. Timmerman has done good work regarding the nuclear issue and the amount of time that the Iran Policy Committee has placed on Iran is not frivolous. However, I did not want to be under the aegis of a think- tank whose entire views I do not support or risk as an Iranian-American suspicion of the Iranian community that my views were not independent. That does not mean that my views will not occasionally overlap with those of other groups, or that I would not respect their work.

RM: The Iran Policy Committee has published a paper attempting to rebut allegations against the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, an Iranian opposition group currently labeled as a terrorist organization. Do you believe the MEK should be removed from the State Department's list of terrorist groups?

MH: The MEK should not be removed. The signal to the people of Iran would be devastating because they despise the MEK for its treason in the Iraq-Iran war. The equivalent would be a John Walker Lindh-type individual disenfranchised with his home country (the U.S.) and taking arms against Americans. Imagine a scenario where he would desire a place of leadership in the United States' executive branch after fighting against Americans in Afghanistan. How many Americans would support, vote, or consider him a legitimate form of government? Not many if at all. The same holds true for most Iranians' view of MEK.

In addition, the State Department criteria for removing groups from the Foreign Terrorist Organization list is unambiguous. The State Department's statutory criteria is based on the use of the "administrative record" for reviewing organizations. The administrative record is "classified" information. MEK has had two failed attempts in Federal court in the District of Columbia seeking removal from the Foreign Terrorist Organization list where the judges had "in camera" access to these files. Any U.S. support of MEK would dishearten many Iranians, continue to cultivate mistrust that the U.S. is far removed from the desires of the Iranian people, and would be a set-back to the U.S.

RM: What should the United States be doing to encourage regime change in Iran? Do you feel we should use the same strategy as we did to help bring down communism in Eastern Europe?

MH: The United States should encourage regime change through in Iran by espousing a policy, as stated above, of reconciliation and restoration by assisting the people of Iran in restoring Mossadeq's secular democracy which was interrupted by a U.S.-U.K. orchestrated and financed coup in 1953. The U.S. apologized in 2000. The US should alert the people of Iran that an indigenous uprising against the mullahs and the Revolutionary Guards would be supported by US military strikes if requested by the freedom fighters themselves. Probably 90% of Iranians despise the mullahs. The vast majority covet the secular democracy of Mossadeq, a conclusion supported in part by the 1997 presidential vote repudiating the mullahs.

Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan. It has had more than a century of constitutionalism since 1906, and features a political culture conducive to democracy, including trade, student, and professional unions, a popular craving for a free press, and a highly literate and young population. There will be no Velvet Revolution ala Eastern Europe because the mullahs are much more brutal and fanatical than Eastern Europe's communist leaders. They are more sophisticated than the United States predicted. Further, Eastern Europe was throwing off a Soviet yolk. Iran's mullahs and Revolutionary Guards would be defending their own country. They would have no place of exile unlike East Germany's Erich Honaker. They will fight to the finish.

RM: How close do you think Iran is to getting nuclear weapons and what will they do with them?

MH: The U.S. miscalculated when the Soviets would explode an atomic and hydrogen bomb. It miscalculated when North Korea tested a nuclear weapon. It miscalculated India's nuclear testing in 1998. I don't think even Israel knows with precision how far Iran is on the nuclear path. But prudence indicates estimating that it will be earlier rather than later, probably before the end of the Bush administration. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons under the mullahs, they will immediately threaten to bomb Israel and embolden Shiites in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and the Gulf States to rebel.

RM: Do you support so-called moderates like Khatami and Rafsanjani? Or do you want total regime replacement?

MH: Khatami and Rafsanjani would not restore the democratic secularism of Mossadeq, which is what the Iranian people want and deserve with the assistance of the United States. Khatami and Rafsanjani are no more than watered down versions of the more fanatical mullahs. Remember how Khatami repeatedly flinched as President of Iran in bowing to the Supreme Leader and Guardian Council. Total regime replacement is necessary to restore the secular democracy of Mossadeq.

RM: How would the Iranian people react to an American or Israeli air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities?

MH: An air strike in isolation without follow-up support for the democratic secularism of Mossadeq would be resented by the Iranian people. It would be welcomed if part of any overall mission to assist the Iranian people to regain the secular democratic trajectory of Mossadeq. If the sole purpose of attacking nuclear facilities was to remove or delay Iran's nuclear threat without dislodging the current regime, the Iranian people would not rejoice. Remember Israel's attack on Iraq's nuclear research reactor in 1981. Although the people of Iraq largely despised Saddam's regime, they did not celebrate the destruction of the research reactor which did nothing to dislodge Saddam Hussein.

RM: If a war broke out with Iran, and the U.S. conducted air strikes and covert operations to bring down the regime, would the Iranian people rise up against the mullahs or remain neutral?

MH: The Iranian people would probably rise up to overthrow the current regime. However, the Iranian people would need confidence that they will not be abandoned or left to be brutalized if the uprising does not result in an immediate victory for regime change. The Revolutionary Guards and Qod forces are well-armed and the citizenry is generally disarmed. It is unclear now if the Revolutionary Guards would defect and not carry out the orders of the mullahs. In 1956, the Hungarian army refused to shoot its own people during the Hungarian uprising against the Communist leaders. The Soviet Union then intervened. No foreign country will intervene on behalf of the mullahs. A comparable example happened in the Philippines with Ferdinand Marcos.

RM: How quickly can regime change occur in Iran if the right steps are taken?

MH: Restoration of democracy in Iran can occur before Bush leaves office. Parliamentary elections next year may be a propitious time. Gasoline rationing, the initiation of a 24 hour news government news channel PressTV to offset BBC, VOA, CNN etc., and the recent ban on political campaigning for parliamentary candidates that has not occurred since 1979, are indicative of an unstable regime.

RM: I find it interesting that you support a Mossadeq-like secular democracy. How do you reconcile the very diverse opinions of the Iranian opposition as to what the next Iranian government should look like or whether a new constitution altogether should be drafted?

MH: The Mossadeq government was a coalition. I personally support a free-market economy that would prohibit government monopolies or government nationalization of private businesses. Government enterprises are invariably tools of corruption or political patronage.

A robust multi-party system prevailed under Mossadeq. There is no inconsistency with celebrating Mossadeq yet trumpeting an electoral process that welcomes diversity. The next government of Iran should accurately reflect the sentiments of the people of Iran, which might or might not eventuate in a coalition. As to the constitution, one can as a starting point, use the spirit of the 1906 Persian constitution and Mossadeq's application of the document. But, it is necessary for the drafting of a new constitution to unequivocally repudiate the supremacy of religion in the law and the courts, and religion as interpreted by the mullahs.

The constitution should make all courts secular, all judges independent from the political branches, and all actions of the legislature and the executive subject to review as to constitutionality by the judges. For instance, the document should NOT imitate the current Iraqi constitution that was promoted by the U.S. that prohibits any law that contradicts the universal tenants of Islam. The Iraqi constitution is further flawed by entrusting to the mullahs as to what the universal tenants of Islam are. The U.S. should learn from the malfunctioning Iraqi example to placate the extremists.

RM: Do you think that working with minorities in Iran will turn the Persians against us? If the mullahs fall, will minorities like the Kurds, strive for independence?

MH: There has been an issue with minorities in Persia or Iran for two centuries or more. The issue has not arisen because of the mullahs. Under Mossedeq, the issue of minorities was not acute, and I believe they could be comfortably accommodated with a requirement in the constitution that all Iranian citizens be treated equally. I do think that minorities like the Kurds would strive for independence. Minorities have been craving independence for more than a century. Indeed the Azeris almost succeeded with Stalin's help after WWII.

The Kurds were fighting for independence for almost every year of the Shah's reign. I would not support any dismemberment of the unity of the Iranian nation. Equality among all citizens to tie them together in one country should be sufficient. Wherever ethnicity or religion has been made the earmark of a nation have proven poisonous every where it has ever been tried. The most prominent current example is Lebanon.

RM: So you don't see sectarian warfare and division occurring after the mullahs fall like in Iraq?

MH: Iran is entirely different than Iraq. Iran's current borders are two hundred years old. They have been unchanged throughout numerous regime changes, including the most recent in 1979. nothing indicates that a new regime change will alter the political landscape.

Iraq is entirely different from Iran. It was artificially concocted from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire in 1920. It herded into one country four different peoples: Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, and Turkmen with no common language tradition, history, or loyalties. In Iran the different ethnic groups share centuries of common rule and pride in Persian culture and traditions stemming back from Cyrus the Great.

---