General Paul E. Vallely retired in 1991 from the US Army as Deputy Commanding General, US Army, Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii. General Vallely graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and was commissioned in the Army in 1961 serving a distinguishing career of 32 years in the Army. General Vallely has co-authored Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror and War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World.
Do you see Iran in its current state as a problem for the United States?
If you look at it globally it’s a problem for the Middle East, it’s a problem for the world because of the goals that they are trying to pursue. It’s a problem for many, it’s a problem for Iraq, it’s a problem for Israel, it’s a problem for the rest of the world—they’re a problem child.
Do you think it deserves the attention of the United States? How does it compare to the United States’ concerns with Iraq and Afghanistan?
They’re all very important. They’re both different situations. Of course they’re neighboring countries. You have Tehran which is the center of international terrorism, supporting international terrorism. You’ve got the tribal lands in Pakistan just across from Afghanistan which are al-Qaida training areas and the center of al-Qaida and Taliban operations. That’s the eastern side of Afghanistan and on the other side you have the problem of Iran and its support of international terrorism and its pursuing of nuclear weapon capability.
In your article in the Washington Times on June 30, 2008, you suggested that the U.S. should support the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) an Iranian opposition group that is part of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). How are they different from a group like al-Qaida?
They are very different. They are dedicated to freedom and democracy. They are not dedicated to spreading radical Islam. They are not radical Islamists. I know them very well. We’ve done exhaustive studies on the Iran Policy Committee. We’ve done the most in-depth studies on the MEK of anybody. We have met with the E.U. members of British Parliament and have done exhaustive research that reflects that they are the best organized Iranian opposition organization in the world.
When the Bush Administration started the Global War on Terror, it was portrayed that the United States would go after terrorists and nations that support them around the world. Do you think that policy should be amended so that terrorist groups of a certain ideology are targeted more than others?
Absolutely, it should because it’s more than a religion. It is actually a social-cultural organization. When you look at radical Islam, it’s not just a religion. It’s a social and economic type of movement.
When choosing which groups to support, what do you think is most important in deciding whether to back them over their national governments?
I think we should always stand for organizations like the MEK, which stand for freedom and democracy in opposition to repressive regimes whether they be in Africa, the Middle East or anywhere else. I have supported President Bush even though I have disagreed with many of his strategies. The idea that we should stand for freedom and democracy, I think, is a good goal for the U.S. That does not mean we can bring freedom and democracy to the entire Middle East or to other cultures immediately, but we need to take a stand on that because all men, as we well know, seek freedom and seek not being repressed by their governments. That is the kind of strategy that we need to seek and stand firmly behind.
Given the history of U.S. involvement in regime change in Iran, why do you think the U.S. could be successful if they helped the MEK this time?
Ninety percent of the intelligence information we get on what is going on inside Iran and the nuclear development program has been provided by Ali Reza Zavarzadeh who is part of the NCRI. Almost everything that we get that has been confirmed and verified has come from the MEK, mostly from the 3,500 MEK who are in Iraq in Ashraf City. Their other headquarters is north of Paris. Through that organization they have been able to provide us information which is key to combating terrorism and cross border operations into Iraq. It is their existing network that makes the MEK strong in Iran. It is their organization, not only in Iran but also in Ashraf City inside Iraq and also their network in Europe just north of Paris. They are very well organized. They are not as well-funded as they should be. But the senior leadership of the MEK is very good. A lot of these members came out after the Shah was deposed in 1979. They have some very senior and well educated leadership and one of the best-organized opposition groups in the world.
Do you think that the U.S. is doing all that it can do to prevent the spread of extremism, especially the spread of extremism and terrorism through Iran?
No, we are not, for a number reasons. First, we lack an overall Middle East Strategy. There is no identifiable Middle East strategy.
In Afghanistan, we have international terrorism that crosses all borders. They recognize no established borders. Iran particularly recognizes no borders as they traffic funds, explosives, and military equipment, not only to the troops in Iraq but also to Hezbollah, to destabilize the government in Lebanon. Yet we restrict our commanders in many ways.
