AMY GOODMAN: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned Iran yesterday that the U.S. would, quote, “aggressively put down” any attempt to install a theocratic regime in Iraq. The warning reflects Washington’s concern that some Shia Muslim clerics in Iraq with political and religious ties to Iran will help to fill the vacuum left by the fall of Saddam Hussein.

This according to the Financial Times: In recent weeks, Washington has taken a more hard-line stance towards Iran, one of the members of the so-called Axis of Evil. The Washington Post reports the Bush administration appears set to call for the destabilization of the Iranian government. The Pentagon is urging President Bush to approve public and private actions that could lead to the toppling of the government. The Pentagon plan may involve the Iraq-based armed opposition movement Mujahedin-e-Khalq, even though it’s designated a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.

On Monday, the Iranian opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, said it had evidence of two previously undisclosed uranium enrichment facilities west of Tehran. This comes as the Bush administration tries to build international support for the International Atomic Energy Agency to look further into Iran’s nuclear program.

The U.S. also canceled diplomatic talks with Iran and accused the country of failing to take action against members of al-Qaeda. An unnamed Bush administration official told the Los Angeles Times that last weekend’s talks in Geneva were scrapped because the U.S. has information linking the attacks in Saudi Arabia to operatives in Iran. The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said he believes Iran would cooperate with any requests for the extradition of suspected Saudi members of al-Qaeda wanted in connection with the bombings.

Accounts in the Arab press report that Saad bin Laden, the son of al-Qaeda’s founder, operates out of Iran. The U.S. also believes the new head of al-Qaeda’s military operations, Saif al-Adel, is living in Iran near the Afghan border.

We go now to Britain to Dilip Hiro, journalist and author of many books, including Iraq: In the Eye of the Storm.

Welcome to Democracy Now! Dilip.

DILIP HIRO: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Well, can you lay out the latest, particularly first responding to Donald Rumsfeld warning Iran that the U.S. will, quote, “aggressively put down” any attempt to install a theocratic regime in Iraq?

DILIP HIRO: Yeah, I think that this threat seems to be rather fanciful, because the question of doing it aggressively, what does the word “aggressive” mean? The point is very simple, that anybody who knows anything about Iraq knows that 60 — six-zero — percent of Iraqis are Shiite, and in Iran, 87% are Shiite. So, certainly, Shiites, whether they are in Iran or Iraq, feel some kind of a bond.

Secondly, something which Mr. Rumsfeld should really catch up on, that there was an Iran-Iraq War for eight years, 1988. In fact, it was during that war, you’ll remember, Mr. Rumsfeld had a 90-minute talk with this terrible man, Saddam Hussein, and during — and Saddam had used chemical weapons against the Iranians in October 1983. And during Rumsfeld’s meeting with Saddam Hussein in December ’83, he did not raise this point.

The question is — the fact is that during that war, half a million Iraqi Shiites voluntarily migrated or left or fled or escaped from Iraq to go and live in Iran. And, of course, if you allow for natural growth of these people — they married, etc., etc. — so there are — at the time of the starting of invasion of Iraq by the Anglo-American forces, there were three-quarter million Iraqi Shiites who were in Iran, and many of them have now returned to the country, because Saddam Hussein, whom they hated, is gone.

So, if they and, of course, the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which, by the way, is a recognized group by the Bush administration, of which Mr. Rumsfeld, I think, is still a Cabinet member, they are saying that “Iraq is for Iraqis, and we have to decide our future,” now who is Mr. Rumsfeld to tell them that you can’t have theocracy? And let me put it the other way around. Suppose tomorrow the U.S. Congress and the three-quarters of the states of America decide to become Christian theocracy. Would Britain or Germany or France say you can’t have a Christian theocracy? Of course you can have. You can change the Constitution, if three-quarters of the 50 states of the U.S.A. agree to do that. So who is Mr. Rumsfeld telling Iraqis, who are now free, free to do what? Free to exercise self-determination. And who gave the idea of self-determination? Again, Mr. Rumsfeld, who, as you know, has a major in political science, he should reread American history. It was Wilson, Woodrow Wilson, President Woodrow Wilson, who came up with the idea of self-determination for nations.

So, the point is that giving these threats to Iran makes no sense, because the people who are involved here, Iraqi Shiites returning home; secondly, the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq is recognized by the U.S. government. So, what’s this whole thing about, you know, Iran doing things aggressively?

