PDA

View Full Version : Observing Iran (catch all historical thread)



Pages : [1] 2

SWJED
01-12-2006, 09:56 AM
12 January Real Clear Politics Op-Ed - Ahmadinejad's Mission and Mysticism (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_12_06_DP.html) by Daniel Pipes.


... In a fine piece of reporting, Scott Peterson of the Christian Science Monitor shows the centrality of mahdaviat in Ahmadinejad's outlook and explores its implications for his policies.

... the "presidential obsession" with mahdaviat leads Ahmadinejad to "a certitude that leaves little room for compromise. From redressing the gulf between rich and poor in Iran to challenging the United States and Israel and enhancing Iran's power with nuclear programs, every issue is designed to lay the foundation for the Mahdi's return."...

Mahdaviat has direct and ominous implications for the US-Iran confrontation, says an Ahmadinejad supporter, Hamidreza Taraghi of Iran's hard-line Islamic Coalition Society. It implies seeing Washington as the rival to Teheran, and even as a false Mahdi.

For Ahmadinejad, the top priority is to challenge America, and specifically to create a powerful model state based on "Islamic democracy" by which to oppose it. Taraghi predicts trouble ahead unless Americans fundamentally change their ways.

I'd reverse that formulation. The most dangerous leaders in modern history are those (like Hitler) equipped with a totalitarian ideology and a mystical belief in their own mission. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fulfills both these criteria, as revealed by his UN comments. That combined with his expected nuclear arsenal make him an adversary who must be stopped, and urgently.

SWJED
02-24-2006, 09:47 PM
24 Feb. Financial Times - U.S. Marines Probe Tensions Among Iran's Ethnic Minorities (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/2f2ce346-a4db-11da-897c-0000779e2340.html). (SWJ / SWC note: Cultural Intel Study taken out of context and FOUO is not "classified")....


The intelligence wing of the US Marines has launched a probe into Iran's ethnic minorities at a time of heightened tensions along the border with Iraq and friction between capitals.

Iranian activists involved in a classified research project for the Marines told the FT the Pentagon was examining the depth and nature of grievances against the central Islamic government, and appeared to be studying whether Iran would be prone to a violent fragmentation along the same kind of fault lines that are splitting Iraq.

US intelligence experts suggested the Marines' effort could be evidence of early stages of contingency plans for a ground assault on Iran. Or it could be an attempt to evaluate the implications of the unrest in Iranian border regions for Marines stationed in Iraq, as well as Iranian infiltration.

Lieutenant Colonel Rick Long, a Marine spokesman, confirmed that the Marines Corps Intelligence Activity had commissioned Hicks and Associates, a defence contractor, to conduct two research projects into Iraqi and Iranian ethnic groups.

The purpose was "so that we and our troops would have a better understanding of and respect for the various aspects of culture in those countries", he said. He would not provide details, saying the projects were for official use only.

The first study, on Iraq, was completed in late 2003, more than six months after the US invasion. The Iran study was finished late last year.

Hicks and Associates is a wholly owned subsidiary of Science Applications International Corp, one of the biggest US defence contractors and deeply involved in the prewar planning for Iraq.

While most analysts would agree that Iran has a far stronger sense of national identity than Iraq, its ethnic mix is even more complex than its neighbour...

Read the entire article for insight on how a simple cultural intelligence study can be spun by the media... If I had my way there would be detailed cultural intelligence studies covering every inch of our planet - Faber College had it right: "Knowledge is Good";)

Jedburgh
02-24-2006, 10:15 PM
Read the entire article for insight on how a simple cultural intelligence study can be spun by the media...
Too true. The MCIA recently published a series of cultural intel pubs on central and southern Africa - there was no muttering about ulterior motives when those came out...

Back to Iran, here's something of historical interest:

Pocket Guide to Iran - 1943 (http://digitallibrary.smu.edu/cul/gir/ww2/pdf/w0005.pdf)

For about 3,000 years Iran has been a battleground. Its people took turns in conquering and being conquered. After 3,000 years of it they grew tired of war; they wanted to stay neutral in this war as they did in the last. But that did not suit Hitler's program...

SWJED
05-28-2006, 02:56 PM
http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/images/iranianthreat.gif

From an Israeli perspective - The Iranian Threat (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/IndexParMult&cid=1145961369337) page at the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/).

SWJED
05-31-2006, 05:58 AM
31 May Washington Times - Iran's Military Plans for Invasion by U.S. (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060531-121559-6573r.htm) by Iason Athanasiadis.


Iran, apparently anticipating an American invasion, has quietly been restructuring its military and testing a new military doctrine that calls for a decentralized, Iraqi-style guerrilla campaign against an invading force.

Iran's military planners are acutely aware that a military confrontation with technologically more advanced U.S. armed forces would be rapid and multifronted, unlike the static and slow-paced 1980-88 war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Therefore, a series of war games have been carried out since late last year to test the army's readiness...

Defense analysts said it makes sense for the Iranian regime to give the impression of upgrading and modernizing its military, but they questioned the need to prepare for guerrilla-type warfare because a full-blown U.S. invasion is not likely...

Iranian war planners expect that the first step taken by an invading force would be to occupy the oil-rich Khuzestan region, secure the sensitive Strait of Hormuz and cut off the Iranian military's oil supply.

Foreign diplomats who monitor Iran's army say that Iran's leadership has acknowledged it stands little chance of defeating U.S. armed forces with conventional military doctrine.

The shift in focus to guerrilla warfare against an occupying army in the aftermath of a successful invasion mirrors developments in Iraq, where a triumphant U.S. military campaign has been followed by three years of slow, indecisive struggle with insurgent and terrorist forces...

GorTex6
05-31-2006, 11:59 PM
CSM
(http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0530/p09s02-coop.html?s=yaho)

During the last week of May, thousands of Iranians demonstrated in the northwestern city of Tabriz, and the previous week there were protests at universities in five cities. The protests were triggered by the official government newspaper - the Islamic Republic News Agency's Iran - publishing a cartoon which depicts a boy repeating "cockroach" in Persian before a giant bug in front of him asks "What?" in Azeri.
Azeri-Iranians - who make up approximately one-quarter of the country's population - were particularly offended by the cartoon. These disturbances come at a bad time for the Iranian government, which is stressing national unity in the face of international concern over its nuclear program.

GorTex6
06-01-2006, 05:16 PM
Iranian Turkmens: We consider the insult to the Azeri people as done to us (http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=10498)

The Iranian Turkmens consider the insult to the Azeri people as done to them. The statement reads that the caricature published on the Iran Daily, which is insulting the entire Azeri nation, has been purposefully prepared.
“As a matter of fact, the expressions in the article display the viewpoint of the chauvinistic Farsi dominance in Iran towards the Turks. Farsi chauvinists try everything possible to prevent the Iranian Turks learn and use their native tongue. However, these fools fail to realize that the policy of assimilation against people has long been defeated in Iran and ethnic groups have been trying to preserve their customs, languages and cultures more than ever. People have realized that Farsi chauvinism is behind these propaganda activities against religion and sects, and that their sole purpose is to wipe out their ethnic cultures and languages. Today, the developments in different parts of Iran indicate that ethnic groups are now ready to defend their identities, honors and the heritage of their ancestors,” the statement reads. :cool:

GorTex6
06-01-2006, 05:23 PM
Kurdmedia (http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=12522)

There is little new about the most recent events taking place in the predominantly Azeri areas of northwestern Iran where “ethnic” protests have been rocking the region. The protests began in the city of Tabriz and quickly spread to Zanjan and Ardebil, and then to the nearby Kurdish city of Urmîye, where large populations of ethnic Azeris also live. Iran’s so-called Security Forces have opened fire on the protestors leaving at least 3 people dead. Many blame these protests on the recent publication of an insulting cartoon, which depicts the Azeri as a cockroach. However, these “ethnic” protests have more likely been another explosion of the forever escalating, ethnic tensions in Iran. Iran is composed of several ethnic groups from Azeris to Arabs, Baluchis, Turkmen, and of course, Kurds. All of which lack basic cultural, political, economical and human rights.

.....

GorTex6
06-01-2006, 05:37 PM
APA (http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=10496)

Armenia ambassador to Iran Gegam Garibjanian holding secret talks with government of Iran proposed bringing of military force from his country to stop the actions in South Azerbaijan.

.....

SWJED
06-02-2006, 06:25 AM
2 June Washington Times commentary - Iran Through Prism of Iraq (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060601-085036-8261r.htm) by Michael Barone.


To learn lessons from history, including recent history, it's essential to get the history right. That's why, to understand what to do about the mullahs' regime in Iran, it's worth revisiting the debate over the intelligence in Iraq. This is especially so in view of the recent announced decision to participate in talks with Iran, provided the mullahs call a halt to the country's enrichment of uranium...

The precise facts were unknowable, and so decisions had to be made on the known facts -- all of which pointed to Saddam developing WMDs. Intelligence agencies in the past overestimated the time it would take regimes -- the Soviet Union, China, India, Iraq -- to develop nuclear weapons. Under the circumstances, it was prudent to act on the assumption WMDs would be developed sooner rather than later.

Fast forward to today, and Iran. We have every reason to believe the mullahs' regime is developing nuclear weapons. We know Britain, France and Germany in three years of talks with Iranian officials have made no progress in persuading them to stop. And we know Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened to destroy Israel and to attack other countries. His letter to President Bush, taken by some as an invitation to talks, reads like a demand for capitulation to fundamentalist Islam.

What to do in these circumstances? First, assume Iran is bent on getting nuclear weapons -- and don't rely totally on estimates it won't get them for 10 years. Second, understand the case for military action is not as strong as it was in Iraq. Iran is a much larger country, and the nuclear program sites are widely dispersed and probably strongly fortified. Third, -- and most importantly -- there is every indication the Iranian people hate the mullahs' regime and like the United States.

That means direct negotiations with the Iranian government, which seem sure to be futile, could give the regime prestige and reduce the chances of its peaceful overthrow. But be clear about maintaining the military option: It seems likely air strikes could substantially delay if not destroy Iran's nuclear program. And keep stepping up direct communications with the Iranian people...

Stu-6
06-02-2006, 10:51 PM
Third, -- and most importantly -- there is every indication the Iranian people hate the mullahs' regime and like the United States.

I recall hearing the something about Iraq three years ago, and it would now seem that many of them hate us too.

It is also worth noting that Hussein also thought that Iranian revolutionary was lacking in support when he started the Iran-Iraq war, after eight years his lack of foresight was painfully obvious. Are we destined to make the same mistake?

I fail to understand why it is that some people think that governments just appear for no reason. The Iranian government may not be democratic but it would not have come into being without the support of a large part of the population, likewise it could not continue without at least the acceptance of most of the people. Finally even if the population was not supportive of the current government there is no reason to think they would be more supportive of one installed by a foreign power.

Jedburgh
06-03-2006, 12:44 AM
Finally even if the population was not supportive of the current government there is no reason to think they would be more supportive of one installed by a foreign power.
Spot on. The majority of the Iranian populace does not support their current regime. This opposition runs the gamut from vehement and strident, to indifference and just wanting to be left alone. However, a US intervention would be like a clumsy intervention in a domestic dispute - the hostility festering under one roof suddenly uniting in opposition to the stranger. And any US support to the opposition for which not enough care is taken to maintain its covert nature, will serve only to completely deligitimize that opposition.

GorTex6
06-03-2006, 11:41 PM
WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114928909416670277.html?mod=opinion_main_feature d_stories_hs)(subscription required)

Mr. Pahlavi is so focused on the future of Iran that he prefers not to spend time on the past. Even so, when I ask what might be different today if the Iranian revolution had never taken place, he points to a chain of events that seem even worse with hindsight than they did at the time: "The Russians probably would not have invaded Afghanistan the way they did, and Saddam Hussein would not have attacked Iran. . . . From Sudan to everywhere else you can think of, there have been acts of terrorism, attacks on apartments in Khobar, the blowing up of Marine barracks in Beirut. It's been all over the place. If you look at the world the way it was before this regime took over, we didn't have any of these problems."

And yet a solution to all of this is percolating up today, Mr. Pahlavi says, and it's coming from the Iranian people. In fact, he insists, in dealing with a belligerent Tehran, "there is only one thing that the outside world can do, and that is to tell the regime: 'We are serious about supporting the people who are inside Iran who are against you.' That is the only thing that will make Mr. Khamenei and everybody stand down. Because nothing else ruffles them. The only thing they are really scared of are the people themselves."

Peaceful revolutions from within have worked before, so why, he asks, isn't the West investing in the Iranian people -- "the same way they supported so many movements in Eastern Europe that ultimately brought down communist governments that were under Moscow's umbrella?" Dissidents are everywhere, in the universities, workplaces, the conventional armed forces, he adds: "There are thousands of cells . . . each trying to bring as much pressure as they can -- but with very limited resources. [i]Imagine the cumulative weight of all these resistance groups in a civil disobedience act -- nonviolent, we don't believe in violent change -- that could begin sustained pressure to the point of paralyzing the system until it would collapse."

Moral leverage.....

Jedburgh
06-05-2006, 02:56 AM
Covert support of opposition groups within Iran needs to be approached with care, as I mentioned in a different thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=2648#post2648). Aside from the issue of legitimacy, there is also the hard fact that the Iranian opposition is not only fragmented, but there is a great deal of dissent on goals and approaches within and among the various opposition factions.

The son-of-shah is not exactly a disinterested speaker, but his support exists mainly in exile and he is only a figurehead for what is virtually the weakest faction in-country. As much as the vast majority of Iranians dislike Mullahcracy, they aren't exactly eager for a re-run of the Shah. Giving him much attention would simply be a repeat of the stupidity exhibited with Chalabi in the run-up to OIF.

S-2
06-05-2006, 07:34 PM
My greatest source of frustration with the Iran issue revolves around yet another example of information operations. The vast majority of us acknowledge that Iran is pointedly seeking a nuclear weapons capacity. While transparent acquisition of weapons themselves would lend considerable prestige to Iranian ambitions for the role of pre-eminent spokes-nation of Islamic strategic aspirations, it could (and probably would)still be challenged by both Pakistan (possessors of said weapons) and Saudi Arabia (guardians of Islam's holiest sites). Thus there is, IMHO, less for Iran to gain by this approach than a more sublime and opaque pursuit of capacity.