For example, General Petraeus in Iraq cannot go across the border into Iran and take out known Iranian Revolutionary Guard locations or the factories that are producing explosive ordinances which kill and wound U.S. forces in Iraq as well as innocent civilians in Iraq. That’s all fostered and supported by the government of Iran. Unless you bloody their nose, they will continue to try to outmaneuver the West to establish what we call the hegemonic power of the Middle East that Iran wants to be. They want to be the power over all of the countries in the Middle East and they know they can achieve that if they gain nuclear weapons.
In your article in the Washington Times, you said that now is the time to continue the third option: unshackling the Iranian opposition groups. Do you think that supporting Iranian opposition groups is preferable to a conventional military encounter?
As of now it would be part of an overall strategy. The Iranian opposition’s forces know they can’t do it alone. They know they need assistance to achieve regime change in Iran. That can be assistance from other countries but we also know that Israel may take those steps shortly to take out specific targets within Iran. We could see that happen sometime within the next 90 to 120 days in Iran.
What do you think the U.S. response should be if Israel were to launch an attack on Iran?
Support it.
What do you think of the controversy surrounding the resignation of Admiral William Fallon. Do you think the administration may have been trying to draw Iran into a conflict?
No, I think it was several things. I was all for Admiral Fallon being fired. I don’t think he was a strong commander. I don’t think he understood the Iranian situation to take action to assist General Petraeus by hitting selected targets in Iran which were transporting and executing operations against our forces in Iraq. I think Admiral Fallon should have been replaced.
As we transition to a new administration, what kind of policies toward Iran would you like to see from the next president?
I would like to see an established Middle East policy that deals with Iran. We know sanctions are not going to work. They’ll hurt them but they won’t work. We know Russia is not our friend and in the end. And in the end will support Iran in any way they can and we know that they’ve assisted them in the development of their nuclear weapons program. We know that they have recently sold them 350-400 million dollars for missile systems. We look at that whole situation developing between Russia and Iran. The Iranians had a meeting about two weeks ago which was a celebration with Bashar al-Assad of Syria about how they have been able to outmaneuver the West, and to continue with the development of their nuclear weapons program.
They are very happy with the appeasers in the West not only in Europe but also in the United States. And when you have great appeasers like Condoleezza Rice, they will take advantage of them.
The new administration needs to be firm. They cannot tolerate any more cross border activities from Iran into Iraq or Afghanistan or they’ll continue to outmaneuver and extend their power, as well as their resource support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza and the West Bank. You’ll continue to see deteriorating situations in those areas. And of course with the support of Hezbollah in Lebanon they’ve basically taken control of Lebanon now.
They’re all very important. They’re both different situations. Of course they’re neighboring countries. You have Tehran which is the center of international terrorism, supporting international terrorism. You’ve got the tribal lands in Pakistan just across from Afghanistan which are al-Qaida training areas and the center of al-Qaida and Taliban operations. That’s the eastern side of Afghanistan and on the other side you have the problem of Iran and its support of international terrorism and its pursuing of nuclear weapon capability.
In your article in the Washington Times on June 30, 2008, you suggested that the U.S. should support the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) an Iranian opposition group that is part of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). How are they different from a group like al-Qaida?
They are very different. They are dedicated to freedom and democracy. They are not dedicated to spreading radical Islam. They are not radical Islamists. I know them very well. We’ve done exhaustive studies on the Iran Policy Committee. We’ve done the most in-depth studies on the MEK of anybody. We have met with the E.U. members of British Parliament and have done exhaustive research that reflects that they are the best organized Iranian opposition organization in the world.
When the Bush Administration started the Global War on Terror, it was portrayed that the United States would go after terrorists and nations that support them around the world. Do you think that policy should be amended so that terrorist groups of a certain ideology are targeted more than others?
Absolutely, it should because it’s more than a religion. It is actually a social-cultural organization. When you look at radical Islam, it’s not just a religion. It’s a social and economic type of movement.
When choosing which groups to support, what do you think is most important in deciding whether to back them over their national governments?
I think we should always stand for organizations like the MEK, which stand for freedom and democracy in opposition to repressive regimes whether they be in Africa, the Middle East or anywhere else. I have supported President Bush even though I have disagreed with many of his strategies. The idea that we should stand for freedom and democracy, I think, is a good goal for the U.S. That does not mean we can bring freedom and democracy to the entire Middle East or to other cultures immediately, but we need to take a stand on that because all men, as we well know, seek freedom and seek not being repressed by their governments. That is the kind of strategy that we need to seek and stand firmly behind.