AMY GOODMAN: Do you believe that the U.S. would attack Iran?

DILIP HIRO: Yes. I think, you see, you know, we have been here before. If you had asked me this question before the 20th of March, I would have said we don’t know. But now we know exactly what happened. We have gone through this particular pattern.

What was the basis on which a sovereign country of Iraq was invaded? Invaded. This one, this was not a war on Iraq; it was invaded by the Anglo-American forces. There were two reasons One, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. And two, that Saddam is in league with al-Qaeda, which is an international terrorist organization.

Now, as you know and I know, by now, you know, Americans and the British have been in Iraq since the 20th of March, more than two months. They haven’t found — they have found zero weapons of mass destruction. Regarding al-Qaeda, Saddam’s link, yes, they found some papers, which showed that at the very low level, there were meetings, and somebody went to Baghdad, at a very low level. This was what you may call a preliminary contact, which never went any further.

And finally, now that we have the British troops sitting in Basra, what have they discovered? Among other things, they have found in Basra, a city of one-and-a-quarter million, there were 150 liquor stores. One hundred and fifty liquor stores in a city of only about a million and a quarter. Now, how do you expect bin Laden, who is a fanatic Muslim who loathes the idea of alcohol — how would you expect somebody like bin Laden to have anything to do, have a link with Saddam Hussein, in whose regime liquor was being sold openly, as I gave you the example of in Basra?

So, what I’m simply saying is that we have been here before. We were given a pack of lies on two points: one, that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, which you haven’t found yet, and, secondly, Saddam was in league with al-Qaeda.

Now, you know, the one point that I made then, which I don’t think many people even noticed, what I said then — this was in December, when I was there to promote my book, Iraq: In the Eye of the Storm — that if Bush and company want to show that Saddam is in league with terrorists, you know, there is an organization whose name is Mujahedin-e-Khalq organization, MKO. Now, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq organization was put on the list of terrorist organizations by the U.S. State Department in October 1997. Now, Mujahedin-e-Khalq organization have had their headquarters in central Baghdad since 1987. I have — when I visited Baghdad, I have seen their headquarters. It’s a four-story building with lot of antennas. And just across the street is a hotel called Swan Lake Hotel. Now, if Bush and company wanted to show that Saddam is in league with terrorists, all they had to say was, “Listen, this government has the headquarters of Mujahedin-e-Khalq organization, which is on our terrorist list, in central Baghdad, and therefore, Saddam is helping terrorist organization.” In fact, you see, they were actually receiving moneys from, their training from the Iraqi army. And, of course, what was their job? Their job was to have pinprick attacks on Iran. They at one point — actually, their supporters in central Tehran fired rockets at the offices of the president and the supreme leader of Iran.

So, the point is simply, if it’s a question of proving that, you know, Saddam was with terrorists, then they should have said the same thing about the MKO. In fact, you earlier mentioned National Council of Resistance. Would you believe that NCR also was put on the list of terrorist organizations after 9/11? But do you know they still have an office in Washington, D.C.? Their office is in the same building as the Press Club in the Northwest Washington, D.C. So, I mean, I don’t understand how come organizations which are on the terror list are opening, functioning in the U.S.A., while Rumsfeld and his fellow hawks are making noises about Iran?

AMY GOODMAN: Dilip Hiro, I want to ask you about Saif al-Adel, as well as the son of Osama bin Laden and what’s going on in Iran right now. But first we have to break for 60 seconds. Stay with us.

DILIP HIRO: Yeah, but I think, quite simply —

AMY GOODMAN: You’re listening to Democracy Now! Just one minute. We’re just going to break for 60 seconds and come back to you.

DILIP HIRO: Yeah. So, I think —

AMY GOODMAN: Just one sec, Dilip Hiro. Dilip Hiro, with us from Britain, who has written many books, including Neighbors, Not Friends: Iraq and Iran After the Gulf Wars. Be back with him in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: “Shabgir Prelude,” here on Democracy Now!, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we continue our discussion with Dilip Hiro, author of 24 books, including Neighbors, Not Friends: Iraq and Iran After the Gulf Wars. So, these two men I wanted to ask you about, one being Saif al-Adel. In the Observer, it says he is the most senior al-Qaeda operative still at large after Osama bin Laden and his closest associate, Ayman al-Zawahiri. The U.S. intelligence operatives claim he is operating out of Iran, and Osama bin Laden’s son, Saad bin Laden, U.S. officials believe that he is somewhere in Iran. Your comments?

