by David M. Weinberg
Lubrani was convinced that Iran's nuclear program and revolutionary ambitions threatened the entire world, and that the only way to stop the ayatollahs was by supporting change from within Iran.
The
legendary Uri Lubrani died this week at age 91. His foremost desire was
to see the Islamic revolutionary regime in Iran overthrown, and he
passionately believed that Israel and Western powers could and should do
much more to bring this about. Lubrani's passing is an opportunity to
revisit this important issue.
Lubrani was a fixture in the Israeli
foreign affairs and defense establishment from day one, and I was
fortunate to know him. He smuggled Jewish immigrants into British
Mandate Palestine while serving in the Haganah, and fought in the War of
Independence. He was bureau chief to Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett,
and Arab affairs adviser and bureau director to Prime Minister David
Ben-Gurion. He served under every administration since then, all the way
through to Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon.
While serving as ambassador to Ethiopia, he
orchestrated Operation Solomon, which brought 20,000 Ethiopian Jews to
Israel. In the 1980s, he was coordinator of operations in Lebanon and
made ultimately unsuccessful efforts to repatriate captured Israeli
airman Ron Arad.
Most notably, he was the Israeli mission's
head in Tehran from 1973 to 1978, the final years of the Jewish state's
warm relations with Iran before the fall of the shah. He claimed that he
foresaw the fall of the shah six months before it happened, but nobody
believed him, including CIA analysts.
After that, Lubrani embarked on a one-man
campaign to foment regime change in Iran. He wrote articles and briefs
arguing that this was possible and should be a priority program, and he
presented his arguments to anyone in Washington and Jerusalem who would
listen to him. He was convinced that Iran's nuclear program and
revolutionary ambitions threatened the entire world, and that the only
way to stop the ayatollahs was by supporting change from within Iran.
When the Green Revolution rocked the
streets of Tehran and other major cities following the corrupt Iranian
elections of 2009, Lubrani was joined by many other experts and
officials who felt that an opportunity was at hand to reinforce the
protesters and bring about an end to the regime of the ayatollahs.
But then-U.S. President Barack Obama was
deaf to the pleas of the Iranian protesters and to free-Iran advocates
like Lubrani. Instead, Obama already was secretly promising goodies to
the ayatollahs in exchange for a nuclear deal.
Lubrani was out of commission when the
latest round of protests rocked Iran beginning last December, but you
could hear echoes of him in the ensuing public policy debates. Could
this lead to regime change in Iran? Should America and other important
actors weigh in with moral and perhaps material support for the
protesters? And would such Western "interference" only delegitimize the
protesters and ultimately backfire?
Sure enough, the usual suspects (mainly
former Obama administration officials) argued that Washington should
stand back and do no more than pray for the protesters. They noted that
the Islamic republic's apparatuses were vast and sturdy, the Iranian
machine of oppression was well-oiled and brutal, and Iran's regional and
international alliances were impressive and empowering – so the
likelihood of overthrowing the regime was slim. Wishful thinking, at
best. And anyway there was Obama's signature "achievement," the JCPOA
nuclear agreement, to protect.
Other analysts, however, noted a
qualitative difference in the recent protests and saw opportunities to
weaken the regime. As opposed to past protests, which had focused on the
economy and corruption, the new ones had a nationalist edge to them,
with the demonstrators calling for a return to a pre-Islamic Revolution
Iran.
"Stop investing in Syria, start investing
in us," "Clerics, go home, free the country," and "Death to Khamenei, we
want [Shah] Pahlavi," were some of the protest slogans.
Consequently, notable Iran experts
including former CIA agent Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for
Defense of Democracies and former State Department official Ray Takeyh
of the Council on Foreign Relations have argued that it is in U.S.
interests to see the Iranian regime's internal conflicts intensify.
Specifically, they see a worsening struggle
between President Hassan Rouhani and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei that threatens Iran's governing edifice. The result of the
factional fighting is paralysis at a time when the theocracy is facing
popular disaffection, economic decline (with unemployment among young
people at 40%) and imperial overstretch.
Gerecht and Takeyh argue that the U.S. can
help crack the regime. They say that President Trump should use his
bully pulpit and economic sanctions aggressively to expose and punish
the regime's tyrannical behavior. Pushback against Tehran's gains in
Syria would help too, as would a tidal wave of sanctions against the
Revolutionary Guards. "Iran is a volcano," they assert. "We want it to
erupt."
The Trump administration has taken some
advantage of the unrest to back up its portrayal of the Iranian
government as a "rogue regime" and an "evil dictatorship" not supported
by most Iranian people. The State Department used its Farsi-language
Twitter and Facebook accounts to offer support for the protesters,
despite warnings from Iran and other countries, such as Russia, not to
get involved. And U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said that "all
freedom-loving people must stand with the cause [of the Iranian
protestors]."
That's a lot more support than the Iranian
protestors got in the Obama era, but as far as I can tell, it remains
merely rhetorical.
Speaking at the annual AIPAC conference this week, Prime Minister Netanyahu also sounded a note of support.
"As we counter Iran's aggression, we should
always remember the brave people of Iran ... [including] students that
are tortured and shot for advocating freedom. We stand with those in
Iran who stand for freedom. I believe that a day will come when this
horrible tyranny will disappear ... and at that point, the historic
friendship between the people of Israel and the people of Persia will be
re-established," he said.
Fine words and a fine sentiment. But again,
might more be done to advance an Iranian counterrevolution? Uri Lubrani
certainly thought so, and he was not naive.
David
M. Weinberg is vice president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic
Studies, jiss.org.il. His personal website is davidmweinberg.com.
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/hoping-for-regime-change-in-iran/
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment