“Regime change” or destabilizing sanctions are Official Washington’s policy options of choice in dealing with disfavored nations, but these aggressive strategies have proved harmful and counterproductive, says ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar. Many variables are involved in the messy predicaments in the Middle East, but one way of framing the history and issues of U.S. policy toward the region is in terms of the approaches that have been taken toward so-called rogue regimes. That term, one should hasten to add, obscures more than it enlightens. But it has been in general use for a long time. Take it as shorthand to refer to regimes that have come to be considered especially troublesome and are subjected to some degree of ostracism and punishment.
Three basic approaches are available in formulating policy toward such a regime:
(1) keep ostracizing and punishing it in perpetuity; or (2) try to change the regime; or (3) negotiate and do business with it, to constrain it and to influence its actions.
There are some contradictions between the approaches. Any regime that is led to believe that it is going to be overturned anyway, or that it will be perpetually punished anyway, lacks incentive to make concessions in a negotiation.
The approaches that outside powers, especially Western powers and above all the United States, have taken toward Middle Eastern regimes that have come to be considered rogue have varied — not only from one state to another but also over time in the policy toward any one state.
Iraq was subject to punishment for a long time, with the prevailing outlook not involving urgency to try different things. The perspective, as voiced by Secretary of State Colin Powell, was that Saddam Hussein was “in his box.”
Then suddenly the policy became one of forceful regime change, stimulated by nothing other than such a project has been on the neoconservative agenda and that the surge in militancy in the American public mood after the 9/11 terrorist attack, even though Iraq had nothing to do with that event, finally made realization of that agenda item politically possible.
Libya under Muammar Gaddafi was subject to years of punishment and ostracism. As far as international sanctions were concerned, this did have a specific declared objective: involving the turning over of named suspects in the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988. Once Qaddafi surrendered the suspects, real negotiation ensued. It resulted in an agreement that ended (while opening up to international inspection) Libya’s unconventional weapons programs and confirmed the Libyan regime’s exit from international terrorism.
Then, after an internal insurrection broke out in Libya, the idea took root — first in Western European capitals, although Washington would go along — that the situation should be exploited to intervene on behalf of the rebels and to help overthrow the regime. Regime change supplanted negotiation.
Policy toward Syria has been a mixed bag all along. There has been lots of punishment, but without some of the isolation to which other regimes have been subjected; the United States kept diplomatic relations with Syria even after placing it on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
Once an internal revolt broke out in Syria, a situation similar to Libya arose, in that some outsiders (principally Gulf Arab states and Turkey) wanted to take advantage of the situation to topple the Assad regime. With Russian and Iranian help, and also for internal reasons, the regime has managed to hang on.
But “Assad must go” became a slogan elsewhere, and many in the West took regime change to be an objective. There was negotiation leading to the surrender and disposal of Syrian chemical weapons, but some, including in the United States, did not like that approach.
While there has been some backing away from the idea that Assad must go, others outside Syria say that still should be an objective. In short, there has been conflict and controversy, even within the United States let alone in any larger coalition, over just what the objective should be. -6
http://consortiumnews.com/2016/0...regime-change-strategies/
Poster Comment:
Finicum says: "Once an internal revolt broke out in Syria" He means once the agents of terrorism (the US, UK and Israel) fomented an internal revolt in Syria by introducing their fifth column of foreign NGO activists.
Thucydides says: The London/Paris bankers organized this war in Syria/Libya/Iraq, as explained by Dumas (French former foreign minister). The USA is just the "dumb giant" doing the rethorics (propaganda) and dirty work. The London/Paris bankers are smart enough to stay out of the way if there would be revenge one day, they thought. https://youtu.be/iz6a4WkKJn0 Hiroshima, Nagasaki, London, Paris, ? The day of divine retribution!
Tatarewicz:
Washington calls for regime change in those countries which support Palestinian attempts to get back lands stolen by Israeli squatters. This is because the Israeli lobby, Sayanim and Jew MSM all make it possible for Israel-supporting Democrats and Republicans to get elected to Congress, the top law and policy-making body which funds wars against these "rogue" regimes. Except for tourists 99% of Americans have no interest in ME; technology-oriented business has been welcomed by the "rogue" regimes but can't enter because of the (Israel-called for) sanctions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ziad Fadel says:
. Merkel is a buffoon who has her hands deep in the blood of Syrians. Ziad -17
Leroy Tyrone Washington. says: Z , i disagree , Merkel is a deep state STasi embedded agent, a protege of Marcus Wolfe. She knows exactly what she is doing. You don't get to be a top level Chemist in Germany by being a 'buffoon" Merkel is on Track, Marcus Wolfe knows exactly who she is , so Wolfe had to be whacked. She's the new Wolfe.
the Thylacine says: Leroy, right. My info is Merkel was a Stasi spy, then she was a CIA spy. Only conundrum is why Germany tolerates this evil bitch. They're committing suicide.
Leroy Tyrone Washington. says: @Thylacine, Yah , She's deep cover STASI through and through, When Marcus Wolfe went to Work for the Zionist Mafia at DHS he turned over Merkel file to you know who, that is why she could pretend that she did not know her private phones were bugged by CIA/NSA for ten years. Putin knows all about Merkel from the Days when he was KGB chief in East Germany, that is why Merkel likes to keep up this faux fight with Putin. Her major role seem to be to keep the Zionist Shithole well stocked with the best weapons the German people can afford. And i would not doubt if she gave the Order to Murder Gerd Haidar on Zionist order.
Ziad Fadel says: The Iranians are reacting strangely. In truth, they would have loved to see Merdoghan burn for his crimes. Ziad hans says: but Gülen coup was worse, Gülen is very anti-Shia. Iran’s reaction was opposition to unlawful and especially military means of altering the character of governments. Gülen has in the past referred to Iran as the Persian Satan on many occassions. Therefore, a Gülenist leadership would have followed a much more anti-Iran policy and cooperated even more closely with Iran’s rivals and enemies in the region. -10
Thucydides says: CIA stooge tries coup on CIA stooge. Erdogan did not study history well or he could have known from Vietnam the CIA and American president murders their own CIA stooges when the promised goods are not delivered. In casu the promised goods were the removal of Assad and they key players in Syria. https://youtu.be/DeNv_62v6WQ London Johnson, American president, admits to agree to murder on their CIA stooge Diem on instigation of the CIA ("they started with me")
Arklight says: hans: So far as I know, Savak rebranded itself, is alive and well, and operating anywhere it chooses. Don't be surprised if Gulen grows a third eye, about 9 mm in diameter.