Overthrow: 100 Years of US Meddling & Régime Change, from Iran to Nicaragua to Hawaii to Cuba (March 2018)

As special counsel Robert Mueller continues his probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, we take a look back at Washington’s record of meddling in elections across the globe. By one count, the United States has interfered in more than 80 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000. And that doesn’t count U.S.-backed coups and invasions. We speak to former New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer, author of “Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq.”

John Bolton Wants Regime Change in Iran. What’s His Alternaative?

THE NEW YORK TIMES: White House Reviews Military Plans Against Iran, in Echoes of Iraq War » | Eric Schmitt and Julian E. Barnes | Monday, May 13, 2019

Trump Officials Headline Neocon Iran Regime-Change Summit: Inside UANI

John Bolton and Mike Pompeo headlined the annual United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) summit, where speakers celebrated the strangling of the Iranian economy under U.S. sanctions and cheered on regime change. We report from inside

Trump Seeks Regime Change in Iran, as He Rips up Nuclear Deal and Imposes 'Strongest' Sanctions

Donald Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani said the US president is very "committed to regime change" in Iran, in a speech for the Iranian opposition cult the MEK. Then Trump sabotaged the JCPOA and Mike Pompeo announced "the strongest sanctions in history."

Overthrow: 100 Years of US Meddling & Régime Change, from Iran to Nicaragua to Hawaii to Cuba

As special counsel Robert Mueller continues his probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, we take a look back at Washington’s record of meddling in elections across the globe. By one count, the United States has interfered in more than 80 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000. And that doesn’t count U.S.-backed coups and invasions. We speak to former New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer, author of “Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq.”

Syria’s Government ‘Coming to an End,’ Tillerson Warns Before Russia Trip

THE NEW YORK TIMES: LUCCA, Italy — Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson said on Tuesday that the reign of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria was “coming to an end” and warned that Russia was at risk of becoming irrelevant in the Middle East by continuing to support him.

Mr. Tillerson, in comments made just before he traveled to Moscow for a high-stakes summit meeting, sought to clear up the United States’ position on Syria while also declaring that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia needed to choose whether to side with Mr. Assad or the West.

Russia can be a part of the discussions “and play an important role,” Mr. Tillerson said at a Group of 7 meeting in Lucca, Italy, or it “can maintain its alliance with this group, which we believe is not going to serve Russia’s interests longer term.” » | Gardiner Harris | Tuesday, April 11, 2017

US and Turkey Plan for 'Worst Syria Scenario'
Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has said her country is setting up a working group with Turkey to plan for worst-case scenarios in Syria, including a possible chemical weapons attack on the government's opponents. In a joint news conference in Istanbul with Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey's foreign minister, Clinton said that the group will co-ordinate military, intelligence and political responses to any potential fallout in Syria. Al Jazeera's Andrew Simmons reports from Istanbul, the Turkish capital.

Inside story: Power Change in Yemen
There is mounting pressure for President Ali Abdullah Saleh to go before the end of year elections.



Inside Story with Kamahl Sanatamaria discusses with: Shiraz Maher, a senior fellow at the centre for the study of radicalization at King's college London; and Hakim Almasmari, Editor in Chief of the Yemen post.



This episode of Inside Story aired on Wednesday, April 6, 2011.

Freedom for Iran
Watch Journeyman Pictires video: Good Morning Tehran! >>>

Opinion: The Mullahs Must Go
LOS ANGELES TIMES: Obama is making the same mistake as other presidents -- the only answer is regime change.

Since Iran's controversial and disputed election, President Obama has been noticeably restrained in his reaction. He has flashed his empathy, saying on Tuesday that he was "appalled and outraged" by the regime's brutality, but he has been equally emphatic about not being perceived as meddling in Iran's internal affairs. Despite increasing political heat, even from Democrats and the usually adulatory U.S. media, Obama persists in his low-key approach, clinging to emotive generalizations.

But it is the president's underlying policies that are wrong, not just his rhetoric. Saying that he does not want the "debate" inside Iran to be about the United States is disingenuous at best. Obama's real objective is to launch negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, in the belief that he can talk Iran out of its 20-year effort to acquire deliverable nuclear weapons. He said it during the 2008 campaign, during his inaugural address and repeatedly thereafter.

Viewed in the light of this near-religious obsession with negotiation, Obama's reticence is entirely understandable: He does not want to jeopardize the chance to sit with the likes of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

In fact, everything we know about the regime indicates that Iran, and the Revolutionary Guard in particular, will never voluntarily give up its nuclear program, so Obama's policy is doomed to failure. (Inevitably, of course, if negotiations start, Obama would change the definition of success to include accepting a "peaceful" Iranian uranium- enrichment program, which means Tehran would retain its "breakout" capability to quickly produce nuclear weapons -- but exploring this further Obama failure has to wait for another day.)

Accordingly, it is Obama's policy errors, not his rhetorical ones, that should be opposed. Rhetoric itself is not policy but only the adjunct of policy, albeit often an important one. Obama's reticence reflects his larger misjudgment -- the dangerous misconception that there is a negotiated solution to Iran's nuclear threat that can satisfy both Iran and the United States.

Pursuing that objective is perilous for America, its allies and its friends -- in Europe, Israel and the Arab world alike. Moreover, Obama rarely mentions Iran's continuing role as the world's central banker for terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, yet this is another threat that negotiation will not eliminate.

Obama's policy, and that of the United States, should be the overthrow of the Islamic revolution of 1979. The massive resistance to the June 12 elections is just another fact supporting that conclusion. >>> John R. Bolton | Friday, June 26, 2009

John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option."