DILIP HIRO: Yeah, I think — certainly, I think it’s very simple. I mean, if the U.S. intelligence had this information, why don’t they pass this on to the Iranian government and say, “We have this information”? You know, we have to be a little bit more specific. Remember the information that the U.S. and the U.K. had about their weapons of mass destruction, which they passed on to Mr. Blix and also Dr. ElBaradei of the IAEA. What happened? Those guys checked out these things. You know, there were they were 11 instances where Bush and Blair said, “Ah, there are WMDs. Theyre are WMDs.” Of course, these guys sent the inspectors. They found nothing. So, see, I’m sorry, I keep going back to what happened to — because, you know, when we study history back or the path of history, which is a part of my job, then you understand what’s happening exactly now. So, my point is simple: Haven’t we been here before? The U.S. intelligence says so and so, so and so, and so and so. All right, if you have this information, pass it on, and be specific. You know, this is what Dr. Blix said: “Information we were given was not actionable. We could not act on it.” OK, so, now they are saying his son is there. So, please, that’s one.

Secondly, let me just give you a personal thing. I was there in Tehran in July of last year. I had a very long conversation with the Indian ambassador. You know, he’s ambassador, at that level, you know. And he said to me — I’m talking of July 2002 — that is, you know, after the Taliban, after that 9/11, etc., etc. And he said, “Yes, the Iranian government has arrested al-Qaeda, about 250 of them.” And, of course, all these al-Qaeda people arrested have different nationalities. And according to the Indian ambassador, as soon as they arrest people, they inform those embassies that “We have your nationals, you know, who are al-Qaeda. They are in our jail. They are in our prison.” Now, sometimes that government, like maybe, you know, maybe Egypt or Jordan, they don’t want to get these guys back home, because they’ll be more trouble if they have them at home; rather, much better they are rotting in the Iranian jail. But in the case of Saudi Arabia, they said, “Yes, we want these guys in our country to try them.” And sure, the Iranians put those Saudi nationals who were al-Qaeda members on a plane, sent them off to Riyadh. And the Saudi foreign minister, whom you quoted earlier in your introduction, publicly said, “We have received al-Qaeda members from Iran.” So, since then, the figures are about 500 al-Qaeda members have been arrested, and they are either in Iranian jails or they have been sent to their countries, if those countries are prepared to take them.

The question is not about Iran itself. You only have to look at the map, geography. And I wish, you know, people like Rumsfeld would really every so often look at the map. The map is — where is Afghanistan? It’s surrounded by these countries. You have countries with Central Asia. None of those — those countries are so gung ho anti-fundamentalism. None of these guys will run there. They can either go to Pakistan, which is cooperating with the U.S.A. very actively, or, if they have to go overland, they can only go into Iran. It’s a physical thing. And the border between Pakistan and Iran — see, Iran has border with Afghanistan and also with Pakistan. The border, common border with Pakistan, is very, very rugged. It’s very difficult to patrol. And a lot of drug trafficking goes on from there, etc., etc., for the past many, many years. So, the Iranians, you know, whatever they can actually do, they actually capture them.

Finally, I only wish that some of these people really read up some material. You know that book by Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, it clearly shows that Iran has always been against Taliban. Iran has always been against the Taliban. Remember, in September '98, Iran was about to have a war with the Taliban regime. And who said to them, “Hold off. Don't get worked up”? President Clinton. President Clinton said to advise Iran through back channels not to attack Taliban in September '98. Now, remember that Taliban are Sunni Muslims. They are not only Sunni, but they are very hard-line Sunni Muslims. And according to them, according to them, not according to me, according to them, Shia Muslims are somehow not 100% Muslim; they're 90% Muslim, maybe 95, but they are not fully fledged Muslims. They have a great low esteem for Shia Muslims. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, Shia Muslims were not allowed to have their ceremonies of Ashura, when you beat your breasts for the loss of Imam Hussain, which you probably saw in Karbala. You saw this in a huge one-and-a-half million Shiites went to Karbala. That kind of a thing was not allowed by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, because of Afghanistan has 35% of Muslims who are Shiite, and they were persecuted, or they were put down. Now, how do you expect — using a little bit of knowledge, a little bit of history, a little bit of culture, how do you expect the regime of Iran, which is 87% Shiite, to be having alliances or a link with Taliban and al-Qaeda, who do not have a single Shiite member? If somebody can point out, of those 17,000 members, one single Shiite Muslim, I think, you know, if somebody is brave enough to do that, I’m sure that, you know, they will deserve 10 free copies of my book.