Given the history of U.S. involvement in regime change in Iran, why do you think the U.S. could be successful if they helped the MEK this time?
Ninety percent of the intelligence information we get on what is going on inside Iran and the nuclear development program has been provided by Ali Reza Zavarzadeh who is part of the NCRI. Almost everything that we get that has been confirmed and verified has come from the MEK, mostly from the 3,500 MEK who are in Iraq in Ashraf City. Their other headquarters is north of Paris. Through that organization they have been able to provide us information which is key to combating terrorism and cross border operations into Iraq. It is their existing network that makes the MEK strong in Iran. It is their organization, not only in Iran but also in Ashraf City inside Iraq and also their network in Europe just north of Paris. They are very well organized. They are not as well-funded as they should be. But the senior leadership of the MEK is very good. A lot of these members came out after the Shah was deposed in 1979. They have some very senior and well educated leadership and one of the best-organized opposition groups in the world.
Do you think that the U.S. is doing all that it can do to prevent the spread of extremism, especially the spread of extremism and terrorism through Iran?
No, we are not, for a number reasons. First, we lack an overall Middle East Strategy. There is no identifiable Middle East strategy.
In Afghanistan, we have international terrorism that crosses all borders. They recognize no established borders. Iran particularly recognizes no borders as they traffic funds, explosives, and military equipment, not only to the troops in Iraq but also to Hezbollah, to destabilize the government in Lebanon. Yet we restrict our commanders in many ways.
For example, General Petraeus in Iraq cannot go across the border into Iran and take out known Iranian Revolutionary Guard locations or the factories that are producing explosive ordinances which kill and wound U.S. forces in Iraq as well as innocent civilians in Iraq. That’s all fostered and supported by the government of Iran. Unless you bloody their nose, they will continue to try to outmaneuver the West to establish what we call the hegemonic power of the Middle East that Iran wants to be. They want to be the power over all of the countries in the Middle East and they know they can achieve that if they gain nuclear weapons.
In your article in the Washington Times, you said that now is the time to continue the third option: unshackling the Iranian opposition groups. Do you think that supporting Iranian opposition groups is preferable to a conventional military encounter?
As of now it would be part of an overall strategy. The Iranian opposition’s forces know they can’t do it alone. They know they need assistance to achieve regime change in Iran. That can be assistance from other countries but we also know that Israel may take those steps shortly to take out specific targets within Iran. We could see that happen sometime within the next 90 to 120 days in Iran.
What do you think the U.S. response should be if Israel were to launch an attack on Iran?
Support it.
What do you think of the controversy surrounding the resignation of Admiral William Fallon. Do you think the administration may have been trying to draw Iran into a conflict?
No, I think it was several things. I was all for Admiral Fallon being fired. I don’t think he was a strong commander. I don’t think he understood the Iranian situation to take action to assist General Petraeus by hitting selected targets in Iran which were transporting and executing operations against our forces in Iraq. I think Admiral Fallon should have been replaced.
As we transition to a new administration, what kind of policies toward Iran would you like to see from the next president?
I would like to see an established Middle East policy that deals with Iran. We know sanctions are not going to work. They’ll hurt them but they won’t work. We know Russia is not our friend and in the end. And in the end will support Iran in any way they can and we know that they’ve assisted them in the development of their nuclear weapons program. We know that they have recently sold them 350-400 million dollars for missile systems. We look at that whole situation developing between Russia and Iran. The Iranians had a meeting about two weeks ago which was a celebration with Bashar al-Assad of Syria about how they have been able to outmaneuver the West, and to continue with the development of their nuclear weapons program.
They are very happy with the appeasers in the West not only in Europe but also in the United States. And when you have great appeasers like Condoleezza Rice, they will take advantage of them.
The new administration needs to be firm. They cannot tolerate any more cross border activities from Iran into Iraq or Afghanistan or they’ll continue to outmaneuver and extend their power, as well as their resource support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza and the West Bank. You’ll continue to see deteriorating situations in those areas. And of course with the support of Hezbollah in Lebanon they’ve basically taken control of Lebanon now.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar