The Center for Cooperative Research
U:     P:    
Not registered yet? Register here
 
Search
 
Current timeline only
Advanced Search


Main Menu
Home 
History Engine Sub-Menu
Timelines 
Entities 
Forum 
Miscellaneous Sub-Menu
Donate 
Links 
End of Main Menu

Volunteers Needed!
Submit a timeline entry
Donate: If you think this site is important, please help us out financially. We need your help!
Email updates
 



  View mode (info):
  Ordering (info):
  Time period (info):

Specific cases and issues

US MEK policy (32)
Iran-India pipeline (17)

Key Events

Key events (64)

General Topic Areas

Covert/Candestine Operations (6)
Geopolitics (23)
Diplomacy (5)
Nuclear program (39)
Predictions (5)
US Policy Papers (1)
NGO Policy Papers (0)
Planning (7)
Israel (11)
Calls for overthrow (0)
Opposition groups (6)
Financial (1)
Oil and gas (15)
Western business interests (0)
US Intel on Iran (4)
Western business interests (0)
Neocon hawks
Think tank activities (9)
Preparation ... (4)
Click here to join: Suggest changes to existing data, add new data to the website, or compile your own timeline. More Info >>

 

US confrontation with Iran

 
  

Project: US confrontation with Iran

Export to XML Printer Friendly View Email to a Friend Increase Text Size Decrease Text Size


November 20, 2001

       The Wall Street Journal publishes an op-ed piece by Eliot Cohen advocating the overthrow of the mullahs in Iran. Cohen writes: “First, if one front in this war is the contest for free and moderate governance in the Muslim world, the US should throw its weight behind pro-Western and anticlerical forces there. The immediate choice lies before the US government in regard to Iran. We can either make tactical accommodations with the regime there in return for modest (or illusory) sharing of intelligence, reduced support for some terrorist groups and the like, or do everything in our power to support a civil society that loathes the mullahs and yearns to overturn their rule. It will be wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies) to choose the latter course. The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/20/2001]
People and organizations involved: Eliot A. Cohen
          

January 19, 2002

       George Melloan, a deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, calls on the Bush administration to adopt a hardline policy toward Iran. “Mr. Bush has already advised the clerics to butt out of Afghanistan. Next will come attention to Iran's support of terrorism. It will need to start with a demand that Iran, the PLO and Hezbollah recognize Israel's right to exist or accept the consequences of refusal.” [Wall Street Journal, 1/19/2002]
          

February 18, 2002

       Reuel Marc Gerecht, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, calls on the Bush administration to adopt an aggressive policy awards Iran. He says the US must make it clear that it “favors real popular government in Iran.” There are “only two meaningful options,” he writes, “confront clerical Iran and its proxies militarily or ring it with an oil embargo.” Gerecht clearly opposes any sort of dialog with Iran's government. “If Washington wants to dissuade and punish the clerical regime, it will have to use force, the only currency the clerics truly respect.... Starting at the periphery of the Iranian world—Lebanon and possibly Afghanistan—probably makes the most tactical and strategic sense. Lebanon, in particular, offers the United States the option of hitting three targets—Hezbollah, the clerics, and the Assad regime—at once. However, if al-Qaeda's liaison with Iran is active, then Washington should probably take the gloves off and hit the clerical regime with enormous force.” As a start, the US should tell Iran to halt its flights to Damascus, which “supply Hezbollah in Lebanon” with arms. Some of the arms are then routed to “Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank,” he says. They should also be warned that “any aircraft suspected of carrying military materiel will be forcibly diverted to Israel, shot down, or destroyed on the tarmac.” [The Weekly Standard, 2/18/2002]
People and organizations involved: Reuel Marc Gerecht
          

August 9, 2003

       Newsday reports that according to a senior official and another source within the Bush administration, the “ultimate objective” of Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and “a group of neo-conservative civilians inside the Pentagon is change of government in Iran.” The report says that the “immediate objective appeared to be to ‘antagonize Iran so that they get frustrated and then by their reactions harden US policy against them.’” It apparently is no secret within the administration, as Secretary of State Colin Powell has recently complained directly to the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, about Feith's activities. [Newsday, 8/9/03]
People and organizations involved: Douglas Feith
          

September 26, 2003

       American Enterprise Institute hosts Hossein Khomeini, grandson of the Ayatollah Rohallah Khomeini. Khomeini leads a discussion or Iran's future at the Wohlstetter Conference Center in Washington D.C. He is introduced by Michael Ledeen. [American Enterprise Institute, 9/26/2003]
People and organizations involved: Michael Ledeen
          

December 2003

       American Enterprise Institute's vice president, Danielle Pletka, says that guidelines set by Donald Rumsfeld in August restricting the Pentagon's communications with Iranian reformers have hindered analysts' efforts to collect important information. (see August 2003) “I think information is a commodity we trade in freely in the United States,” she says. “The idea that informational meetings with Iranians should be off-limits to members of our government that deal with nonproliferation and national security seems to me to be foolish in the extreme.” [The New York Sun, 12/2/2003]
People and organizations involved: Danielle Pletka, Donald Rumsfeld
          

