Clare Lopez: There Must Be Regime Change in Iran

Earlier this month Clare Lopez was one of the participants on a panel sponsored by the Center for Security Policy at the annual CPAC conference in Washington D.C. In this talk she discusses the strategic danger that the Islamic Republic of Iran poses to the United States and the rest of the Middle East, and the disastrous consequences brought on by the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Tehran.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on national defense, Islam, Iran, and counterterrorism issues. Currently a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, she was formerly a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006, and has served as a consultant, intelligence analyst, and researcher for a variety of defense firms. She is the author of an acclaimed paper for the Center, The Rise of the Iran Lobby and co-author/editor of the Center’s Team B II study, “Shariah: The Threat to America”.

Ms. Lopez received a B.A. in Communications and French from Notre Dame College of Ohio and an M.A. in International Relations from the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She completed Marine Corps Officer Candidate School (OCS) in Quantico, Virginia before declining a commission, in favor of joining the CIA.

10 thoughts on “Clare Lopez: There Must Be Regime Change in Iran

  1. Why, Putin’s ally of Iran, and helped the country to complete its nuclear program, and last week, Reuters reported that Russia planned to sell hundreds of missiles to the Iranian regime: do not think, who supports the regime Moscow is indirectly supporting Iran, given that Iran is an ally of Moscow, and is occupying Syrian and Libyan territory, and still using as a spearhead Hezbollah killer, Lebanon, which they have control?

    I think you can apportion blame here between Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama, do not you think?

  2. Wha….!!!? Iran? Buying more time for the fifth columns at home. What about the massing thousands and millions of Christian hating sub human Muslims pouring death and destruction through every orificace in the infidel suckerlands? Regime change yes. All across Western Europe. Fewer sick feminist nincompoops and their ISIS allies and more of what is right for survival of future generations And of course not to forget the debt we owe to our ancestors instead of trying to reform the merchants of Islamamic death and destruction.

  3. There’s something very few people know, and would you please let me share it with you:
    The guys you see on the TV representing Iran, are not actually Iranians. They are descendant of a bunch of Lebanese Arabs, brought to Iran by a demented Turkish king around 500 years ago for islamification of Iran (notes 1, 2 and 3). They hate Iran. They are friends of Hezbollah, and they have been in close relationship with Lebanon for centuries. You say Iran wants to take control of Syria and Lebanon? Wrong! It’s the Lebanese terrorists who actually control Iran, not the other way. Hezbollah and the effing islamic republic are the same identity. All the special guards and Anti-riot guards in Iran are Lebanese who are sent by Hezbollah (note 4). All the guys behind the curtains, CIA contact persons, are Lebanese and Iraqis (they have been invited to the feast later). They just use Iran’s monetary capacity for international islamic terrorism (and also use naive rural boys as disposable pawns).

    And armament purchase… US sells to saudi terrorists, and Russia must sell to shia terrorists. I think if CIA knew some tricks that enables them to sell to both, they wouldn’t let Mr. Putin earn a Ruble.

    Note 1: A similar thing is happening to Europe today, 500 years after those bloody years. Future is all dark for Europe. I think I can clearly see it, I suffer and there’s nothing I can do. That would be a pity if barbarianism destroys civilisation one more time.
    Note 2: They say that Turkish king also set fire to his mother for not accepting islam. Just imagine what sort of things these demented muslims can’t do.
    Note 3: Unfortunately I don’t know any references in English to support this. But I can send references in Persian on demand.
    Note 4: This fact has been approved by the people who have been arrested during recent riots in Iran, and fortunately the news has been reflected over web also.

    • Well, you say all that but, what difference does it make? We are still at war with Islam and Iran. It doesn’t really matter what form it takes.

      • Who is at war with Islam?
        The West is very friendly towards ideologue states such as Pakistan (a nuclear power and who Bin laden felt comfortable enough with to hide out in), Saudi Arabia who still behead people on religious grounds, the smaller Gulf states – none of whom have any sense of human rights or tolerance, Turkey (member of NATO) who is helping moslems flood Europe and aiding moslem extremists in Syria.
        The Western leadership who is currently flooding the west with moslem extremists and doing little to nothing to stop the Islamists already here.

        What the world doesn’t need is the largest country in the middle east (over 80 million people) to be plunged into chaos like all the others have.

  4. As interesting and informative as Lopez’ talk was, I found some troubling and possibly contradictory aspects of it.

    I realize she is not exactly a neo-con, having been kicked off the Gatestone payroll for having kind words for Diane West’s take down of the Roosevelt administration. Yet, she seems to take it as a bedrock principle that the US be able to project power, without defining the benefits to the US of having military presence in foreign countries.

    Specifically, she defines it as a vital interest of the US to promote stability in the Middle East; yet, she also prescribes that the US take out the Syrian government, which is allied with the Iranians. I understand the Iranian threat; but, the alternative to the Syrian government in Syria seems to be the Islamic State or its proxies. Lopez describes the Iranians as working with the Islamic state; yet, she also describes the rising tensions between the Sunni and the Shi’ite. Iran is Shi’ite, and the Islamic state is unambiguously Sunni.

    I can see where following Lopez’ prescriptions, the US will again find itself embroiled in a Middle Eastern conflict of murky alliances and costly, ineffective military adventures.

    I think her prescriptions mix tactics and strategy. Alliances with regimes, such as Jordan, or a determination to topple regimes such as Iran, are tactics, and ought not be taken as bedrock objectives. The strategic objectives could be the safety of the territory of the US and Europe (assuming Europe avoids becoming Islamic), the continuation of the Western culture and governments, and the free transport of oil from the Middle East. Given the technology of fracking and other oil recovery methods in the West, I wonder if the US really has a vital interest in protecting commercial access to the Middle East, an interest which might pull us into an active, costly war.

    I’m saying that I think the truly strategic interests of the US ought to be debated more, and that the neo-con tendencies of military adventures and foreign engagements ought to be questioned in terms of our real strategic interests.

    • Our unconstitutional war against Syria cries out to be summarily ended. True, we are in the Constitution-optional phase of our development, but at least, for decorum’s sake, we ought to go through the motions of a debate about a declaration of war against Syria.

      I understood ringing the Soviet Union with troops and bases, funding expensive weapons systems, and alliances with certain iffy governments here and there during the Cold War but I’m darned if I know what it is we are pursuing overseas now. Are we the action arm of Israeli foreign policy? Of Wahhabi triumphalism? Of Brzezinskiism? Did hundreds of thousands of people die in Syria because Gas Pipeline A is better for us and some sheikhs, desert or otherwise, than Gas Pipeline B? Are we locked in a death struggle with Rasputin 2.0? Is this the logical outcome of rule by the congressional-military-industrial complex? Are we committed to the cause of South Ossetian Independence from Bosnia? Is idealistic twitism our most sacred principle?

      It’s all a mystery and, a la John Foster Dulles, couldn’t we please have an agonizing reappraisal of what appears to be a drunken stumble through the world? If we’re going to be somebody’s bitch could we at least know the name and Twitter account of the bitch?

Comments are closed.