"The warnings of the USA to the Islamic Republic to stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq have clearly gone unheeded. The regime in Tehran cannot stop eyeing Iraq and sees a golden opportunity in Saddam Hoseyn's downfall", he wrote, adding: Under the present circumstances, the Islamic Republic more than ever needs such a windfall.

"A regime that is struggling in an ocean of difficulties at home, desires to assuage internal disquiet with finding some external conflict", said Mr. Vaziri, who is the Editor of the London-based, Farsi-language weekly newspaper "Keyhan of London".

"It is true that the Shi’as in Iraq rather than being Iranians are Arabs, but the Supreme Assembly of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SAIRI) has been brought up in the cradle of the Iranians! The "Badr Brigade" (the military wing of the SAIRI) was armed and trained by Iranians", he noted.

"The demonstrations by a group of Shi’as in Karbala on the occasion of arba’in (where an estimated million Shi’a rushed to the city to celebrate the fourty days after the killing of Emam Hoseyn) sounded an alarm bell for the future of Iraq and an alarm bell for the objectives being pursued by the United States in Iraq", Mr. Vaziri observed.

"We do not have to look very far into the past for the pattern of a similar occurrence. Should not the assassination of (Hojjatoleslam) Abdolmajid Kho’i (in the city of Najaf, two weeks ago) remind us of the murder of Emam Musa Sadr, (the leader of the Lebanese Shi’a, who disappeared 25 years ago while leaving Libya) that moderate scholarly cleric? Was not Ayatollah Shariatmadari also a moderate? We saw what awful fate befell him under the Islamic Republic", said Mr. Vaziri.

"When the situation becomes radicalised, the moderates either have to retire into a corner and hold their tongues, kowtowing to the leader, or are destroyed. These three eventualities have all been experienced under the Islamic Republic founded by Ayatollah (Ruhollah) Khomeini", he argued.

In his view, regimes similar to the one in Tehran, when faced with an impasse, "look for means of getting out either by trouble-seeking abroad, or through internal oppression".

"Was it not after accepting the ceasefire in the eight year war with Iraq that Khomeini issued his famous fatwa against Salman Rushdie? Did not the 1988 turmoil in Mecca happen when the Islamic Republic attempted to overthrow the Al-Saud dynasty? Was not the merciless massacre of prisoners throughout Iran, which left thousands of victims, after the acceptance of a ceasefire in a war that denied victory to Ruhollah Khomeini? Trouble-seeking outside the country is the reverse side of the coin to internal oppression. Khomeini is no longer alive, but the nature of the regime that, he established has not altered very much".

"Mohammad Khatami, the powerless President of Iran, was probably aware of something when he said that after Iraq, it would not be Syria’s turn, but Iran’s. The reason for this is clear. Certainly, not by any measure can one refer to Syria as a democratic country, but we have witnessed time and again how the regime in Damascus is able to find diplomatic means to securing its survival.

"The Islamic Republic cannot be called a lunatic regime. Nevertheless, this does not mean that it does not commit acts of lunacy. Escalading the walls of the American Embassy was an act of lunacy, as was the issuing of a fatwa against Salman Rushdie. And a lunatic becomes more dangerous when he senses fear. The regime in Tehran has become scared. This fear is blatant in the recent declarations made by its rulers".

*Translation from Persian text by Iran va Jahan Network, which carried this article on 27 April.

Some editing, highlights and phonetisation of names are by IPS.