Capacity, of course, is a cover. Assembly of these weapons is a minor extension once the knowledge base becomes technologically entrenched. Yet, as civilized governments worldwide mobilize their diplomatic efforts, this capability has taken a back seat to the actual possession of weapons. Understandable and, moreover, consistently positioned at the forefront of our discussion points as the logical endgame of this unfolding process.

Still, one will note the consistent drumbeat from Iran towards the world, but more notably to its own peoples, of their "natural right" to this capability under the NPT. While our diplomats have noted the aborgation of this "natural right" by the constant employment of duplicity and subterfuge tactics over an eighteen year period by Iran against IAEA inspections, we HAVE NOT, in my opinion, highlighted this position.

Namely, the past points clearly to the future. Iran's past activities in this regard makes IMPOSSIBLE any creditable inspections by the IAEA henceforth. Iranian ability to circumvent these inspections is a proven and exercised tactic, and will remain so.

As such, our argument must first be directed to the Iranian people. The civilized world has no desire to prevent Iran from a peaceful nuclear energy program. However inspection safeguards, as normally exercised, are no longer a valid means to affirm this goal. Iran, by its duplicity, has rendered null this "natural right" under NPT provisions. THIS point must lead any commentary by our leading diplomats, and the message must be pointed at both ours and the Iranian peoples. Over and over again. It must further be driven home repeatedly that the NPT WILL collapse should Iran continue its current path. Moreover, if that treaty holds any continuing importance to the world, including the Iranian people, it will be the Iranian theocrats who must bear the burden of its demise. The Iranian peoples must then be made aware that THEY will bear the burden of that consequence.

It is this central point that makes the Russian fuel offer still valid. It is also this point that thoroughly invalidates Iranian notions of legitimacy to their continued pursuit of nuclear capability. Finally, it is the ONLY means that I believe circumvents the Iranian gov't. ability to mobilize its population to the regime's cause. But as clear as that position seems, it appears to me that we haven't made that case to the Iranian people, nor our own. Doing so effectively will mobilize our populations, while separating the Iranian gov't. from theirs.

Instead the discussion has already moved to sanctions or air-strikes, both of which will rally the Iranian people while finding considerable resistance among the populations of all other concerned nations.

Let the mullahs wear the black hats for a change. They seem comfortable in black in any case.

slapout9
06-05-2006, 07:48 PM
Good point. Our President should use FDR's fireside chat format to keep americans better informed and do his best to see that his message gets to the population of Iran.

S-2
06-05-2006, 08:11 PM
Yeah. MSM won't give POTUS thirty minutes a week on T.V. Worse, we've nobody in our government with both the credibility and skill at delivering this message like FDR. Condi's the closest, and she's really not a warm and engaging speaker. Appears visibly nervous to me and has sort of a stilted, robotic, and slightly icy demeanor. Plus, we need this message to be delivered in Europe and Iran by people whom those folks implicitly trust. I've no idea who they'd be.

Maybe it is GWB adopting a TEDDY ROOSEVELT approach of speaking softly, but carrying a BIG STICK. I just don't trust that he can consistently pull it off without suffering "foot in mouth" disease at some point.

Jones_RE
06-05-2006, 08:48 PM
Iraq is the source of our Iran trouble - it is this issue that has largely drained the President of the domestic support he needs to conduct foreign policy. The various scandals, infighting and fits among the Republican party haven't helped, either. Fact is, the President holds virtually supreme power over US foreign affairs and matters of state and war. Unfortunately, that power is diminished any time the President's power and prestige is diminished.

Speaking as a liberal, I don't like the idea of George W. Bush in charge of US foreign policy. I like the current situation even less: right now no one is in charge. American foreign policy at the moment is driven by inertia and blind reaction to overseas events - all our programs are either legacies or hasty expedients.

Stu-6
06-06-2006, 10:20 AM
I agree it seems like we have been down that road before both with Chalabi and a few decades ago with the Shah. Hopefully we have learned something from our own history.

GorTex6
06-08-2006, 04:25 AM
I agree it seems like we have been down that road before both with Chalabi and a few decades ago with the Shah. Hopefully we have learned something from our own history.

We also covertly supported the Ayatollah and assisted in his rise to power, destablizing the Soviet puppet in Kabul and luring the bear to invade Afghanistan.

Stu-6
06-08-2006, 11:04 PM
US support for the Ayatollah? Supporting his rise to power? I am intrigued please elaborate.

SWJED
06-08-2006, 11:19 PM
US support for the Ayatollah? Supporting his rise to power? I am intrigued please elaborate.

Me too. This should be good.

GorTex6
06-09-2006, 06:41 AM
Brzezinski mentioned it during an interview with a French reporter. Look it up yourself if it is so intriguing.

Jedburgh
06-09-2006, 06:25 PM
Brzezinski mentioned it during an interview with a French reporter. Look it up yourself if it is so intriguing.
If you are going to utter purported statements of fact that go so strongly against the grain of established wisdom, then you should be able to back it up with some type of source. One good thing about these boards is that you are so easily able to hot-link sources and references into your discussion. If you simply make bald statements of opinion masquerading as fact, and refuse to back them up, you lose credibility.

GorTex6
06-10-2006, 03:15 AM
ol' karl.com (http://www.marxists.org/history/afghanistan/archive/brzezinski/1998/interview.htm)

You do the rest. I can't help you there.

Jedburgh
06-10-2006, 03:57 AM
There is nothing in your link regarding support to the Ayatollah. The focus of the piece you've provided is that US support for the Afghan mujahideen began prior to the Soviet intervention, in an effort to destabilize what we perceived as a Soviet client state. Not exactly an earth shattering revelation, of the nature of your original statement.

Of course, the source that you provided is heavily slanted in an obvious direction. For more detail, and a more neutral look at the unfolding of those events, I highly recommend the GWU National Security Archive (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/), the premier free-to-the public source for FOIA releases:

Afghanistan: The Making of US Policy 1973-1990 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/essay.html)

...Weeks after the Herat uprising and while President Carter was absorbed by the Iran hostage crisis, Brzezinski pushed a decision through the Special Coordination Committee (SCC) of the National Security Council (NSC) to be, as he put it, "more sympathetic to those Afghans who were determined to preserve their country’s independence."

Although deliberately vague as to what this meant, the evidence indicates that Brzezinski called for moderate covert support for Afghan dissident groups which had set up headquarters in Pakistan. Some, such as forces under the command of Rabbani and Hekmatyar, had been operating out of Pakistan without much outside aid for years. According to a former Pakistani military official who was interviewed in 1988, the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad had asked Pakistani military officials in April 1979 to recommend a rebel organization that would make the best use of U.S. aid. The following month, the Pakistani source claimed, he personally introduced a CIA official to Hekmatyar who, while more radically Islamic and anti-American than most Afghans, headed what the Pakistani government considered the most militant and organized rebel group, the Hizb-i Islami (Hekmatyar).

Freedom of Information Act requests for records describing these meetings have been denied. But CIA and State Department documents seized by Iranian students during the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979, reveal that, starting in April 1979, eight months before the Soviet intervention and immediately following Brzezinski’s SCC decision, the United States had, in fact, begun quietly meeting rebel representatives. Although most of the cables and memoranda released to date show that U.S. officials politely turned down rebel requests for U.S. assistance, others reveal CIA support for anti-DRA demonstrations and close monitoring of Pakistani military aid for rebel parties based in Pakistan’s NWFP...

GorTex6
06-10-2006, 08:55 AM
Of course, the source that you provided is heavily slanted in an obvious direction.
It was googled. Considering SWJ links the site in their library.....(note: the library of congress omits this interview in the French article ;) )

Freedom of Information Act requests for records describing these meetings have been denied.
;) NO COMMENT

But CIA and State Department documents seized by Iranian students during the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979, reveal that, starting in April 1979, eight months before the Soviet intervention and immediately following Brzezinski’s SCC decision, the United States had, in fact, begun quietly meeting rebel representatives.
and most was burned before the embassy was seized....

If I were to link it to the enigma surrounding Desert One, that would be pretty far fetched, or would it not? :D

Jedburgh
06-10-2006, 02:10 PM
...all your winking smilies and clipped comments aside, you are still begging the question (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html). This was your original statement that the other members and I would like to see a reference for:

We also covertly supported the Ayatollah and assisted in his rise to power, destablizing the Soviet puppet in Kabul and luring the bear to invade Afghanistan.

SWJED
06-10-2006, 03:34 PM
It was googled. Considering SWJ links the site in their library.....(note: the library of congress omits this interview in the French article ;) )

;) NO COMMENT

and most was burned before the embassy was seized....

If I were to link it to the enigma surrounding Desert One, that would be pretty far fetched, or would it not? :D

But must be posted with a logical argument / theme based on the poster's point of view and backed with research and a logical and substantive text of explanation.

Frankly, I am getting a bit tired of chasing down your one-liner "drive by" posts. It is a waste of my time and the limited resources we have here at the SWC.

Points of view are one thing - agendas are another. I refuse to let this board become your personal bitch-of-the-moment soapbox. I am posting this here on the forum only because I've had this discussion with you via PM several times in the past.

I am not going to argue this point any further. Get with the program or move on.

Stu-6
06-11-2006, 04:42 PM
Brzezinski mentioned it during an interview with a French reporter. Look it up yourself if it is so intriguing.

Gladly if you would be so kind as to give some details (what kind of support wa given, etc.) I will certianly try to find out what I can.

GorTex6
06-12-2006, 12:07 AM
Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805081372/sr=8-2/qid=1150070461/ref=sr_1_2/103-1736751-0379052?%5Fencoding=UTF8), Robert Dreyfuss (Brzezinki/Iran in particular- pp 241, 251-256)

In an effort to thwart the spread of communism, the U.S. has supported--even organized and funded--Islamic fundamentalist groups, a policy that has come back to haunt post-cold war geopolitics. Drawing on archival sources and interviews with policymakers and foreign-service officials, Dreyfuss traces this ultimately misguided approach from support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the 1950s, the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, the ultraorthodox Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, and Hamas and Hezbollah to jihads in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. Fearful of the appeal of communism, the U.S. saw the rise of a religious Right as a counterbalance. Despite the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the declared U.S. war on terrorism in Iraq, Dreyfuss notes continued U.S. support for Iraq's Islamic Right. He cites parallels between the cultural forces that have promoted the religious Right in the U.S and the Middle East and notes that support from wealthy donors, the emergence of powerful figures, and politically convenient alliances have contributed to Middle Eastern hostilities toward the U.S. A well-researched and insightful book. Vanessa Bush



Gladly if you would be so kind as to give some details (what kind of support wa given, etc.) I will certianly try to find out what I can.

'Le Nouvel Observateur' (http://www.marxists.org/history/afghanistan/archive/brzezinski/1998/interview.htm)(ie supported agents of the Ayatollah)

Jedburgh
06-12-2006, 01:44 AM
Are you able to admit that you have no substantive source stating that the US provided support for Ayatollah Khomenei on his rise to power? (as you originally stated) You are going around in circles, implying content that doesn't exist in material that you link that is only peripherally related to the specific question to hand. You specify pages in a given book, yet you quote a book review. The 'Le Nouvel Observateur' interview you've referred to several times does not mention agents of the Ayatollah, as you state in your last post. Is it simply creative interpretation on your part?

You are still begging the question (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html), and your personal credibility is at zero.

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
- Hanlon's Razor

Stu-6
06-12-2006, 10:06 AM
'Le Nouvel Observateur' (http://www.marxists.org/history/afghanistan/archive/brzezinski/1998/interview.htm)(ie supported agents of the Ayatollah)

This is an inteview about US support Mujahadeen in Afghanistan is it your opinion that the Mujahadeen were agents of the Ayatollah?

SWJED
11-28-2006, 10:48 PM
Just posted at the U.S. Army's Strategic Studies Insititute - Iran, Iraq, and the United States: The New Triangle's Impact on Sectarianism and the Nuclear Threat (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=738) by Dr. Sherifa D. Zuhur.


This monograph considers the issues of Iranian influence in Iraq, and its impact on continuing sectarian violence there. It also questions the claims that a Shi'a crescent of power is solidifying by examining the distinct features of Iraqi versus Iranian Shi'ism and political Islam. Iran and Iraq have historically influenced and threatened each other. Today, the situation has been further complicated by the post-2003 change in the Iraqi Shi'a community’s status, Iran's development of a nuclear program, and international efforts to contain that program. These issues are now influenced by a new pattern of Iraqi-Iranian, U.S.-Iraqi and Iranian-U.S. dynamics. This new triangle of state relations must also be considered in light of Iraq and Iran’s neighbors.

SWJED
12-06-2006, 12:29 AM
Yea, that's the ticket... 5 November AP:


Iran, whose president has described the Holocaust as a "myth," said Tuesday it will hold a conference to discuss the evidence of the World War II genocide.

The two-day conference scheduled for next week was initiated by hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Deputy Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mohammadi said.

"The president simply asked whether an event called the Holocaust has actually taken place ... No rational response was ever given to Ahmadinejad's questions," Mohammadi said, explaining the reason for the conference....

Merv Benson
12-06-2006, 04:10 AM
Anyone who says they have not seen a rational response considering the question of whether the holocaust took place has to be engaged in conscience avoidance of the facts and history. If that is so, what value is their word on any agreement?

selil
12-06-2006, 04:01 PM
I was having lunch the other day with an Iranian (where I work that is pretty much a given), and he said something that was interesting. When I asked how he would describe his nationalism he said "Persian". Talk about a different take on the entire cultural war. Whereas I had though of Iran being a cohesive nation state of Islamic fundamentalism here was somebody basically shattering that misconception. He put it into perspective of the religious fundamentalists in the United States taking over the government by force and forcing their agenda.

JP0302
12-07-2006, 07:15 PM
Iran, whose president has described the Holocaust as a "myth," said Tuesday it will hold a conference to discuss the evidence of the World War II genocide.