December 19, 2003

       Michael Ledeen, in an op-ed piece published by the Wall Street Journal, makes numerous charges against the Iranian government saying it supports terrorism and is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. He asserts that the Bush administration must therefore act soon against Iran. He says Iran is the “ultimate litmus test of the seriousness of the Bush administration” and that the “...[administration's] ability to conduct an effective campaign against the mullahs in Tehran will determine the outcome of the war against the terror masters.” Ledeen asserts that the US does not need to invade Iran to “liberate it,” rather it only needs to support the “enthusiastically pro-American” people, as the US did the “Serbs against Slobodan Milosovic, the Filipinos against the Marcoses, the Poles against Soviet Communism.” [Wall Street Journal, 12/19/2003]
People and organizations involved: Michael Ledeen
          

January 24, 2004

       Pentagon adviser Richard N. Perle speaks at a charity event whose stated purpose is to express “solidarity with Iran” and raise money for Iran earthquake victims. During the event, statements are made in support of “regime change in Iran.” The event is attended by FBI agents because of suspicions that the event has connections to the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), a militant Iranian opposition group that is included on the state department's list terrorist organizations. The US Treasury Department will freeze the assets of the event's prime organizer, the Iranian-American Community of Northern Virginia, two days later (see January 26, 2004). Perle tells the Washington Post that he was unaware of possible connections to MEK. [Washington Post, 1/29/2004]
People and organizations involved: Mujahedeen-e Khalq, Richard Perle
          

January 26, 2004

       The US Treasury Department freezes the assets of the Iranian-American Community of Northern Virginia after the organization holds a fundraising event (see January 24, 2004), the stated purpose of which was to provide support to earthquake victims. The FBI believes that some of the money raised was also meant to fund the Mujahedeen -e Khalq (MEK), a US-designated terrorist organization whose mission is to overthrow the government of Iran. [Washington Post, 1/29/2004]
People and organizations involved: US Department of the Treasury, Mujahedeen-e Khalq, Iranian-American Community of Northern Virginia
          

June 24, 2004

       John R. Bolton, under secretary of state for arms control, tells the House International Relations Committee Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia that Iran is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. “[Iran's] activities [go] well beyond any conceivable peaceful nuclear program,” he says, stating that no “comparable oil-rich nation has ever engaged, or would be engaged, in this set of activities.” He notes that Iran's uranium reserves account for less than one percent of its vast oil reserves and that its gas reserves are the second largest in the world. [US Department of State, 6/24/2004]
People and organizations involved: John R. Bolton
          

July 23, 2004

       Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, authors the commentary “The Hawks and the Doves Are Aflutter over US Iran Policy.” Pletka provides a number of recommendations. “The fact is, neither tough love nor tough talk will achieve results in Iran because [Iranian] government—not just the so-called hard-liners but the ‘moderates’ and ‘pragmatists’ as well—are committed to supporting terrorism, developing nuclear weapons and annihilating Israel... First, ... we must use the diplomatic and economic tools at our disposal to embarrass the regime for its abysmal human rights abuses, rally behind dissident student groups and unions and let them know that the US supports their desire for a secular democratic state in Iran. Second, the administration must persuade the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Agency to stand firm in their confrontation over Iran's nuclear programs... Finally, the US must lead in the containment of Iran. Iranian weapons imports and exports should be interdicted; financial transfers to terrorists must be identified and confiscated; terrorists traveling into and out of Iran should be aggressively pursued and eliminated. These steps would not deliver quick solutions, but they are the only rational course available to the US and its allies. We have seen that engagement with the current leadership of Iran would not achieve policy change; all it would do is buy an evil regime the time it needs to perfect its nuclear weapons and to build a network of terrorists to deliver them.” [American Enterprise Institute, 7/23/2005]
People and organizations involved: Danielle Pletka
          

January 2005

       The Guardian of London interviews Reuel Marc Gerecht, a prominent neoconservative at the American Enterprise Institute, about the Bush administration's policy in Iran. Gerecht, who is also a former CIA officer, says he believes that US strikes on Iran could set back Iran's nuclear program. “It would certainly delay [the program] and it can be done again. It's not a one-time affair. I would be shocked if a military strike could not delay the program.” Gerecht says that members of the Bush administration have not yet agreed on a policy for dealing with Iran and that the internal debate is just beginning. “Iraq has been a fairly consuming endeavor, but it's getting now toward the point where people are going to focus on [Iran] hard and have a great debate.” [Guardian, 1/18/2005]
People and organizations involved: Reuel Marc Gerecht
          

(March 1, 2005)

       In response to a BBC request for her views on the crisis in Iran, Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute says: “The longer we wait and the more we negotiate, the longer Iran has to pursue a covert program.... The road to co-operation between Europe and the US involves pursuing the ‘good cop, bad cop’ routine because it will force the Iranians to be serious about dealing with the friendlier party. However, there's a suspicion in the US and in Europe, and a strong certainty in Iran, that when push comes to shove, the Europeans aren't going to be willing to cut the ties with the Iranians and say simply that Iran has been cheating, the deal is broken. We need to persuade the Europeans that even if you're the good cop, you have to be prepared to pull the gun and make the arrest.” [BBC, 3/1/2005; Christian Science Monitor, 3/2/2005]
People and organizations involved: Danielle Pletka
          


Except where otherwise noted, the textual content of each timeline is licensed under the Creative Commons License below:

Creative Commons License Home |  About this Site |  Development |  Donate |  Contact Us
Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use