Before leaving Washington on Friday for a crucial trip to Europe and the Middle East, President George W. Bush told a French Television that he was not "preoccupied by Iran".

At almost the same time, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reiterated accusations that Tehran was harbouring some senior members of the al-Qa’eda terrorist network, whom might have a hand in the 12 May Riyadh explosions.

Earlier, the White House had cancelled a meting of high-ranking American and British officials to discuss Iran.

Supporting fundamentalist organisations opposed to peace between Israel and Palestine, sustained efforts to develop nuclear bomb and interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs are among other American accusations against Iran.

In an article published by the Beirut-based "The Daily Star" on 29 May, Mr. Beeman says that the accusation of harbouring al-Qa’eda member is nothing new and observes that the US has a long list of unsubstantiated accusations against Iran.

These fall into several categories of supposition:
-- Forward accusations about what Iran is likely to do in the future such as develop nuclear weapons;

-- Unproven suspicions of Iranian involvement in past attacks against the US, such as the attacks on the Al-Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and;

-- Complicity with American enemies. This is the rubric under which Iran is being accused of harboring Al-Qa’eda leaders.

All of these accusations, when examined, fall apart completely.

In reality, of course, America wanted Iran to save its oil for the use of the West. The US never helped Iran develop anything more sophisticated than laundry powder and fertilizer.

Dutifully, the Iranians began the development of nuclear power plants. The one under construction in Booshehr that has been denounced as an incubator for nuclear weapon was actually started under the Shah, with America’s blessing.

A connection with the al-Khobar Towers attack in 1995 is equally unproven. Despite years of investigation, this attack, like the attack on the Vennell compound the year before, and the recent bombings in Saudi Arabia, seem to have been carried out by indigenous groups. When examined, the grand conspiracy that would tie Iran and al-Qa’eda to these attacks falls apart.

This leads to the third accusation that Iran is harbouring al-Qa’eda operatives.

The latest accusation of Iranian complicity seems to hinge on the possible presence of Saif al-Adel, an Egyptian who may or may not be hiding out in northern Iran, having possibly sneaked over the border from Iraq during the American invasion.

Even granting that Adel is in Iran and is the mastermind behind the attacks, there is no proof of Iranian state complicity. In fact, the Iranian regime has been opposed to Osama Ben Laden and to his hosts in Afghanistan, the Taleban, since the early 1990s.

In 2002 Iranian officials repatriated Saudi al-Qa’eda members almost as soon as they crossed the border.

So what kind of a game is the Bush administration playing here? It can’t be simple routine vilification.

Demonising Iran for domestic consumption is now a hoary and tired political practice. Most Americans are inured to any further litany of "Iranian crimes".
They are utterly convinced that Iranians could and would do anything to humiliate America. Even the silly repeat of the "tie your enemy to al-Qa’eda" ploy that the hawks used to justify attacking Saddam Hoseyn barely raises an eyebrow.

The Iranian leadership is not a savory group of people from Washington’s standpoint. They have had problems with human rights, having repressed freedom of expression in their nation, and controlled the behavior of its citizenry.

The Bush administration looks with eagerness to Iran’s restive youth which seems to oppose the clerics, and has a favorable view of the US and American-style democracy.

Washington insiders are convinced that the Iranians would greet "regime change" in Iran with enthusiasm. Michael Ledeen, neoconservative Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute and author of "The War Against the Terror Masters", has painted this rosy view. He believes that a popular uprising in Iran is immanent, and advocates American support of it.

Ledeen has founded with energy consultant and sometime Georgetown University professor, Sohrab Sobhani, the Center for Democracy in Iran. Sobhani urges re-establishing the Monarchy, by restoring the son of the deposed Shah, Reza Pahlavi, with whom he went to school. Ledeen has been identified by "The Washington Post" as one of only four political advisors to presidential guru Karl Rove.

Certainly if Washington can smear the Tehran regime, then the United States would be justified in aiding in the toppling of the clerics. Restoration of a pro-American government in Iran would be a great political coup, giving the Bush administration the political success in the Middle East that eludes them in Iraq
and Afghanistan.

There are flaws in the plan, of course. Most Iranians don’t want a new Pahlavi ruler. They also remember all too well the "restoration" of the monarchy in 1953, when the CIA toppled Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq.

Editor’s note: Some editing, phonetisation of names and highlights are by IPS.