Call me paranoid, but if you consider the following.
1) Above statement
2) Just a few days ago, he also said that soon israel would dissapear (or something along thoselines)
3) Repeated comments on the destruction of israel, palestine getting "all" their territories back (read israel).

Is it not reasonable to conclude that if they do not "find" any evidence, that they (Iran) will may take actions to recover those territories? Why else hold a conference, if not to take action on the findings.

UCrawford
12-08-2006, 03:16 PM
Selil,

Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" had some interesting points about how many of the problems we have in dealing with Islamic cultures comes from their adherence to religious, cultural and tribal identities over national boundaries. We think of Iranians, Iraqis, Afghanis...they think of Shi'a, Sunni, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Persians, al-Sauds, Wahhabists, Hashemites, etc. It's just such a fragmented system that they follow that I wonder how anyone could have believed that Western democratization would be able to take hold as Bush was proposing.

Of course, the confusion is somewhat understandable since in the case of many of those countries (Afghanistan to name a prominent example) the people of the region weren't the ones who drew up national boundaries...Western nations were (as with the Durand Line, which the Pashtuns largely don't recognize). That's not really anyone's fault today, and certainly not Bush's of course, but it's something we should be aware of when engaging in that region with an eye towards reform.

selil
12-08-2006, 03:31 PM
Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" had some interesting points about how many of the problems we have in dealing with Islamic cultures comes from their adherence to religious, cultural and tribal identities over national boundaries.

If we can realize these issues, discuss them, and even come up with plans to operationalize them why can't it be enacted as foreign policy?

I know it sounds like sour grapes it just seems so trivial as a problem. Then I start thinking about. Unsolvable problems or unresolved imbalances are the preludes to war which is the instrument of nature balancing mans inadequacies.

UCrawford
12-08-2006, 05:39 PM
I don't think it's impossible to come to consensus in the Middle East, but I do think it's highly improbable.

It seems like one of the things Huntington was trying to illustrate was that it's not just a matter of opposing interests between us and them, it's a matter of diametrically opposed perspectives. We see things in terms of how it affects our nation and us as Americans and we negotiate with the leaders of other countries based on that. The Muslims see things in terms of how it affects their tribe, or their religious sect, or their immediate community, not a national identity. Huntington's point seemed to be that the nation-state in Islamic society isn't the ultimate authority for negotiation because the people don't recognize the authority of national identity as we do. Unless that changes, like in the case of Turkey, then the strongmen and the dictators in the Middle East may be the best bet for us. They aren't representing the interests of their people, and it creates its own problems, but at least they are a cohesive body to negotiate with and they can usually get their people to adhere to agreements with us (although, of course, not always).

SSG Rock
01-26-2007, 06:46 PM
An interesting tidbit of information here (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/818236.html) my friends. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the reporting. I was alerted to this article by my gold broker who seems to have his eye on absolutely anything that could impact the US economy. Be that as it may, I wonder how far along Iran really is in their nuclear weapons program? And, if they actually launch a vehicle into space, do you think that should be a green light for military action of any kind of any scope?

marct
01-26-2007, 07:02 PM
An interesting tidbit of information here (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/818236.html) my friends. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the reporting. I was alerted to this article by my gold broker who seems to have his eye on absolutely anything that could impact the US economy. Be that as it may, I wonder how far along Iran really is in their nuclear weapons program? And, if they actually launch a vehicle into space, do you think that should be a green light for military action of any kind of any scope?

Hi SSG Rock. I'm getting a "server not found" error. Can you check the URL? Thanks,
Marc

SSG Rock
01-26-2007, 07:15 PM
I just checked the link and it worked for me, at any rate.

Here is the text:

Last update - 19:27 26/01/2007 http://haaretz.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D260107/iranshahab3.jpg


Report: Iran almost ready to launch spy satellite into space

By Reuters

Iran has converted a 30-ton ballistic missile into a satellite launch vehicle that will soon be used to send a reconaissance satellite into space, a move that could have wide security implications, Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine reported on its Web site on Thursday.

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, spoke about the upcoming launch to religious students and clerics in Qom, the industry trade publication said.

The launcher is a version of the Shahab-3 missile that has a range of 800 to 1,000 miles (1,285-1,600 kilometers), the magazine said, citing unidentified U.S. agencies. A missile of its kind could reach Saudi Arabia and as far west as Turkey, the report said.

Additionally, improvements in space launches could help Iran build an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of almost 2,500 miles (4,000 kilometers), according to the magazine.

Iran's satellite launch will likely increase Western concern over its strategic capabilities and intentions, the magazine said.

The former head of the Israel Missile Defense Organization, Uzi Rubin, said that, "ultimately, [Iran's] space program aims to orbit reconnaissance satellites like Israel's 'Ofek,' using an Iranian satellite launcher from Iranian territory."

He added, "a reconnaissance satellite of reasonable performance should weigh about 300 kg. [660 lb.] Once Iran learns how to put 300 kg. into earth orbit, it could adapt the satellite launcher into an ICBM that could drop more than 300 kg anywhere in the world."

Iran has long been at odds with the United States and Europe, pushing ahead with plans to enrich uranium as part of what Tehran calls a peaceful energy program. The West has feared that Iran instead is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Another article from a more well known periodical: Aviation Week & Space Technology (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/IRAN01257.xml)

marct
01-26-2007, 07:22 PM
It must have been a blip with my server <sigh>. I could get it now, although a couple of minutes ago I couldn't (I HATE Bell!!!!). Thanks for posting the full article.


Honestly, I wouldn't be worried about ICBMs. They are pretty passe in all too many ways. A dirty nuke or an EMP bomb over a selected target field, however...

Marc

bismark17
01-26-2007, 07:31 PM
When I logged into Stratfor.com it had an article on the emerging Iranian satellite program.

Jedburgh
02-07-2007, 04:22 PM
ICG, 6 Feb 07: Iran: Ahmadi-Nejad's Tumultuous Presidency (http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/middle_east___north_africa/iraq_iran_gulf/b21_iran___ahmadi_nejads_tumultuous_presidency.pdf )

...The process of internal debate and elite competition evident in Ahmadi-Nejads’s still brief term of office suggests the continued ability of politics in Iran to swing the pendulum back, rein in policies deemed dangerous to regime survival and trigger change – arduous, slow and modest though it might be. The president’s inability to deliver on his economic program, more than anything else, is contributing to his noticeable and steady decline in the public’s eyes. At the same time, his inflammatory behaviour on the international stage is both causing disquiet and emboldening political rivals.

But that is far different from concluding either that Ahmadi-Nejad’s days are numbered or that Iran soon will back down on the fundamentals that have driven its international policy. Under increased pressure, the president may well have to compromise on parts of his domestic agenda. But he also will rely more heavily on the nationalist sentiment that a more confrontational U.S. posture will likely provoke, in order to change the subject and seek to mask his domestic failures. In this sense, a hawkish U.S. – or Israeli – policy toward Iran could turn out to be Ahmadi-Nejad’s best friend. External military and security threats inevitably will constrain the ability – and even willingness – of domestic actors to press their case. Says a prominent reformist: “Those who threaten and pressure from the outside forget that we still think in traditional ways about national sovereignty. If we have to choose between individual freedom and national sovereignty, we will choose the latter. We hope we don’t have to choose”.

RTK
02-07-2007, 05:03 PM
ICG, 6 Feb 07: Iran: Ahmadi-Nejad's Tumultuous Presidency (http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/middle_east___north_africa/iraq_iran_gulf/b21_iran___ahmadi_nejads_tumultuous_presidency.pdf )

As Ahmadinejad delegitimizes himself to his own people over time it would be a shame not to capitalize off this and begin some sort of talks with the more moderate leaders in that country that are gaining their power bases. Eventually (inshallah), the Iranian people are going to get sick of his radical hypotheses and rhetoric brimming with hyperbole.

nichols
02-08-2007, 02:29 PM
Help Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan come up with a unified stance against Iran's military ambitions. Use the historical fear of the Turks to an advantage.

Jedburgh
02-08-2007, 03:20 PM
Help Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan come up with a unified stance against Iran's military ambitions. Use the historical fear of the Turks to an advantage.
None of those countries cooperate with each in the context of normal relations. And none of them, at the moment, feel directly threatened by Iranian military ambitions. The likelihood of that particular grouping forming any type of united front for that purpose is non-existent.

...but that is quite a thought - getting Turkey and Armenia to work together to use the "historical fear of the Turks" against Iran...

tequila
02-08-2007, 03:39 PM
Agree with RTK. Ahmedinejad will fall because Rafsanjani and Khamanei are both out to get him. Only his populism and institutional base in the basiji and among Iranian war veterans save him, but that will dissipate as Iran's economic picture gets worse.

Mondor
02-08-2007, 08:39 PM
Only his populism and institutional base in the basiji and among Iranian war veterans save him, but that will dissipate as Iran's economic picture gets worse.

Wow, so it is only his populist policies and the support of these policies among a significant percentage of the population that allows him to stay in power. Sounds awfully.....democratic.

Back to the original premise, I don't see the harm in negotiating with the Iranian government. The problem will be to identify which government you are going to negotiate with. There is the formal government structure, the Revolutionary Guard, the shadow government, and any number of religious / political factions.

nichols
02-08-2007, 09:49 PM
...but that is quite a thought - getting Turkey and Armenia to work together to use the "historical fear of the Turks" against Iran...

I think an alliance between those three countries would effect Iran. A much better azimuth then sending in Divisions, Wings, & Carrier Groups.

However, Turaj Atabaki, professor of Iranian and Central Asian studies at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, told RFE/RL that the U.S. presence in the region is a major barrier against the further expansion of Iranian ties with the five Central Asian republics .

"The U.S. does not accept under any conditions the expanding of ties between the Central Asian republics and the Islamic Republic of Iran," Atabaki said. "So a future growing Iranian influence in the region will depend on the country’s relationship with the U.S. If Iran is willing to secure a stable place for itself in the region, first it should resolve its problems with the U.S."

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/10/b974274f-ce72-4859-b2c4-605ce58ebfe8.html

nichols
02-08-2007, 10:24 PM
TEHRAN - Iran's supply of natural gas to Turkey was inexplicably slashed by 70% last Friday, in one of the coldest months of the year. On the same day, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul raised the tension between the two countries by calling for greater Iranian "transparency" over Tehran's nuclear program.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA24Ak02.html

Maphu
02-09-2007, 10:27 AM
Another good piece from Asia Times Online: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB02Ak03.html


ElBaradei has asked for the simultaneous suspension of Iran's uranium-enrichment activities and the UN sanctions on Iran. Whereas Iran has given the call serious consideration, the United States has all but rejected it.

According to IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming, ElBaradei regards the regional situation as "potentially explosive" and wants to avert the escalation of a crisis that, if added to the present crises, could turn the situation "catastrophic".

In reaction to ElBaradei's proposal, Iran has put on hold its plan to install 3,000 centrifuges, and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has stated that Tehran will seriously "review" the proposal...

But that is precisely what may be wrong with the US approach, which involves upping the ante against Iran in Iraq, in spite of scant evidence of Iranian wrongdoing. The US is also fixated on the idea of a permanent suspension of Iran's enrichment and reprocessing program, even though the program is sanctioned by articles of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There is no legal basis for the United States' request, given the absence of any "smoking gun" corroborating allegations of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program in Iran.




Obviously negotiations are not in the plans.

SWJED
02-09-2007, 12:51 PM
Another good piece from Asia Times Online: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB02Ak03.html



Obviously negotiations are not in the plans.

The commentary piece you linked to and quoted was by Kaveh L Afrasiabi, former adviser to Iran's nuclear negotiation team.

Van
02-10-2007, 03:02 AM
I think we're neglecting two key points.

1) From Iran's perspective, they are surrounded. The U.S. has major contingents in Iraq and Afghanistan (~2300 km of ~5400 km of land borders) and we're moving carriers into the Persian Gulf. Folks, the Iranians can go on a major construction spree with the bricks they are defecating.
<https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/reference_maps/middle_east.html> Now consider that in their culture admitting fear is on a level with admitting paedophilia, and they are pretty panicky right now and probably being irrational by their own standards, much less the restrictive linear Western concepts of rationality.

2) Ahmadinejad isn't worried about legitimacy. He's concerned with popularity, distracting the crowds from looking critically at his policies, and suppressing anyone who voices dissent. To our benefit, it looks like he's realized that he can't beat down dissenters forever without losing popularity. If he can keep the masses distracted and fired up with verbal attacks on Israel, he can make up for the dissenters not beaten. The negotiations buy him time with the world, the genocide conference buys him face with his own people.

tequila
04-25-2007, 08:54 AM
Interesting article (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington//17128684.htm)about increased diplomacy with Iran.

kaur
04-26-2007, 12:49 PM
In the "Intelligence" section there was talk about Austrian made cal .50 rifles, that were sold to Iran and ended in Iraqi insurgents hands.

There is talk about new deal that helps to produce hard cash to Iran.


State radio estimated the total value of the deal at $18 billion but other Iranian media did not mention any figures.

http://jp.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2007-04-21T094613Z_01_L21517244_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-OMV.xml&WTmodLoc=IntNewsHome_C2_worldNews-4

tequila
04-26-2007, 01:32 PM
Anyone know for sure about the .50-cal. Steyrs which were supposedly captured in Iraq? Any idea why those were not produced in the latest presentations?

kaur
04-26-2007, 01:41 PM
tequila, good question! Has anyone really seen those rifles in Iraq or is this some kind of propaganda war against old Europe? If you consider fact that insurgents like to play with gadgets in front of cameras, then youtube should be full of this info :)

Stan
04-26-2007, 02:46 PM
Well, some seem to think so !

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/highpowered_aus.html


Just another reason for the Americans to thank the European "friends" in the Austrian government. High-powered 50 caliber rifles sold to Iran "to fight drug smugglers" by the Austrian firm Steyr-Mannlicher are now killing US troops in Iraq, and the Austrian government expressly approved the sale in 2005 despite U.S. protests, describing the deal as "unimpeachable":


Just more evidence of the non-violent superiority of the European way-of-life. Trade anything to anyone. Who cares if they are genocidal thugs or out to build a nuke or wipe Israel off the map? Who cares if they use the rifles to kill Americans? This keeps Austria's unemployment down. Don't you just love pacifism?

tequila
04-26-2007, 03:00 PM
Stan, all I've been able to find are similar links from nutbag right-wing blogs linking to the same damned Telegraph story, which has so far not been substantiated by anything from CENTCOM. Do we have reports of troops or vehicles actually being hit with .50-cal. sniper rounds?

