The Iran Policy Committee (IPC)
made the news in February of 2005 when it released a report titled:
�
US
Options for
Iran
.� (www.iranpolicycommittee.org
).
In its report, the IPC recommended that a
terrorist group known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)
be removed from the
US
government�s hit list (See: www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm
).
The authors of the IPC report had equated
the terrorist MEK with the African National Congress (ANC) that fought long and hard against the all-white South African regime and its
US
supporters so many years ago. Of course, the implication here is that the MEK will somehow produce a Nelson Mandela, or at least is on the same playing field as Mandela�s ANC was.
Those two statements should be enough to
dismiss the IPC, their mission and their report. Yet upon more careful examination, the record shows that the IPC operates in very close proximity to the
US
intelligence community, has the support of 150 members in the US Congress, and is linked to individuals/groups who successfully lied and led the
US
into another Vietnam-like war, and whose primary purpose is the creation of a
US
empire.
The IPC is supported by the Neocon
all-stars that we�ve come to know and love such as Doug Feith, Frank Gaffney, Mike Ledeen, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, et al. But these first benchers are running out of political muscle as
their war in
Iraq
continues to drain the resources of the American people on all political, economic and military fronts.
What�s worse, perhaps, is their �with
us or against us� mentality that has caused new political and economic alliances to form (example: South America-China-Iran) and that has accelerated both conventional and nuclear arms races. Having failed on so many
fronts, they recognize that to get the
US
into
Iran
, some new faces are needed and that�s where the IPC back benchers are critical to the forthcoming anti-Iranian/Persian propaganda operations.
The IPC is linked through its purpose and
people to the Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI)
, the MEK, as well as several Israeli lobby groups including the Washington based Protect our Heritage (PAC)
, The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs JINSA,
The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy
, not to mention the Department of Defense, the Center for Security Policy,
and major US intelligence agencies. It would appear that several IPC members are defense & security contractors/consultants and would benefit financially from a war with
Iran
.
FOX This!
Anyone who can tolerate FOX News--the
electronic equivalent of Reverend Moon�s Washington Times--on a regular basis will recognize these IPC members: LTG Tom McInerney, USAF (Ret.) formerly of the Business Executives for National Security and member of the
Center for Security Policy; MG Paul Vallely,
USA
(Ret.); CAPT Chuck Nash, USN (Ret.); and LTC Bill Cowan, USMC (Ret.). These four folks are frequently seen and heard discussing military matters on FOX. Other IPC heavy hitters include Raymond Tanter, a former staffer
at the National Security Council and current member of the Committee for the Present Danger and the Washington Center for Near East Policy; Clare Lopez a former CIA analyst; and Jim Atkins, former US President Richard
Nixon�s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who is known in some circles as �the westerner who knows the most about the Middle East...�
The military heavyweight of the IPC is
McInerney. One of the highlights of McInerney�s military career, besides being a top-notch pilot in
Vietnam
, was assisting
Alaska
in the clean up of the oil spill caused by the Exxon Valdez when it ran aground in March of 1989. From April to September of that year, McInerney admirably headed the Joint Task Force Alaska Oil Spill while commander of
the Alaskan Air Command (then SECDEF Cheney argued for a minimalist DOD/federal government role). These days, though, McInerney is busy promoting the Neocon agenda.
You can find him�and fellow IPC cohorts
Vallely, Cowan and Lopez--at conferences like Intelcon 2005
as speakers and members of the Intelcon�s Program Advisory Group (Mike Ledeen, Frank Gaffney and Dan Pipes are among them). Former directors of the NSA, CIA and DIA are featured panelists, along with more, yes more,
FOX News commentators no doubt opining in conference as on the network with all the volume of an announcer at a Monster Truck bash. Yehoshuah Mizrachi of Operation Shiloh apparently spoke at Intelcon about handling
terror like an Israeli (he equates the Battle of Shiloh from the US Civil War with 9-11). Finally, the conference program shows that the standard mix of defense contractors and
US
government bureaucrats round out Intelcon�s conferees, along with a few token liberals thrown in for what appears to be some sort of balance.
Do You Hear What I Hear?
So what are all the members of IPC
doing at Intelcon?
The conference provides a venue for doing
business and getting contract awards. At the Intelcon blast held this past February, McInerney chaired a panel on Securing Intelligence Networks. As a director of NetStar Systems, that subject matter is an important part
of his job. According to NetStar�s website, it is �a fast-growing
Virginia
corporation with headquarters in
Vienna
,
Virginia
. It was founded in 1998 and most of our employees are cleared at the Top Secret or higher levels. NetStar is growing rapidly in the Intel and DOD sectors and has provided numerous solutions and staff to many of the
Intelligence agencies in the DC metro area.� Clients include the NSA, CIA, DIA, FBI, DHS and the Office of Naval Intelligence. NetStar is a member of the National Military
Intelligence Association (NMIA). Most of NetStar�s clients were at Intelcon 2005 including General Jim Williams,
USA
(Ret.), former director of DIA, and NMIA�s current director.