So, what I’m saying is that all of this thing that is being said are — so and so is there, fine. Be specific. Pass information to the government. Look at the Iranian government, what it has done, 500 people arrested. They have put them in jail, or they have sent them to their home countries if they are prepared to take them. They have always, always, always been against Taliban, long before — long before Bush and Clinton realized what Taliban were about. You know, and they have historical reasons for it.

AMY GOODMAN: Dilip Hiro, let me switch gears a little bit, ask you about a piece in the Financial Times today reporting that the editor of a liberal Saudi newspaper was removed from his post yesterday amid a strong backlash from the religious establishment against a publication that has dared to criticize Saudi Arabia’s puritanical Wahhabi Islam as contributing to extremism. The sacking of Jamal Khashoggi, editor of Al Watan, was seen as a victory for Saudi conservatives and a sign of the limits that will be imposed on a nascent debate over the role of religion in the wake of the May 12th suicide attacks against Western residential compounds. Your comment on Khashoggi’s sacking?

DILIP HIRO: Yes, sorry. Is this something happening in Saudi Arabia or in Iraq?

AMY GOODMAN: This in Saudi Arabia, switching gears to Saudi Arabia. It says, “Since the bombings, Al-Watan has turned into a forum for self-criticism, publishing opinion columns that touch on sensitive religious issues, including questioning historic religious figures such as Ibn Taymiyyah, a main source of Wahhabi thought.”

DILIP HIRO: Yeah, see, that’s quite true. I think, see, again, you know, it’s important to understand. And I think here I have to very briefly quote Robert McNamara. You know, Robert McNamara was actually at the Cannes Film Festival, because a documentary on him was shown, and he pointed out — and it’s again worth remembering — you know, if I make historical references, not because I’m giving a lesson, history lesson, but we have to understand parallels of the situation so that we don’t make the same mistake again.

What did Robert McNamara say? He said our major problem was, in Vietnam, we did not understand their culture, we did not understand their history. The same problem right now. I mean, the guys who are running this Middle East policy and the policy on terrorism, I don’t think they have a clue about the differences amongst Muslims. They have no clue about the culture of Arabs, etc., etc.

And very quickly, Wahhabis are a very extreme sect within Islam. You know, there are four schools in Islam, and they’re Hanbali school. Within Hanbali school, the Wahhabis are very extreme. And Wahabis are very much against the Shia Muslims. And to be very specific, that big march that I’m sure most of you must have seen, you know, about six weeks ago in Iraq, all these one-and-a-half million Shias, Shiites, going on pilgrimage to Karbala, that particular shrine of Hussain — the Wahhabis believe that when you die, on your grave, there should be no decoration at all, not even, you know, a gravestone or something. You should be set a simple burial, that’s it. Now, in Karbala and also in Najaf, you have these shrines to the imams of the Shiites, which are full of decoration and gold and silver, and so on and so forth. And the Wahhabis, when they were on their rampage, went and destroyed the shrines of Hussain in Karbala. Of course, they are fellow Muslims, but they said, you know, “You cannot have this. In Islam, you’re not allowed this.”

So, why I’m giving this example is that it is not that simple simply to say they are Muslim or because they’re Saudis. We have to be very specific. Yes, if they are Wahhabi, Sunni Muslims, just like bin Laden, then they would be very extreme. They are extremely puritanical. And they do not allow, you know, singing, dancing, all kinds of things, you know, whereas if you are Shia Islam, you know, a lot of — in a way, it’s much more relaxed, and so on and so forth. And so, the moral of that is, to expect that these two extremes that would strengthen within a general overarching state of Islam can somehow be together and conduct joint operations is unthinkable. You know, the Wahhabis hate Shiites, and Shiites hate Wahhabis, a fact of life. And that has been going on for centuries. You know, it has nothing to do with, you know, what’s happening since 9/11 or before 911, which is a much more recent thing.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Dilip Hiro, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Dilip Hiro is the author of many books, more than two dozen books, including Iraq: In the Eye of the Storm, as well as Neighbors, Not Friends: Iraq and Iran After the Gulf Wars.