Stan
04-26-2007, 03:27 PM
Hey Tequila, how about this one ?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251665,00.html


LONDON — Sophisticated rifles supplied to Iran by an Austrian arms company in 2006 are finding their way into the hands of Iraqi insurgents, a British newspaper reported on Tuesday.

American troops have recovered more than 100 "Steyr .50 HS" rifles in Iraq, part of an Austrian consignment of 800 such weapons delivered to Iran over American protests that they could be given to insurgents, the Daily Telegraph reported.

I will not comment regarding nutbags, or I will be butt-stroked again !

tequila
04-26-2007, 03:48 PM
Heh, I didn't mean you Stan.

At any rate, the Fox News report is just refeeding the AP report which is just refeeding the Telegraph story.


LONDON — Sophisticated rifles supplied to Iran by an Austrian arms company in 2006 are finding their way into the hands of Iraqi insurgents, a British newspaper reported on Tuesday.

American troops have recovered more than 100 "Steyr .50 HS" rifles in Iraq, part of an Austrian consignment of 800 such weapons delivered to Iran over American protests that they could be given to insurgents, the Daily Telegraph reported.

Stan
04-26-2007, 04:11 PM
No hard feelings Tequila...honestly.
God, where are the smart guys like Marc when you need them ?

OK, I'll go at it alone this time and quote a really cool guy in my defense RE: Copy and Paste in the 21st century !


"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command our forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I'm readily and willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects and I'll, in turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials - after the fact." --- General Robert E. Lee C.S.A. 1863.

:eek:

marct
04-26-2007, 04:29 PM
No hard feelings Tequila...honestly.
God, where are the smart guys like Marc when you need them ?

Off working :p. Seriously, though, I think Tequila is right - I haven't heard of any other reports that don't draw from that one article in the Telegraph. Now, having said that, it doesn't mean that a) there haven't been other reports or that b) they aren't being used. Personally, I'd count it as "plausible, but not proven".

Maybe more to the point was the Tequila's second question - "Any idea why those were not produced in the latest presentations?" Now, I would think that it's possible that hey have been discovered and that discovery is being "hidden" until an investigation can be completed. This might well account for a single "leak" to the Telegraph to see if anyone starts sweating. Then again, they may not exist outside of the mind of someone who needed a story fast :confused:.

Marc

Stan
04-26-2007, 04:42 PM
As always a great save, Marc ! Thanks !

Jeez, we've come a long way since 1863 :D

I guess this will remain a mystery unless somebody begins ordering .50 rounds in beltless quantities :cool:

MASON
04-27-2007, 04:12 PM
Austria ---Neutral country, its citizens together or individually can sell goods and services just like we can and do. After all they just arranged for the production of a terrific supply of excellent civil defence weapons (the styre 50s) and the Iranians are essentially footing the bill for equiping the Austrian Civil defence force. Pretty smart really and The insurgents are testing them in real world conditions against a real Military.

Iran ---We should have assumed from the start of our invasion if not already from the 1980 hostage crisis they will take every opportunity to hurt and kill the US as a nation and individually.

Bad Guy trigger pullers---I guess they didn't get the memmo about how they should not buy good equipment.

Barrett Arms-- Did they let the Austrians beat them in building a better battle implement?

Ourselves--- for not demanding and achieving sufficient force and will to control the country we invaded including its borders. Its like someone just said that might be hard to do - it will be okay even if we cannot control the border lets not make that part of the mission.

Get Real Guys you are better than this and its a 2 year old story.

SWJED
06-16-2007, 05:14 AM
16 June NY Times - Strategy on Iran Stirs New Debate at White House (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/16/washington/16diplo.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin) by Helene Cooper and David Sanger.


A year after President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced a new strategy toward Iran, a behind-the-scenes debate has broken out within the administration over whether the approach has any hope of reining in Iran’s nuclear program, according to senior administration officials.

The debate has pitted Ms. Rice and her deputies, who appear to be winning so far, against the few remaining hawks inside the administration, especially those in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office who, according to some people familiar with the discussions, are pressing for greater consideration of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

In the year since Ms. Rice announced the new strategy for the United States to join forces with Europe, Russia and China to press Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, Iran has installed more than a thousand centrifuges to enrich uranium. The International Atomic Energy Agency predicts that 8,000 or so could be spinning by the end of the year, if Iran surmounts its technical problems...

16 June Washington Post - Iran Curtails Freedom In Throwback to 1979 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061502333.html) by Robin Wright.


Iran is in the midst of a sweeping crackdown that both Iranians and U.S. analysts compare to a cultural revolution in its attempt to steer the oil-rich theocracy back to the rigid strictures of the 1979 revolution.

The recent detentions of Iranian American dual nationals are only a small part of a campaign that includes arrests, interrogations, intimidation and harassment of thousands of Iranians as well as purges of academics and new censorship codes for the media. Hundreds of Iranians have been detained and interrogated, including a top Iranian official, according to Iranian and international human rights groups...

Jedburgh
06-21-2007, 01:19 PM
CEIP, 20 Jun 07: Guidelines for Approaching Iran (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/sadjadpour_iran_final1.pdf)

....When devising a foreign policy toward Iran, two main challenges exist. First, Iran’s leaders themselves are not clear about what they want. They lack consensus on the country’s domestic direction, nuclear policy, relations with the United States, and Iran’s regional role. This lack of consensus is due to internal discord and rivalry, institutional paralysis, and a deep-seated mistrust of U.S. intentions. Second, Iran’s leadership often acts in pursuit of regime interests at the expense of national interests. For example, the economic reform and liberalization needed for accession to the World Trade Organization may spur economic growth in Iran, but they do not necessarily appeal to a regime whose power derives in part due to its control of approximately 80 per cent of the country’s economy.

In addition, the Iranian government has other characteristics that will complicate serious engagement...

davidbfpo
06-21-2007, 09:59 PM
Delivered the other day, do not think this site has seen their reports, so try:

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/airstrikes.php

Would Air Strikes Work? Understanding Iran's Nuclear Programme and the Possible Consequences of a Military Strike by Dr. Frank Barnaby, with a foreword by Dr. Hans Blix, March 2007.

I know there have been similar analyses, read and make your own decision.

davidbfpo

Jedburgh
06-21-2007, 10:26 PM
Delivered the other day, do not think this site has seen their reports, so try:

Would Air Strikes Work? Understanding Iran's Nuclear Programme and the Possible Consequences of a Military Strike (http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/airstrikes.php), by Dr. Frank Barnaby, with a foreword by Dr. Hans Blix, March 2007.

I know there have been similar analyses, read and make your own decision.
Thanks, David. I seem to have missed that one.

Regarding "similar analyses", here's a few papers that have been posted here before:

CNS-MIIS, 12 Aug 04: A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences (http://www.cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm)

CSIS, 7 Apr 06: Iranian Nuclear Weapons? The Options if Diplomacy Fails (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060407_irannucoptions.pdf)

CSIS, 30 Aug 06: Iranian Nuclear Weapons? Options for Sanctions and Military Strikes (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060830_iranoptionssanctions.pdf)

CSIS, 5 Mar 07: Israeli and US Strikes on Iran: A Speculative Analysis (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/070305_iran_israelius.pdf)

SWJED
06-24-2007, 11:31 AM
24 June NY Times - Iran Cracks Down on Dissent, Parading Examples in Streets (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/world/middleeast/24iran.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) by Neil MacFarquhar.


Iran is in the throes of one of its most ferocious crackdowns on dissent in years, with the government focusing on labor leaders, universities, the press, women’s rights advocates, a former nuclear negotiator and Iranian-Americans, three of whom have been in prison for more than six weeks.

The shift is occurring against the backdrop of an economy so stressed that although Iran is the world’s second-largest oil exporter, it is on the verge of rationing gasoline. At the same time, the nuclear standoff with the West threatens to bring new sanctions.

The hard-line administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, analysts say, faces rising pressure for failing to deliver on promises of greater prosperity from soaring oil revenue. It has been using American support for a change in government as well as a possible military attack as a pretext to hound his opposition and its sympathizers.

Some analysts describe it as a “cultural revolution,” an attempt to roll back the clock to the time of the 1979 revolution, when the newly formed Islamic Republic combined religious zeal and anti-imperialist rhetoric to try to assert itself as a regional leader...

goesh
06-25-2007, 06:12 PM
FOXNEWS.COM HOME > WORLD

"Iran Wages War on 'Immoral' Cell Phone Messages
Monday, June 25, 2007


Iran’s state telecommunications company is offering rewards to citizens who turn in their neighbors for sending or receiving “immoral” messages on their cell phones, according to a report in The News International.

"There are rewards for those who report senders of immoral multimedia messages to the judiciary," Vafa Ghaffarain, head of Iran's telecommunications company, was quoted as saying.

News of the rewards came as the Iranian government issued a press release stating it would try to monitor and censor the MMS (multimedia messaging service) material on all phones. MMS messages contain still images, audio, and video.

The ban stems from an order issued in April by the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution that the Iranian Telecommunications Ministry must acquire technology for filtering multimedia messages, Foreign Policy magazine reported. The council reportedly said that the measure was necessary to prevent "immoral actions and social problems."

Iran already practices heavy censorship on Internet access, banning thousands of sites and blogs that contain sexual or politically controversial content, the News reports. Sites advocating women’s rights and social networking sites are also banned."

skiguy
06-25-2007, 07:08 PM
Did anyone catch the editor's note on that Times article?

But the man in the photograph, according to widespread Iranian news reports, was one of more than 100 people arrested recently on charges of being part of a gang that had committed rapes, robberies, forgeries and other crimes.

Yeah..sure. :rolleyes:

goesh
06-27-2007, 04:49 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19457357/

"Iran fuel rations spark anger, rioting
At least two pump stations torched; motorists line up for gas for hours"

Jedburgh
07-02-2007, 07:00 PM
RFE-RL, 29 Jun 07: Iran: Officials Reportedly Ban Negative Gas-Rationing Stories (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/06/1cf0d8b2-d8e1-421e-9737-48063be9ef08.html)

Reports say Iran's Supreme National Security Council has warned journalists not to report on problems caused by gas rationing that led to great anger among some citizens who set fire to many gas stations in several cities on June 27....

...The unrest, described by some as "gasoline riots," reportedly also led to the temporary closure of the country's mobile phone text messaging network by authorities who were trying to prevent unrest and protests from spreading....

...In recent months, Iran's top security body has also put journalists under pressure not to criticize the country's nuclear policies and not to depict the Iranian government's dealings in the nuclear crisis as unsuccessful...

Jedburgh
07-04-2007, 12:30 PM
Military Review, Jul-Aug 07: Surrounded: Seeing the World From Iran's Point of View (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug07/Sadri.pdf)

...An initial sense of the Iranian leadership’s current worldview may be best perceived simply by looking at a map of the Middle East as seen through their eyes. As a Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) officer once expressed to me while discussing Iran’s security situation depicted on a map on his office wall, most Iranian leaders now share, with increasing anxiety, the common view that the U.S. is following a policy of gradually encircling Iran with hostile American forces based in neighboring countries. They note that 30 years ago the U.S had only a couple of military bases in the region—ironically, located in Iran itself. Now, U.S. bases are in all the Persian Gulf states except Iran, and in one form or another, U.S. forces are in all of Iran’s neighboring states—Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Turkey—except for Turkmenistan. Moreover, the U.S. has special ties with Pakistan (a supposed ally against Al-Qaeda), Turkey (a NATO ally that has a special defense treaty with Israel), and Azerbaijan (where hundreds of American military advisors with equipment are pouring into a country whose oil industry is already closely tied to U.S. interests). Along with this gradual buildup of forces, U.S. leaders from both political parties have kept up a steady stream of threatening rhetoric, publicly calling for regime change in Iran. This is a cause for special alarm, given U.S. military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001....

SWJED
07-06-2007, 11:22 AM
6 July Wall Street Journal commentary - Iran's Proxy War (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010302) by Sen. Joseph Lieberman.


Earlier this week, the U.S. military made public new and disturbing information about the proxy war that Iran is waging against American soldiers and our allies in Iraq.

According to Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, the U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, the Iranian government has been using the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah to train and organize Iraqi extremists, who are responsible in turn for the murder of American service members.

Gen. Bergner also revealed that the Quds Force--a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps whose mission is to finance, arm and equip foreign Islamist terrorist movements--has taken groups of up to 60 Iraqi insurgents at a time and brought them to three camps near Tehran, where they have received instruction in the use of mortars, rockets, improvised explosive devices and other deadly tools of guerrilla warfare that they use against our troops. Iran has also funded its Iraqi proxies generously, to the tune of $3 million a month.

Based on the interrogation of captured extremist leaders--including a 24-year veteran of Hezbollah, apparently dispatched to Iraq by his patrons in Tehran--Gen. Bergner also reported on Monday that the U.S. military has concluded that "the senior leadership" in Iran is aware of these terrorist activities. He said it is "hard to imagine" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei--Iran's supreme leader--does not know of them...

Jedburgh
07-20-2007, 01:36 PM
The Economist, 19 Jul 07: Iran: The Revolution Strikes Back (http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9466834)

....Iran is a young country: two out of three people are below the age of 30. On the streets of affluent north Tehran, young people dress in the latest fashions—even if the jeans-clad women are obliged by law to wear the Islamic headscarf (the hijab). The audience at prayers, however, is older: shabbily dressed men well into their 40s, regime stalwarts who have trekked uphill from the poor southern suburbs.

Which is the true Iran—the consumer-oriented young, bored by the slogans of a long-ago revolution and impatient to move on? Or the regime faithful chorusing the familiar slogans at Friday prayers?