With the IPC plugged into US global and
domestic intelligence operations, and connected with Neocon/Israeli lobbying activities here in the
USA
, it�s important to listen to them�no matter how they articulate their position. So when McInerney was quoted by Washington Times' Rowan Scarborough in February of 2005 about the likelihood of an attack on
Iran
, one has to wonder how and where he is getting his information as he states it with an air of complete certainty.
What are we to make of his almost 30 year
old assessment of Iranian anti-aircraft defenses? Is it likely that Iran has done nothing about its defenses since the 1970�s or does personnel experience mean something else given his contacts in the Neocon pipeline,
and US/foreign intelligence communities?
�He [Bush] doesn't have any choice [but
to attack
Iran
because] he understands [the Iranians] are the king of terror right now. They are striving for nuclear weapons that can get into the hands of terrorists and then it's too late. B-2 stealth bombers, armed with the huge
penetrating bombs commonly called bunker busters, would be able to pierce
Iran
's aging air defenses and hit 20 or more sites. They have not updated that very, very old air defense system. McInerney said
that as a colonel in 1977 he went to
Iran
and conducted a war exercise against various Iranian targets during the rule of the
United States
' ally, the Shah of Iran. They were not very good then, and they have clearly just gotten worse�I can tell you from my personal experience we would have no problem
there."
McInerney�s colleague Vallely, is of the
same mind. According to FOX News, Vallely believes that �while the
United States
has the ability to launch a major ground invasion, it wouldn�t have to�we can take a country down with just our air assets�we don't have put boots on the ground all the time if we're after specific targets.�
Did they forget about how difficult
Iran
could make it for US troops on the ground in
Iraq
? What about the impact on the
US
and world economy? This provincial worldview can also be found in McInerney and Vallely�s book Endgame: Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror. According to Robert Steele of Open Source Solutions (oss.net)
�This book also adopts the Richard Perle
neoconservative game plan of using terrorism as a pretext to invade
Syria
and
Iran
. The authors--who demonstrate how far one could get in the Cold War military without reading or thinking, call this a military assessment. It is not�It avoids discussing Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Central Asia, Muslim
Africa, and Muslim Pacifica. This is not analysis, this is flim-flam� This book is a blueprint for a nuclear winter in which
America
self-immolates.�
We Know Terrorism?
IPC notable Cowan runs a company called
wvc3. Among other things, Cowan�s group states
�Talking about terrorists is one thing. Having conducted
successful operations against them in their midst is another. We know terrorism. It�s not something we�ve learned since 9/11. We can speak with absolute authority about how they organize, think, act, and operate.
Programs and operations designed to neutralize them will only be as successful as the thinking behind them. We provide the bedrock around which sound counterterrorism initiatives and efforts are based.�
Uh, if that�s so, where were they on 911?
What about the MEK?
Anyway, Cowan�s group links to companies
like Aegis whose claim is that
�Our management staff consists of prior
U.S.
military, police and government personnel. Their many years of dedicated service provides Aegis MEP with a network of international contacts that enable us to act anywhere in the world. Our linguists are rigorously
tested to ensure their proficiency in English and their specialty language(s). Our consultants and operational personnel have extensive international experience and are accustomed to acting professionally in politically sensitive environments�The projects we complete for our clients are generally sensitive in nature.�
MEK: Terrorists Working for
America
On April 6, 2005, a number of IPC
principals met with elected officials in the
US
government. The IPC has the complete account on its website from US Newswire. Here are some of the highlights:
�The IPC convened on Capitol Hill at the
invitation of the Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives. At issue were US policy options for
Iran
. In attendance were over 80 members of the Congress and their aides, foreign diplomats, experts from other think tanks...Co-chairs of the caucus, Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO.) and Congressman Bob Filner (D-CA),
chaired the briefing. Tancredo raised the issue of the terrorist designation of
Iran
�s main opposition group, the Mujahedeen e-Khalq organization and IPC panelists concurred on the need to remove it from the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organizations List. Tancredo stated that the MEK was designated not
because it was involved in terrorist activities, but because the
Clinton
administration sought to curry favor with the Iranian regime.�
In fact, the MEK did a lot of Saddam
Hussein�s dirty work inside
Iraq
, according to www.globalsecurity.org
. The MEK assisted Saddam Hussein�s suppression of the 1991 Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish uprisings and in the 1970s MEK members killed a number of US soldiers and contractors. Its membership has been steadily falling.
�The MEK was allied with the Iraqi
regime and received most of its support from it. MEK members supported the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in
Tehran
, in which 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. The MEK assisted the Hussein regime in suppressing opposition within
Iraq
, and performed internal security for the Iraqi regime. MEK was founded in the 1960s by a group of college-educated Iranian leftists opposed to the country�s pro-Western ruler, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Although the
group took part in the 1979 Islamic revolution that replaced the Shah with a Shiite Islamist regime, MEK�s ideology, a blend of Marxism and Islamism, put it at odds with the post-revolutionary government. MEK activities have dropped off in recent years
as its membership has dwindled.�
But the future is bright. The MEK has the IPC and its supporters
working on its behalf.