In a CNN special report on January 15, Alireza Jafarzadeh joined with Lou Dobbs.in a debate on Iran and the US. Jafarzadeh’s comments contained many notable as well as ambiguous points. Regardless of his stress on encouraging and advocating the US military moves in the region, his justification of such moves somehow indicates that he is anticipating promising results out of the expansion of the US militarism. During the talk, Lou Dobbs made interruptions to react against Jafarzadeh’s baseless comments on Iran’s internal situation and its nuclear program. In answer to Lou Dobbs’ question that "How effective, how significant is U.S. military power in the equation of Iran in its thinking?" Jafarzadeh said:
Well, I think there’s a big difference between Iran and Iraq, not only in terms of the size and the population, but the overall strategy, impact, the population in Iran, the very defiant population that you really didn’t have in the case of Iraq.
In fact, Mr. Jafarzadeh’s answer implies that the US main problem in Iraq is that it is confronting people who reject to disapprove Saddam’s ousted regime while the US might be much successful in respect to Iran because the majority of people there are dissatisfied of the ruling regime that is susceptible to fall. His comments not only exculpate Saddam of his crimes and atrocities done against people and signal a green light to his supporters, but also distinguish between the two Ian-Iraq nations referring to the latter as a "defiant population".
Jafarzadeh intends to say that if the US is caught in Iraq that is because it challenged a legitimate regime much supported by people. He might be criticizing the US for not invading Iran prior to Iraq. That is just what Mohammad Mohadessin referred to in one of his Direct Talk programs aired by Mojahedin’s TV network as he enunciated on the UN Security Council’s resolution issued against Iran. Discussing Iraq’s invasion into Kuwait, he stated that for years they had been reiterating that to have a peaceful Middle-East, the solution was to topple the Islamic Republic. Implicitly he stated that Saddam was following the line of a second attack against Iran, when invaded Kuwait, in an attempt to stabilize the disturbed region.
A remarkable point in Jafarzadeh’s interview is his criticism of the US for not investing on Mojahedin as the main democratic alternative. The crisis in Iraq, he believes, is the outcome of a lack of alternative there while Iranian are not deprived of such an alternative. As a solution to end Mojahedin’s stalemate and the US problems, he said:
The third option, which is reaching out to the Iranian people, empowering the Iranian opposition, who are already calling for regime change in Iran. This is the option the United States needs to pursue. And this is something that has not been done.
Jafarzadeh’s comments contained much more interesting points. Out of the three proposed antidote to restore stability in Iraq, that is to say – an increase in the number of troops there, withdrawal of the troops, and confronting Iran – Mr. Jafarzadeh asserts the last one and forewarns Mr. Bush that the crises in Iraq last forever unless the Islamic Republic is dealt with. He seems to have forgotten that the alternative he is referring to has occupied an everlasting status on the list of the US blacklisted terrorists.
Omid Pouya, Mojahedin.ws, January 24, 2007