It is tantalisingly hard to know. With 71m people and a multitude of languages and ethnicities, Iran is a difficult place to read. Although it has elements of democracy, including an elected president and parliament, the state is not ultimately controlled by elected institutions. And even the elected bit of the system is a backstage game of personalities and factions, not a transparent process rooted in political parties. Press freedom is limited, almost no serious independent opinion polling is allowed, and many official economic statistics appear simply to be made up. All this makes the regime's inner workings elusive. Outsiders can only follow the trend and make a guess.

Jedburgh
07-21-2007, 12:47 PM
Conference report from the 21 Mar 07 RAND conference in DC on Coping with Iran: Confrontation, Containment, or Engagement? (http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/2007/RAND_CF237.pdf)

Discussions throughout the one-day conference broached a number of key issues, including internal leadership and societal dynamics within Iran, Iran’s relationship with other regional actors, the implications of a nuclear-armed Iran or a military strike against Iran, and the various policy options available to address key issues such as Iran’s nuclear capabilities, instability in Iraq, and terrorism. Many participants argued at the conference that some degree of both containment and engagement was the best policy approach toward Iran and that a use-of-force option was neither imminent nor desirable. There was a general sense that UN sanctions and economic pressure was working in isolating Iran (even if some desired that it work faster). Furthermore, Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns emphasized that the United States is willing to be patient to allow economic and diplomatic efforts to work and stated that there are no imminent deadlines that would cause the U.S. government to pursue a drastic course in its approach toward Iran.

To follow are several other key themes that emerged from the discussions:

- U.S.-Iranian cooperation is possible, especially on Iraq.

- Iran may be interested in working with the United States and the international community to find a solution to the nuclear issue.

- The UN sanction process and international economic pressure are working.

- Preemption is not imminent.

- Focus is on regime behavior, not regime change.

- A nuclear-armed Iran can be expected to be more dangerous and aggressive than a non—nuclear-armed Iran.

- Engagement and containment options were ultimately preferred to confrontation.

Ken White
07-21-2007, 04:25 PM
ago, my belief is that the bullets you list are sensible and those things are achievable. We probably ought to go that route.

Lacking backhoes in large numbers, the Iraniha, like many nations, use a three man shovel with an extremely long handle and two ropes attached for deep holes. Unlike most of those nations, in Iran they use six people per shovel. Three dig and three kibitz for a few minutes, then the second three push the first three out of the way with much shouting and take over the shovel. Rotations invariably also involve trading of handle versus rope men. These rotations within rotations get repeated until it's time for tea, a multiple times per day event...

Iranian stores carry merchandise with no price tags. Haggling is the national pastime.

Point of all that is that usually its hard to tell who's actually in charge and any bilateral dealings had better be led by someone from the US with a whole lot of ME time -- and patience.

Neither attribute seems too common in the US today, Mota assa fahnay...

kaur
07-31-2007, 06:59 AM
On July 19, Economist issued special report "Iran"


In this special report
The revolution strikes back
Men of principle
Bombs away
The big squeeze
Only engage
The verdict of Qom
Khomeini's children
Audio interview
Sources and acknowledgements
Offer to readers

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9466834

Jedburgh
08-17-2007, 09:28 PM
WINEP, Jul 07: Deterring the Ayatollahs: Complications in Applying Cold War Strategy to Iran (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/download.php?file=PolicyFocus72FinalWeb.pdf)

Given the possibility that diplomacy might not succeed and that preventive military action might provide only a temporary fix, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy commissioned a series of essays to investigate the challenges posed by deterring a nuclear Iran. Authors were asked to compare and contrast classic Cold War deterrence with the challenges of deterring a nuclear Iran, and to examine how the idiosyncratic nature of the regime in Tehran would influence efforts to deter it.

Consideration of deterrence should not be read as resigned acceptance that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons. Quite the contrary: a strong deterrent posture implemented now could be a useful way of demonstrating to Iran’s leaders that nuclear weapons will bring them little if any benefit, and that the nuclear program is not worth the high political and economic cost.....

tequila
09-06-2007, 12:32 PM
Iranian shakeup a setback for hardline leader (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-09-04-iran_N.htm)- USATODAY, 5 Sep.


Opponents of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have assumed leadership of two of Iran's top institutions, a shakeup that reflects Western economic pressure on Iran and could lead to a less confrontational foreign policy, particularly on the nuclear issue.

On Tuesday, Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a pragmatic former president who lost to Ahmadinejad in 2005 presidential elections, was elected head of the Assembly of Experts. Under Iran's political system, the 86-member body of Shiite Muslim clerics appoints Iran's supreme leader — a religious figure who outranks the president.

On Saturday, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei replaced the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, the most powerful military organization in the country.

Taken together, the steps are a setback for Ahmadinejad, said William Samii, an Iran analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses, a think tank for the U.S. Navy.

"The supreme leader has taken actions to sideline Ahmadinejad and the people associated with him," Samii said. "People are fed up with Ahmadinejad and his belligerence. The regime will try to pursue a less confrontational foreign policy ..."

Rex Brynen
09-06-2007, 04:42 PM
There's no doubt that Rafsanjani's election to head the Assembly of Experts is a blow to Ahmadinejad (although its not clear what role Khameini played in it, since much had to do with the views of Assembly members). I don't know enough about the new IRGC commander to have a view on that.

However, it is hard to read the Supreme Leader--I was in Tehran a few months ago, and spoke at the Center for Strategic Studies (the Expediency Council's foreign policy think tank). I didn't get the sense that the Rafsanjani people felt that they were truly in ascendency, that their position was secure, or that Khameini had come down definitively against Ahmadinejad. There's a lot of playing one-end-against-the-other.

(A post for another time, perhaps, but it was a really fascinating visit. )

Tom Odom
09-06-2007, 05:19 PM
There's no doubt that Rafsanjani's election to head the Assembly of Experts is a blow to Ahmadinejad (although its not clear what role Khameini played in it, since much had to do with the views of Assembly members). I don't know enough about the new IRGC commander to have a view on that.

However, it is hard to read the Supreme Leader--I was in Tehran a few months ago, and spoke at the Center for Strategic Studies (the Expediency Council's foreign policy think tank). I didn't get the sense that the Rafsanjani people felt that they were truly in ascendency, that their position was secure, or that Khameini had come down definitively against Ahmadinejad. There's a lot of playing one-end-against-the-other.

(A post for another time, perhaps, but it was a really fascinating visit. )

Make a great article for the SWJ Blog, Rex.

Best

Tom

phoenix80
09-11-2007, 05:46 AM
Unfortunately these guys who won another sham election are no moderate and this guy Rafsanjani is a murderer and a corrupt person.

phoenix80
09-11-2007, 05:52 AM
http://hemaseh.com/pictures/pictures/1201-13.jpg
http://hemaseh.com/pictures/pictures/1785-12A.jpg
http://64.40.99.49/Multimedia/pics/1386/1/Photo/1649.jpg

http://www.iran-e-azad.org/english/nla/images/mehrancapchiefexsm.jpeg

Adam L
09-11-2007, 05:53 AM
Unfortunately these guys who won another sham election are no moderate and this guy Rafsanjani is a murderer and a corrupt person.

Are there any major players who aren't?

It's a serious quiestion.

phoenix80
09-11-2007, 05:54 AM
http://64.40.99.49/Multimedia/pics/1384/7/photo/403.jpg[/IMG]

http://iranatom.ru/media/iri/for/force12.jpg

http://img.photoamp.com/i/s4tXS.jpg

http://64.40.99.49/Multimedia%5Cpics%5C1385%5C12%5Cphoto%5C225.jpg

phoenix80
09-11-2007, 05:59 AM
IRGC special forces during an exercise

http://www.10pix.com/out.php/t80448_sepah1.jpg (http://www.10pix.com/show.php/80448_sepah1.jpg.html)http://www.10pix.com/out.php/t80450_sepah4.jpg (http://www.10pix.com/show.php/80450_sepah4.jpg.html)

http://www.10pix.com/out.php/t80449_sepah3.jpg (http://www.10pix.com/show.php/80449_sepah3.jpg.html)http://www.10pix.com/out.php/t80451_sepah5.jpg (http://www.10pix.com/show.php/80451_sepah5.jpg.html)

phoenix80
09-11-2007, 06:18 AM
IRGC special unit

Note the M-16 rifles and American-looking Helmets

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/3346/milbl7.th.jpg (http://img63.imageshack.us/my.php?image=milbl7.jpg)

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/3769/iranimb7.th.jpg (http://img63.imageshack.us/my.php?image=iranimb7.jpg)

phoenix80
09-11-2007, 06:34 AM
http://media.farsnews.com/Media/8501/ImageReports/8501170180/17_8501170180_L600.jpg

http://www.mehrnews.com/mehr_media/image/2006/04/187286_orig.jpg

http://www.mehrnews.com/mehr_media/image/2006/04/187285_orig.jpg

http://mehrnews.com/mehr_media/image/2006/04/189621_orig.jpg

UK built hovercrafts and also the Russian built Kilo class submarine of the regular Iranian navy

phoenix80
09-11-2007, 06:42 AM
Are there any major players who aren't?

It's a serious quiestion.

Unfortunately the state run reforms are fake and can't be trusted. There is, however, secular students, teachers and labor unions who really want to see the change coming. But they also expect the US government to help them in this. They must be helped though.

I am sure you follow the Iranian affairs and you may wonder whats going on inside that horrible regime. For one thing what the theocratic regime of Iran calls "reformists" is non-existence and those who are so-called reformers won't change the system. They may want to make some changes to it but overall they r not sincere in doing so becuz they dont care what PEOPLE want. They care about how the entire system looks and works better. In other words: they look for ways to prolong the regime for as long as possible and thru any possible way.

Adam L
09-11-2007, 06:46 AM
Here is the hard quesiton.

How can the US government help them?

Perhaps this should be a Thread of its own.

phoenix80
09-11-2007, 06:46 AM
http://media.farsnews.com/Media/8506/ImageNews/850611/6_850611_L600.jpg

F-4E carrying AGM-65B

http://server32.irna.com/filesystem/85/06/15/834815-46-50.jpg
http://www.mehrnews.com/mehr_media/image/2006/09/220376_orig.jpg

Iran took delivery of more than 200 F-4s between 1969-1978. These pics taken a few months ago showing IRIAF phantoms II carrying LAU/3A rocket pods during an aerial exercise.

http://server33.irna.com/filesystem/86/06/04/490314-55-41.jpg

Newly built Qassed air to surface missile (a copy of GBU-15)...

phoenix80
09-11-2007, 06:49 AM
http://www.mehrnews.com/mehr_media/image/2006/09/223179_orig.jpg


http://www.mehrnews.com/mehr_media/image/2006/09/223176_orig.jpg

http://media.farsnews.com/Media/8506/ImageReports/8506290462/22_8506290462_L600.jpg

Iranian Navy special boat service unit

JJackson
09-11-2007, 07:00 AM
How can the US government help them?


Dial back the rhetoric and do as little as possible. Any overt attempt to 'assist' will provide ammunition to the opposition. Being seen as supported by the US is not going to be a bonus they will need to sway their peers on their own.

Rex Brynen
09-11-2007, 01:28 PM
Dial back the rhetoric and do as little as possible. Any overt attempt to 'assist' will provide ammunition to the opposition. Being seen as supported by the US is not going to be a bonus they will need to sway their peers on their own.

I agree that overt (or covert) US support for reformers in Iran is very counterproductive--it both heightens regime paranoia and discredits those you are trying to help.

I do think its a shame that more Western scholars and others don't travel to Iran to speak and share different perspectives on the world. I found colleagues and students there diverse and eager to engage. The range of questions I received in open fora was quite remarkable (including one on the Kurdish right to self-determination in an independent state, which I certainly wouldn't have received in Syria or Turkey!)

Among students with whom I spoke, opinions were split of whether Iran was/should try to acquire nuclear weapons. On the issue of Iran developing nuclear research and technical capacities, however, there was very strong support. One university even proudly showed off their MSc programme in enrichment and fuel cycle management (suggesting that the IAEA is quite right in suggesting that particular horse has long ago bolted the stable.)

phoenix80
09-11-2007, 08:22 PM
The perception that US assistance will hurt the internal oppisition is very wrong. Indeed, the Iranian regime is scared of the US and the help must be OVERT and not covert at all.

Second, Iranian regime has been murdering and supressing its opponents since day one without even an excuse to begin with. They would kill and jail any body who disagree with them publicly and challenge them that way. Mullahs don't need an excuse to mistreat the dissidents. They do it any how. Back in 1988, they killed thousands of Iranian dissidents when there was no US backed rhetoric towards the regime at all. The mullahs are more wicked than you imagine.

The notion that US govt help to overthrow the regime is bad is absolutely wrong and misleading. Indeed, the US govt must publicly denounce the mullahs and support the opposition to change the regime.

Adam L
09-12-2007, 01:47 AM
The difficult part of this sort of thing is that you have to know exactly how far to go. You want to support Iranian dissident groups enough to make a difference, but little enought so that the Mullahs don't become too paranoid and start killing them off. That's the hard part. Without some sort of military (cover, untraditonal or whatever) action on the table there is not much that can be held over the Mullah's so you are forced to play this game.

The problem with this sort of situations is there are no good options, but doing nothing is in no way an option.

Adam

Rex Brynen
09-12-2007, 02:06 AM
The perception that US assistance will hurt the internal oppisition is very wrong. Indeed, the Iranian regime is scared of the US and the help must be OVERT and not covert at all.

I didn't meet anyone in Iran--among regime critics--who thought this would be helpful.

I agree that the regime is paranoid about US-backed regime change efforts. Having said that, I was surprised (to say the least) at how little internal security was in place, compared to other countries in the region.

1) Students openly asked questions of me that were critical of the regime in public lectures. They did so with some caution, but it is not something I would have found in, say, Syria.

2) There were no internal movement controls on me of any sort.

3) There was very little street-level security: I saw two AKs (I was counting) and a few sidearms on police and Pasadran the entire time I was there. I see more internal security in Jordan or Egypt or Lebanon crossing the street.

4) I walked up to, around, and touched, Ahmadinejad's podium a few hours before due to speak at an event. No police, other than a few at the opposite end of the square. No sanitized area or perimeter security. Nada.

Either the regime is foolish on security issues, or (gasoline riots notwithstanding) they're really not fundamentally worried.

What I did find was enormous openess among students, academics, and even many policy-makers to new ideas and change. I think there are better ways of encouraging that then openly calling for the overthrow of the regime.

Rob Thornton
09-12-2007, 02:14 AM
Phoenix80,
As an Iranian (albeit one who has moved to Canada), this is certainly an area that you as an Iranian can shed light on. I wondered if we might ask you to write up some of your thoughts about Iranian domestic politics, the forces that drive them and the different parts of the Iranian military (IRGC, Basiji, Iranian Army). It'd be very useful to get your perspective on what parts of the Iranian military are used for what and what your perception of how decisions are made. It'd also be interesting to hear how average Iranians think - about us, the West, what they value culturally, etc. Our understanding Iran and Iranians better might lead to better solutions.

While we appreciate your passion and your desire to see conditions improve in Iran, I suspect you have a great deal more to offer then limiting your commentary to character observations.

Best Regards, Rob

Rob Thornton
09-12-2007, 02:22 AM
Rex,
I appreciate your sharing your recall and reflection. Having an inside look helps provide context and provides a counter-balance to the rhetoric we normally hear coming out of Tehran.


What I did find was enormous openess among students, academics, and even many policy-makers to new ideas and change.

Could you expand on that a bit?

Thanks, Rob

Rex Brynen
09-12-2007, 03:01 AM
Could you expand on that a bit?

I can, although they're all semi-random observations and nothing systematic. It also comes with the important caveat that during these sorts of trips you only meet certain types: university students, professors, think-tank people, current or ex-government officials (usually of the Rafsanjani and Khatemi camps). Indeed, I was struck how striking the class divisions are in Tehran: upper and middle class (north) Tehran has little knowledge/understanding/interest in working class (south) Tehran (ie, the people who voted for Ahmadinejad).

Among the intelligensia, there was a profound sense of being misunderstood by the West, and of Iran's legitimate national security and foreign policy concerns being given short shrift by the West. This usually did not take the form of generalized anti-Americanism, but rather was blamed on the Bush Administration and (interestingly) the British, who were alleged to have some perfidious interest in blocking US-Iranian rapprochement. (I thought the latter was very odd and probably a mistaken impression when an experienced UK colleague mentioned it, but I found it too.)

This sense of a misunderstood Iran was accompanied, at times, by a slightly exaggerated view (in my own opinion) of Iran's global importance in the Grand Scheme of Things. In fairness, its a trait we Canadians share.

There was a sense that Iran and the US might have some common interests in Afghanistan and Iraq among (ex) Iranian diplomats. (I doubt this view is shared among those now in power, however.) Students generally gave the sense that they would very much welcome more positive relations with Washington.

There was a feeling that the US is bluffing on the potential use of military force on the nuclear issue among experts and (ex) officials. My view--that the US, while unlikely to use force at present, wasn't bluffing either--was met with a little shock. Most students very much gave the impression that they didn't want a confrontation, that they would support the regime making a deal on the nuclear issue--but that any military strike would cause a rally-around-the-flag effect.

Students asked me about everything--Israel/Palestine, US and Canadian policy, US politics, the Holocaust, globalization, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, you name it.. they were both enthusiastic and well-informed, yet curiously isolated (and feeling that isolation) too. There was a lot of only slightly-veiled criticism of Ahmadinejad, and obvious embarrassment at his antics. I was often very starkly critical of regime behaviour in my public lectures--everything from Hizbullah to EFPs to IRGC and MOIS activities to Afghanistan, not to mention nukes--and this didn't seem to cause any problems with either audiences or hosts. This isn't to say there was fully open discussion--students explicitly told me they watch what they say in their classes. It was hardly totalitarian, however, and more open than Syria and much more than Saddam-era Iraq.

Academic colleagues were bright, open, extremely welcoming, and often had Western PhDs. The hospitality was remarkable, even by hospitable Middle East standards.

No one, and I mean no one, thought the regime was at risk of toppling or crumbling. There were very divergent views on Ahmadinejad's current popularity, aggravated by the fact that the intelligensia are rather disconnected from the sort of folks who comprise his clerical base.

I hadn't been there more than a couple of days when I got invited to an underground rave, complete with booze. Despite the promise of look-outs, I thought it best not to risk spending my trip as an involuntary guest of the basij or pasadran, and hence declined.

Finally, I had enormous fun with the War of 1812 every time I got a question of comment on US imperialism ("don't boast to me about confronting American imperialism until you've actually fought a war with them.") Remarks on having burnt Washington were received with amazement. Somehow I forgot to mention York, or the Battle of New Orleans ;)

phoenix80
09-12-2007, 10:22 AM
I didn't meet anyone in Iran--among regime critics--who thought this would be helpful.

I agree that the regime is paranoid about US-backed regime change efforts. Having said that, I was surprised (to say the least) at how little internal security was in place, compared to other countries in the region.

1) Students openly asked questions of me that were critical of the regime in public lectures. They did so with some caution, but it is not something I would have found in, say, Syria.

2) There were no internal movement controls on me of any sort.

3) There was very little street-level security: I saw two AKs (I was counting) and a few sidearms on police and Pasadran the entire time I was there. I see more internal security in Jordan or Egypt or Lebanon crossing the street.

4) I walked up to, around, and touched, Ahmadinejad's podium a few hours before due to speak at an event. No police, other than a few at the opposite end of the square. No sanitized area or perimeter security. Nada.

Either the regime is foolish on security issues, or (gasoline riots notwithstanding) they're really not fundamentally worried.

What I did find was enormous openess among students, academics, and even many policy-makers to new ideas and change. I think there are better ways of encouraging that then openly calling for the overthrow of the regime.

Nice to know u went to Iran.

One thing I must mention is that the regime certainly knows it is not popular and knows it has critics and also realizes that every body speaks against it BUT it won't jail/detain/take action against/ those who just speak about it in cabs and lectures and libraries and grocery stores since it cant jail all the populace. However they will take action ONLY against those who dare to challenge it out loud. They only care about the vocal critics, other than that you're left to say whatever you want. They simply dont care and know you're not a real threat but once you have a following and trying to challenge them, you'll be dealt with, no question asked.

And yes, Iran is not like Saddam's Iraq, Cuba, North Korea or even Syria. The democratic experience of the people has taught them to THINK differently and act differently. Iran is a different country altogether.

phoenix80
09-12-2007, 10:26 AM
Phoenix80,
As an Iranian (albeit one who has moved to Canada), this is certainly an area that you as an Iranian can shed light on. I wondered if we might ask you to write up some of your thoughts about Iranian domestic politics, the forces that drive them and the different parts of the Iranian military (IRGC, Basiji, Iranian Army). It'd be very useful to get your perspective on what parts of the Iranian military are used for what and what your perception of how decisions are made. It'd also be interesting to hear how average Iranians think - about us, the West, what they value culturally, etc. Our understanding Iran and Iranians better might lead to better solutions.

While we appreciate your passion and your desire to see conditions improve in Iran, I suspect you have a great deal more to offer then limiting your commentary to character observations.

Best Regards, Rob

I moved to Canada almost 2 years ago and spent all my life there in Iran.

kwtusn
09-15-2007, 03:23 AM
Okay, it's a long read (100 pages :( ), but Thomas Joscelyn presents an interesting unclas analysis of events over the past 27 years; found this on the recent 9/11 anniversary on Clairmont Institute's website. Can anyone comment on the credibility of the author or the Clairmont Inst.?
http://http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.733/pub_detail.asp


Foreword

The Claremont Institute’s National Security Studies series is devoted to the serious discussion of what will be required to defend the United States and the West. Our Declaration of Independence teaches that government is instituted among men to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution’s injunction to provide for the “common defense” requires a vigorous and vigilant approach to national security. American foreign policy dedicated to the security of the interests and rights of its citizens requires not only informed and prudent statesmanship, but also a responsible citizenry that is engaged in the national discussion about friends and foes. It is in this tradition of spirited self-government that we publish these studies.

Iran has long been one of the leading state sponsors of terrorism worldwide. Iran’s ruling mullahs are extending their regional influence in the fog of the Iraq conflict. Their pursuit of nuclear weapons and a robust ballistic missile capability continues apace. Thomas Joscelyn argues that Iran is guilty of far more. An emboldened Iran has vicariously waged war against America for nearly three decades, yet America’s leaders are unwilling to admit what is plain for all to see.

Because of our reluctance to confront this terrorist state openly, we are losing ground on a vital front in our war against radical Islam. Through careful analysis of open sources, Joscelyn explains both the intelligence establishment’s misreading of history and the numerous but unfounded assumptions by today’s elite concerning Iran and its link to terrorist operations.

One of the most damaging and unwarranted assumptions made is that sectarian differences within Islam should prevent cooperation in operations against the West. A brief look at the evidence shows that Iran and others have had no trouble in putting aside differences in theology to harm their enemies, especially America. Specific links include the Iranian connection to al-Qaeda in the Sudan, a partnership brokered by Hassan al-Turabi, one-time leader of Sudan’s ruling party, the National Islamic Front. Next, there is Imad Mugniyah, Hezbollah’s master terrorist, who helped Osama bin Laden upgrade al-Qaeda’s capabilities in the early 1990s. The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, long suspected to be the handiwork of Hezbollah under direction from Iran, may also have had a junior partner in al-Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission established that the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania were the work of Hezbollah-trained al-Qaeda operatives. There are disturbing signs that may implicate Iran in, at the very least, facilitating travel for some of the 9/11 hijackers. Finally, there is extensive evidence that Iran aided al-Qaeda’s retreat from Afghanistan in late 2001 and has allowed al-Qaeda agents to operate from Iranian soil ever since.

Recognizing this pattern is a prerequisite to restoring a sound policy towards Iran. We must be honest about Iran’s past actions over the last three decades. We must also publicly investigate Iran and Hezbollah’s possible involvement in 9/11 and other al-Qaeda attacks. Evidence not harmful to current national security assets or strategy should be declassified. We should demand that Iran turn over any al-Qaeda fighters seeking refuge on Iranian soil. Finally, we should set about the business of devising a broad and coherent strategy for confronting Iran. How we go about meeting the Iranian threat is open for debate, but we cannot hope to resolve this vital issue by continuing to pretend that Iran does not play a large role in the terrorists’ ongoing war against America.

The American regime has faced down larger and more formidable foes than Iran, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda. But in an age of increasing technological sophistication, it is irresponsible to sit idly by while threats gather and foreign actors are allowed to carry out acts of war. The way forward requires prudence, clear strategic thinking, and statesmanship. Thomas Joscelyn’s compelling case that we must first open our eyes is a vital contribution to what we hope will be a new direction for American foreign policy.

Brian T. Kennedy
President, The Claremont Institute
September 11, 2007

bourbon
09-16-2007, 02:10 AM
Can anyone comment on the credibility of the author or the Clairmont Inst.?
Thanks for the link.

The Claremont Institute is a right-of-center think tank, and is considered an intellectual bulwark in the conservative movement. Claremont's big kahuna, Professor Harry Jaffa, studied under Leo Strauss and is of the Straussian persuasion.

phoenix80
09-16-2007, 04:31 AM
Michael Rubin of AEI has argued for far too long that the diplomatic engagement with Tehran is futile (http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.26420/news_detail.asp) because the Iranian regime cannot be trusted at all (http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24854/pub_detail.asp).

tequila
09-25-2007, 12:44 PM
U.S. Focus on Ahmadinejad Puzzles Iranians (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/world/middleeast/24iran.html?ei=5088&en=5fc22b145a4fd93a&ex=1348286400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print) - NYTIMES, 24 Sep.


When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/mahmoud_ahmadinejad/index.html?inline=nyt-per) was first elected president, he said Iran (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) had more important issues to worry about than how women dress. He even called for allowing women into soccer games, a revolutionary idea for revolutionary Iran.

Today, Iran is experiencing the most severe crackdown on social behavior and dress in years, and women are often barred from smoking in public, let alone attending a stadium event.

Since his inauguration two years ago, Mr. Ahmadinejad has grabbed headlines around the world, and in Iran, for outrageous statements that often have no more likelihood of being put into practice than his plan for women to attend soccer games. He has generated controversy in New York in recent days by asking to visit ground zero — a request that was denied — and his scheduled appearance at Columbia University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/columbia_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org) has drawn protests.

...

Political analysts here say they are surprised at the degree to which the West focuses on their president, saying that it reflects a general misunderstanding of their system.

Unlike in the United States, in Iran the president is not the head of state nor the commander in chief. That status is held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/ali_khamenei/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the supreme leader, whose role combines civil and religious authority. At the moment, this president’s power comes from two sources, they say: the unqualified support of the supreme leader, and the international condemnation he manages to generate when he speaks up.

“The United States pays too much attention to Ahmadinejad,” said an Iranian political scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “He is not that consequential ...”


Nice summary article on Ahmadenijad's true role at home, which is as one center of power amongst many competing rings, whose main responsibilities are domestic and economic. He reminds me a bit of Khruschev banging his shoe at the U.N., while the Iranian nomenklatura looks on in embarassed bemusement. In the end he will be defeated by his inability to create real change in a calcified, kleptocratic state epitomized by Rafsanjani and his cronies, who will take him down.

goesh
09-25-2007, 02:49 PM
I for one would like some commentary on those more in the know than I about the Prez/Iran why he went to Columbia to get essentially heckled and challenged. Was it to show his hardline supporters back home that he would walk into the lion's den unafraid? I assume most back home didn't get to tune in to the questions and his introduction by Columbia's President.

Rex Brynen
09-25-2007, 03:02 PM
I for one would like some commentary on those more in the know than I about the Prez/Iran why he went to Columbia to get essentially heckled and challenged. Was it to show his hardline supporters back home that he would walk into the lion's den unafraid? I assume most back home didn't get to tune in to the questions and his introduction by Columbia's President.

I'm sure he thinks he came out on top.

Rank amateur
09-25-2007, 03:49 PM
I for one would like some commentary on those more in the know than I about the Prez/Iran why he went to Columbia to get essentially heckled and challenged. Was it to show his hardline supporters back home that he would walk into the lion's den unafraid? I assume most back home didn't get to tune in to the questions and his introduction by Columbia's President.

