Search This Blog

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

History lesson: Algiers Accord of 1981

This is point 1 in the agreement from January 1981, which settled the Iran hostage crisis:
The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs.
The overwhelming majority of the agreement concerned financial affairs, as the US had frozen Iranian assets after the hostages were taken.

Despite a November promise, I haven't recently blogged about the prospect of war with Iran. However, readers should be aware that despite all the current talk about the surge against Iraq, neo-cons still have their eye on what they see as a bigger prize. Michael Ledeen wrote this today for the NRO:
As luck would have it, this is the ideal moment to go after the Iranians, since their supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, is either dead or dying, and a vicious internal power struggle is under way in Tehran. We should propose a better solution to the Iranian people: revolution, leading to their freedom. That would require the president and the secretary of State to call for regime change in Iran and Syria, something from which they have always retreated in the past.

But if we want to win, that’s the first step. Anybody ready?
Ledeen blogged something similar on January 7.

According to the January 1 Boston Globe, the Bush administration may already be violating the Algiers Accord:
the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group, or ISOG, is also coordinating a host of other actions, which include covert assistance to Iranian dissidents and building international outrage toward Iran by publicizing its alleged role in a 1994 terrorist attack in Argentina, according to interviews with half a dozen White House, Pentagon, and State Department officials who are involved in the group's work.
Remember Michael Doran? He is apparently one of the frequent members of ISOG.

I should note that many people see the 2006 Iran Freedom and Support Act as a precursor to war with Iran. The LA Times provided this detail back on October 29:
Democrats who voted for the measure were at pains to distinguish it from the Iraq Liberation Act, noting, for example, that the legislation specifically rejected military aid to opponents of Iran's current government, and that it calls for Iran's "democratic transformation," not regime change.
"Nudge Nudge, know what I mean, know what I mean!"

Say no more.

Visit this blog's homepage.

Filed as:

No comments:

Post a Comment