He's trying to convince people - like British and French voters who may soon need to decide whether their country will participate in military action against Iran - that Bush/Israel are the radicals/warmongers. It might seem crazy to you, but given the situation in Iraq, Bush's unpopularity and the fact that many people see all religious fundamentalists as a little bit wacky, it will be somewhat successful. (I think many Europeans would say, "Let the two fundamentalist presidents have their war. We'll stay out of it.") It'd be more successful if he'd stop denying the Holocaust. Even more successful if he stopped supporting terrorists.

JJackson
09-25-2007, 05:16 PM
Re Columbia debate.
As a British voter I thought he came over well – which is more than can be said for Bollinger. Bollinger’s introduction was appalling. If President Bush came to speak at a UK university and the chancellor launched into a vitriolic attack on him for launching wars of aggression, complete disregard for international norms re extraditions and Gitmo etc. - I might agree - but I would cringe with embarrassment all the same.
Back to what he said. He reiterated that they are trying to establish a nuclear program within IAEA rules and with inspection; fair enough unless anyone can prove otherwise. Re Israel he side stepped instead clarifying his preferred option, namely a Palestinian plebiscite, which – although he did not explicitly say this – would include all inhabitants of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and (although less clear) displaced Palestinians elsewhere. The resultant state – presumably called Palestine not Israel – would be democratic and of mixed religions. Seems fair enough to me but I suspect this option would be as popular with Israelis as the end of white South Africa was with the whites. On insurgency in Iraq, another deft sidestep, this time to explain Iran is a greater victim of terrorism than the US. All in all a typical political interview with most questions dodged rather than directly answered.

bourbon
09-25-2007, 05:16 PM
I for one would like some commentary on those more in the know than I about the Prez/Iran why he went to Columbia to get essentially heckled and challenged. Was it to show his hardline supporters back home that he would walk into the lion's den unafraid? I assume most back home didn't get to tune in to the questions and his introduction by Columbia's President.
Michael Hirsh, who was in Iran in the Spring, thinks it is to: A.) Divide Western powers and agencies (as RA mentioned), and B.) facing an election in 2009, shore up increasingly critical domestic-opinion by appearing "more reasonable".

The Ahmadinejad Show: What’s really driving the Iranian president’s Western charm offensive?, By Michael Hirsh. Newsweek, Sept 24, 2007 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20958935/site/newsweek/?from=rss)


Since the spring he and his regime have been embarked on a new campaign to divide the Western powers and agencies that have been seeking to force Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment through a campaign of increasing economic pressure and sanctions. The Iranians accurately identified the weak link in this tightening chain—Mohammed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency—and they promptly went after it. Their tactic? Merry Mahmoud's barrage of Good Will. In an interview during a trip I made to Tehran in late June, I asked Iran’s chief negotiator, Ali Larijani, whether it was in fact his strategy “to win over ElBaradei and the IAEA by satisfying his concerns.” He smiled faintly and answered, “We have always supported the active role of the agency in this case … We are quite hopeful, and we always keep in touch with the agency. We have no problem with the agency. We welcome agency surveillance, and inspections, and their cameras are in place.”

So, unsurprisingly, in subsequent months Tehran opened its arms to the IAEA and agreed to a “work plan” to address ElBaradei’s questions about Iran’s past nuclear practices. The result has been diplomatic success—which in Iran’s case means further delay in the U.N. sanctions process, and therefore more time to enrich. (Right after the “work plan” was announced in August, Iran announced that it had installed 3,000 centrifuges for delivering higher levels of enriched uranium.) The Russians and Chinese, the two permanent members of the U.N. Security Council that have been most resistant to further sanctions, promptly seized on the IAEA-Iran agreement to suggest that further discussions on a third Security Council resolution should await conclusion of the “work plan.”

All of which brings us back to Mahmoud the Entertainer. The IAEA is informally a U.N. agency, and by appearing more reasonable this year during his annual visit to New York for the opening of the U.N. General Assembly, Ahmadinejad is attempting to win over more members of the IAEA board of governors at the world body. He seems just as worried about what’s happening behind his back in Tehran. As Iranian politicians begin to jockey for the next presidential election in 2009, Ahmadinejad is deeply unpopular. (Mainly over his mishandling of the domestic economy: he has strong-armed the central bank into driving down interest rates artificially, risking hyperinflation, shifted back to a command economy by slowing privatization, and misused much of the nation’s oil revenue.) Recently two leading pragmatist politicians, former presidents Mohammad Khatami and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, have apparently joined forces to defeat him. And Rafsanjani, who after 9/11 issued many peace feelers to Washington and authorized deep cooperation with the Bush administration over post-Taliban Afghanistan, has gained in parliamentary power. So a savvy political strategy for Ahmadinejad—and despite what the White House says, Iran is the closest thing to a democracy in the Middle East outside Israel—is to appear just as reasonable with the West as Rafsanjani.

goesh
09-26-2007, 11:44 AM
In light of Ahmadinejad's recent appearance at Columbia and his lunatic assertions, his image of the irrational/mad/loose cannon dictator has significantly grown in stature. His danger rating scale has been elevated on the scale of Public perception, i.e. he says there are no homosexuals in Iran for instance and CNN shows pictures of some swinging from cranes high in the air with gaping Iranians all around. He publically asserts Israel should be wiped from the face of the planet and the UN hounds him over compliance issues and sanctions are in affect yet on Columbia's stage, he tells us Iran doesn't want the bomb. Iranian covert aggression against our troops in Iraq is also trickling out bit by bit to the Public. It becomes less likely, again in the eyes of the Public, that such a madman can be reasoned with and as my old Granny would say, "better to sic the Raptors on him than the politicians". The court of Public opinion is starting to gain equal footing with the strategic analysis that suggests hitting Iran is not the best way to go. Regarding the issue of nuclear contamination from a preemptive strike agaisnt Iran, it is starting to boil down to the perception that either the Iranians will suffer from it or others in the world will.

I think heightened sabre rattling is needed because a massive hunk of the Iranian population was born post Ayatollah Khomeini and they don't buy into the fundamentalist facism being forced down their throats by the hardliners and their bassiji enforcers.

If Ahmadinejad can rattle the sabre, so can we.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1189411489739&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"Ahmadinejad unveils world without Israel"

Steve Blair
09-26-2007, 01:24 PM
A good Cox and Forkum about this whole thing.....
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/07.09.25.SweethNoth-X.gif

Rex Brynen
09-26-2007, 11:49 PM
An interesting perspective of Ahmadinejad's appearances in NY (including Columbia) in Slate (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/26/ahmadinejad/):


I've had the opportunity to attend events with President Ahmadinejad on his three trips to the U.S. (including serving as the interpreter for his U.N. speeches for the last two), and have spent time with his aides and Iranian diplomats during the New York visits. This visit felt perhaps the most politically charged yet, and was certainly the most controversial, even for the Iranians. But amid all the theatrics, Ahmadinejad's political savvy and strategic intentions in New York should not be underestimated.

Jedburgh
09-28-2007, 01:08 PM
RAND reprint from the Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Spring 07:

American and Iranian Public Opinion: The Quest for Common Grounds (http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/2007/RAND_RP1261.pdf)

The emergent and ever-deepening conflict between Iran and the United States is often framed in the rhetoric of “clash of civilizations.” Iran’s religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, alleges, “The bitter and venomous taste of Western liberal democracy, which the United States has hypocritically tried to portray through its propaganda as a healing remedy, has hurt the body and soul of the Islamic Ummah and burned the hearts of Muslims". The U.S. President, George W. Bush, for his part contends “the greatest obstacle to th[e] future [of] Iran that [its] rulers have chosen to deny [the people of Iran] liberty and to use [their] nation’s resources to fund terrorism, and fuel extremism, and pursue nuclear weapons". While sharp differences persist at the level of U.S. and Iranian official rhetoric about the value of democracy and the nature of the influence exerted by both states, diminished personal contacts between Iranian and American peoples frustrate efforts to discern whether such sharp differences in values and worldviews exist among Iranian and American polities.

Conveniently, data exist that allow analysts to explore both the shared and differing values of the Iranian and American peoples, namely the World Values Survey (WVS). The WVS is a multi-country social survey designed to assess values and attitudes across nations and among peoples of varying economic, educational, and cultural backgrounds. The survey includes questions on personal values of respondents as well as their opinions on broad issues of politics, work, family life, and religion. The surveys use a stratified, multistage random sample of persons at least 18 years of age.

We analyze data from Wave 3 of the survey, which is the only available wave of data for both Iran and the United States. In the United States, Wave 3 was conducted in 2000 and includes data for 1,200 respondents. In Iran, this wave was fielded in 2003 and contains data for 2,532 respondents. Though now somewhat dated, Wave 3 of the World Values Survey, particularly for the questions of more enduring values that we examine, still offers numerous policy-relevant insights. Indeed, Wave 3 datasets comprise the only source for such insights for recent years on the values of the peoples of both nations. A fourth wave is currently being fielded in Iran but the data have not been publicly released and the fourth wave of data collection has not yet begun in the United States. Significantly, despite the fact that tensions between Iran and the United States have continued to intensify in recent years, such analysis has not been executed.....

Van
09-28-2007, 02:06 PM
Interesting footnote to this thread that highlights the differences in values, beliefs, culture etc.

It is worthy of note that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refered to the movie "300" again in his speech to the media during his NYC visit (My Dinner with Ahmadinejad Wednesday, Sep. 26, 2007 By RICHARD STENGEL (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1665579,00.htm)). Again.

The whole idea of an independent media is so alien to him that he obviously thinks a movie based on a comicbook was made as an extension of U.S. policy. Given the media's open attacks on the President, I'm sure it's driving him nuts as he tries to figure out what they're really up to.

On the other hand, we can't wrap ourselves around the idea that he believes he can get away with managing the media in the days of internet. E.G. The conflicting translations and transcripts of his speeches in the english and persian sections of the Iranian websites ASSOCIATED PRESS (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070926-1422-iran-ahmadinejad.html). I like to think that no U.S. leader is so naive as to think that this would pass unnoticed.

The underlying point is that the U.S. needs to spend some more time getting inside Iranian heads if we are to overcome the threat they pose.

Rex Brynen
09-28-2007, 03:06 PM
It is worthy of note that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refered to the movie "300" again in his speech to the media during his NYC visit

Its not just Ahmadinejad: I must have had 4-5 people a day mention it to me when I was in Tehran. Moreover, some of those who mentioned it had spent years in the West, and (unlike Ahmadinejad) fully understood how Hollywood operated.

The movie touched a raw nerve of immense Iranian pride about their history (even their pre-Islamic history). It also was seen as reflecting (unfairly, I think) a general American stereotyping of everything Iranian (or Persian) as an evil threat.

Had the movie given the opposite portrayal--Persians as heroic, Greeks as sinister--I suspect you would have had a similar reaction by Greeks. (Insert reference here to Greek sensitivities over the name "Macedonia")

You're just lucky we're all too busy eating doughnuts with terrorists (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=4043) to have gone to war with you over the South Park movie. Blame Canada (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp13M7rlih0) indeed!

tolsen
09-28-2007, 09:46 PM
I was having lunch the other day with an Iranian (where I work that is pretty much a given), and he said something that was interesting. When I asked how he would describe his nationalism he said "Persian". Talk about a different take on the entire cultural war. Whereas I had though of Iran being a cohesive nation state of Islamic fundamentalism here was somebody basically shattering that misconception. He put it into perspective of the religious fundamentalists in the United States taking over the government by force and forcing their agenda.

This is also true of two people I know. They refuse to call themselves 'Iranian' - its always 'Persian'. Of course, both of them are children of those who fled the Mullahs. Im not sure how it is in Iran proper.

Ken White
09-28-2007, 10:01 PM
Cyrus are alive and well.

You'll also find that calling them 'Arab' is a grave insult. That favor is returned. All why I pay little attention to "Iran is the big winner in this" rhetoric. Everyone from Juan Cole upward saying that is ignoring 5,000 years of history. The folks who live there will cooperate when it suits but they aren't climbing in bed together...

Rank amateur
09-29-2007, 08:41 PM
All why I pay little attention to "Iran is the big winner in this" rhetoric. Everyone from Juan Cole upward saying that is ignoring 5,000 years of history. The folks who live there will cooperate when it suits but they aren't climbing in bed together...

Well, if the Iraqis cooperate more with Iran now than they did before, then Iran is the short term winner. If you think very long term, wars don't matter. (How would the world be any different if Brutus had defeated Anthony?)

Ken White
09-30-2007, 12:30 AM
10 characters...

Rex Brynen
09-30-2007, 12:32 AM
This is also true of two people I know. They refuse to call themselves 'Iranian' - its always 'Persian'. Of course, both of them are children of those who fled the Mullahs. Im not sure how it is in Iran proper.

It is worth remembering that ethnic Persians form only a bare majority of Iranians. According to the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html#People), the numbers break down as:


Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%

There have been periodic signs and episodes of ethnopolitical dissatisfaction among the Azeri, Arab, and Kurdish minorities in particular, although personally I think they are very, very from being regime-threatening.

Van
09-30-2007, 02:57 PM
Rank Amateur

If you think very long term, wars don't matter.

Perhaps you wish to reconsider this opinion? Especially in this thread?

Consider the long term consequences had the Spartans and the rest of the Greeks not held at the Hot Gates as long as they did, or had they failed a year later at Platea. What we think of as Greek Democracy would never have happened, the Rennaissance would have been very different, etc. Military conflict buys time for diplomatic solutions, but in history we have a number of examples of leaders who see military force as their primary instrument of national power (Hitler, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, for example). Wars matter, but require context to make sense.

UrsaMaior
10-01-2007, 07:36 AM
According to a hungarian Iran expert the division lines are not between different ethnic groups only (although it is interresting to note, that more azeris live in Iran than they do in the independent Azerbaijan), but also between nomads and peasants as well. BUT because of the relative well being (in material sense and human right wise -although the latter has declined under Ahmedinejad-) basically no significant minority is playing on ganing independence. According to the same person when asked they first say they are iraniians, second their religion and their ethnic belonging is only in the last place.

If there will be any regime change it will be most likely caused by the economic instability (high unemployment especially among the youth who were born after 1979 -it is not to be neglected since they represent 50% of the countries population-). Problem from a western point of view is that even the most radical iranian reformers (living in the country) think in a theocracy. That means they will cling to their nuclear programme, unless they are given security guarantees by the US directly. While I understand the outrage of some on their position (ie dictating conditions), either talks based on the above or a war with unforeseenable consequences.

tequila
10-01-2007, 12:26 PM
Rank Amateur


Perhaps you wish to reconsider this opinion? Especially in this thread?

Consider the long term consequences had the Spartans and the rest of the Greeks not held at the Hot Gates as long as they did, or had they failed a year later at Platea. What we think of as Greek Democracy would never have happened, the Rennaissance would have been very different, etc. Military conflict buys time for diplomatic solutions, but in history we have a number of examples of leaders who see military force as their primary instrument of national power (Hitler, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, for example). Wars matter, but require context to make sense.

Greek democracy, such as it was, would not have died under Persian rule. During the Ionian revolt, the Greek tyrannies in Ionia which revolted against Persia were put down and democracies implanted instead. Ionia (Greek Asia Minor) is the progenitor of Greek philosophy, a title it held under both Lydian and Persian hegemony.

The critical battle of that campaign was Salamis, anyway. Thermopylae was like the Alamo or the Lusitania in that it provided a useful myth and rallying cry, but it was strategically insignificant. Plataea was the mopping up of a denuded army already in strategic retreat.

At any rate Greek democracy quite thoroughly crushed by the Macedonians and then the Romans. The principles of democracy, hardly exclusively Greek, were already reasonably widespread through the Mediterranean, including places as farflung as North Africa and Italy.

I do agree that wars matter, even if most often they are simply violent reveals of an already-existing state of affairs. The sheer violence of these "reveals" often leads to unexpected changes that would never have occurred if they had come about through more peaceful means. The bankruptcy of European colonialism in Asia, for instance, was brutally exposed by Japan in WWII, and this resulted in a far more rapid and more violent removal of European dominance than would have happened otherwise.

ali_ababa
10-23-2007, 10:42 PM
While these pictures are impressive one must remember that The United States has much more advanced weapons.

I use to be told from my dad's military career how Iraq fielded a very impressive force and then it was gone in 1991. Times change very quickly.

JeffC
12-11-2007, 04:54 PM
CNN reports (http://www.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/12/09/china.iran.ap/index.html):

"China Petroleum and Chemical Corp., or Sinopec, and Iran have signed a long awaited agreement for development of the Yadavaran oilfield, the official Xinhua News Agency and Iranian reports said Monday."

"The initial estimation of the project's cost is about $2 billion," Xinhua quoted Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari as telling reporters at the signing ceremony in Tehran.

"Zhou Baixiu, head of Sinopec's International Exploration and Production Unit, and Hossein Noqreka-Shirazi, head of international affairs for the Iranian Petroleum Ministry, signed the agreement, which completes a memorandum of understanding signed in 2004, the Iranian Republic News Agency reported."

"Beijing has balked at new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, arguing for diplomatic solutions to the standoff. A new U.S. intelligence report that Iran stopped atomic weapons development in 2003, contrary to U.S. suspicions, may have cleared the way for Sinopec to move ahead on Yadavaran, although Washington is still arguing in favor of sanctions."

Jedburgh
12-14-2007, 01:36 PM
Two articles from the Jamestown Foundation's China Brief, 13 Dec 07:

Iran’s Nuclear Act and U.S.-China Relations: The View from Beijing (http://www.jamestown.org/china_brief/article.php?articleid=2373857)

Four Divergences

The first issue concerns the gap in U.S. and Chinese “threat” perceptions. The Chinese and Americans have widely differing perceptions about the threat or “potential threat” posed by Iran, including possible Iranian nuclear weapons. To Americans—Republicans and Democrats alike—Iran and its nuclear weapons pose a very serious threat to peace and stability in the Middle East, because of its threat to Israel and for American comprehensive interests: oil, security, strategic, political in the region, and to the American homeland. To Chinese government and military leaders, and to the public, Iran—even a nuclear Iran—does not pose any direct or real existential threat to China.....

....The second issue concerns the U.S. “intelligence” fumbles. Largely as the result of the U.S. mishandling of the Iraq war, the Chinese government has serious reservations about American statements and intelligence about Iran—and the new NIE report reinforces such perceptions that U.S. intelligence is not reliable. The Chinese believe that there are differences between IAEA investigations, assessments and conclusions, and American suspicion about the Iranian nuclear program, as there were differences between the United Nations’ inspection team about its investigation about Iraq’s nuclear weapons’ program and U.S. claims before the Iraq War.....

....The third issue concerns historical relations—or a lack thereof between the United States and Iran. The Chinese see that the United States has not had positive relations with Iran for many decades, so whatever the United States or the international community do to Iran will not come at the expense of the United States. In other words, the United States does not need to be too cautious in dealing with Iran—including its nuclear program. On the other hand, China has had a good and mutually beneficial relationship with Iran for decades. To the Chinese understanding and worldview, Iran is an important nation in the Middle East, a great civilization, rich history and influence in the contemporary world. Iran is a positive country to many Chinese, all in addition to the fact that Iran has been a major source of Chinese foreign oil supply.....

....Lastly concerns China’s identity issue. The Chinese leaders and people still seriously believe that China is a developing country—albeit the biggest and fastest growing one in the developing world. Therefore, the Chinese consider it a moral problem for China when it comes to how it should position itself on international issues. In the Chinese worldview, almost all the conflicting issues today are issues between the two worlds: North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Myanmar and others. So it is difficult for the Chinese leaders to explain to their people why whenever there is a conflicting issue between developed countries led by the United States—and a developing country, China sides with the developed world and “bully” the smaller and poorer country......
The Iranian Nuclear Question in U.S.-China Relations (http://www.jamestown.org/china_brief/article.php?articleid=2373858)

....The Iranian nuclear question in U.S.-China relations will make its presence felt in East Asia. The potential rise of a nuclear-armed Iran is likely to detract from the U.S.’s military footprint and security commitments in East Asia, to include its alliances with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines, as well as its efforts to court Vietnam through closer military ties. This environment will surely encourage the Chinese to take a more assertive line when it comes to the question of Taiwan and other contentious issues, especially regional territorial and maritime disputes, as well as economic and trade disagreements. The U.S. may attempt to compensate by encouraging its regional partners such as Japan to take on more proactive roles on regional security issues. Nevertheless, these developments are a recipe for heightened U.S.-China tensions, especially as Beijing seeks to exploit what it may perceive as the steady unraveling of the U.S.-led cold war security alliance architecture aimed at containing China in East Asia.....

Rex Brynen
12-23-2007, 04:54 PM
Iran Cited In Iraq's Decline in Violence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/22/AR2007122201847.html?hpid=topnews)
Order From Tehran Reined In Militias, U.S. Official Says
Washington Post
Sunday, December 23, 2007; Page A01


The Iranian government has decided "at the most senior levels" to rein in the violent Shiite militias it supports in Iraq, a move reflected in a sharp decrease in sophisticated roadside bomb attacks over the past several months, according to the State Department's top official on Iraq.

Tehran's decision does not necessarily mean the flow of those weapons from Iran has stopped, but the decline in their use and in overall attacks "has to be attributed to an Iranian policy decision," David M. Satterfield, Iraq coordinator and senior adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said in an interview.

JJackson
12-23-2007, 05:08 PM
Is this not due to Sadr's 6 month operational freeze or is the US position now that this is thanks to Tehran?

Rex Brynen
12-23-2007, 05:36 PM
I suspect that it is due to a variety of factors--Sadr's operational freeze/reorganization, the surge, waiting out the surge, slightly modified Iranian policy, Iraqi pressure on Tehran, and a few others beside.

Ron Humphrey
12-23-2007, 06:55 PM
I suspect that it is due to a variety of factors--Sadr's operational freeze/reorganization, the surge, waiting out the surge, slightly modified Iranian policy, Iraqi pressure on Tehran, and a few others beside.

If one were to use the analogy of children playing on a playground, this kind of makes sense.

If one of the kids is acting up and not playing nice you correct them, tell them what's expected of them and then you have to give them a chance to show that they are following that advice.

The key will be what you do if you find that they are still doing the same things just working hard at hiding it from you. How you react then will determine the long term conditions on the playground.

I realize some may not like analogies such as this, but for me it has always followed with the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle. Thereby allowing for debate with more clarity in points of contention.

JeffC
12-23-2007, 07:56 PM
If one were to use the analogy of children playing on a playground, this kind of makes sense.

While your example does offer one way to look at this, the obvious problem is that the role of the U.S. isn't one of playground monitor. That would be closer to the role of the U.N. (which doesn't do it very well). Take a look at this post (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=35818#post35818) on Myerson's Game Theory paper which discusses the required balance of Force and Restraint in order to obtain a desired outcome between nations.


A U.S. official says Iran has reined in the Shi'ite militias it supports in Iraq, contributing to a sharp drop in sophisticated roadside bomb attacks.

In an interview with the Washington Post published Sunday, the State Department's top official on Iraq, David Satterfield, says Iran has decided "at the most senior levels" to restrain Shi'ite militants.

Satterfield says the flow of roadside bombs from Iran may not have stopped, but he says the drop in their use and a decline in overall attacks must be attributed to an Iranian policy decision.

The full article can be read at GlobalStrategy.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2007/12/iraq-071223-voa04.htm).

This is further evidence that Iran is a rational actor, and that a negotiation strategy should continue to be pursued.

Surferbeetle
12-24-2007, 07:05 PM
"Very few media outlets in the US seem to have noticed, but Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmednejad and Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah were back together again the other day on the occasion of the Hajj."

From: http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/

tequila
01-04-2008, 01:56 PM
Gulf-Iranian rapprochement / acommodation? Prof. Marc Lynch ("Abu Aardvark") in the CSMONITOR (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0104/p09s03-coop.htm):



'Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos," Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Gulf dignitaries in Bahrain last month. But in reality, everywhere you turn, from Qatar to Saudi Arabia to Egypt, you now see Iranian leaders shattering longstanding taboos by meeting cordially with their Arab counterparts.

The Gulf has moved away from American arguments for isolating Iran. American policymakers need to do the same.

The states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are accommodating themselves to Iran's growing weight in the region's politics. They remain key parts of America's security architecture in the region, hosting massive US military bases and underwriting the American economy in exchange for protection. But as Saudi analyst Khalid al-Dakheel argues, they are no longer content sitting passively beneath the US security umbrella and want to avoid being a pawn in the US-Iranian struggle for power. Flush with cash, they are not interested in a war that would mess up business.

...

Gulf Arabs have thus visibly discarded the central pillar of the past year of America's Middle East strategy. Saudis and Egyptians had been the prime movers in anti-Iranian and anti-Shiite agitation. When they are inviting Ahmadinejad and Mr. Larijani to their capitals, America's talk of isolating Iran sounds outdated.

One hears little today of the "Shiite crescent" threatening the region, against which Arab officials once gravely warned. The Bush administration's proposed "axis of moderation," joining Sunni Arab states and Israel against Iran, has quietly passed from view ...

Ron Humphrey
01-04-2008, 02:38 PM
Gulf-Iranian rapprochement / acommodation? Prof. Marc Lynch ("Abu Aardvark") in the CSMONITOR (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0104/p09s03-coop.htm):

Just because the guys who have been being hard on Iran are meeting with officials now would not necessarily mean everything is honky dory.

I think back to Godfather, mob stuff,

You tell them what you don't like and either to straighten up or else then once they realize your serious about it they come over to apologize and you explain to them how things are going to work.

Could be wrong but it seems like another possibility.

tequila
01-04-2008, 02:49 PM
Lynch is certainly not saying that everything is hunky dory. What he is saying is that American-allied Sunni Arab states in the Gulf, as well as Egypt, are seriously rethinking their options about how to accomodate the bulking Iranian presence in the region. Outright opposition to Iran through a tighter American alliance, the preferred position of this Administration and perhaps the next whether Republican or Democratic, may not be in the cards.

Ron Humphrey
01-04-2008, 02:52 PM
Lynch is certainly not saying that everything is hunky dory. What he is saying is that American-allied Sunni Arab states in the Gulf, as well as Egypt, are seriously rethinking their options about how to accomodate the bulking Iranian presence in the region. Outright opposition to Iran through a tighter American alliance, the preferred position of this Administration and perhaps the next whether Republican or Democratic, may not be in the cards.

But I am I guess still missing where Iran has any real Mass to its presence outside of Terrorisim connections, nuclear threats, and out and out bluster.

Where's the beef? :confused:

tequila
01-04-2008, 03:08 PM
The GCC are not exactly the most imposing collection of states themselves. But they do have the oil as well as semi-disgruntled populations of Shi'i.

Iran has oil + ideology + population. They are the largest, most cohesive nation-state and the "natural" power in the Gulf region, especially since Iraq has fragmented and become the pawn of outside players for the foreseeable future.

Ron Humphrey
01-04-2008, 03:13 PM
The GCC are not exactly the most imposing collection of states themselves. But they do have the oil as well as semi-disgruntled populations of Shi'i.

Iran has oil + ideology + population. They are the largest, most cohesive nation-state and the "natural" power in the Gulf region, especially since Iraq has fragmented and become the pawn of outside players for the foreseeable future.

I think there may not be as much cohesion there as stated but I gues only time and continued interaction will tell.

tequila
01-04-2008, 03:26 PM
Nation-state cohesion in the Middle East, as with most postcolonial areas, is a matter of degree.

However I think a lot of the more amateurish analysts think the Azeris of Iran are much more disgruntled than they actually are, and overestimate the degree to which the Iranian state depends on Persian ethnocultural ID rather than Iranian nationalism and religion. After the Azeris, and maybe the Kurds, there really isn't a significant minority population that matters.

Jedburgh
01-04-2008, 03:41 PM
The Marshall Center, Dec 07: Blogs, Cyber-Literature and Virtual Culture in Iran (http://www.marshallcenter.org/site-graphic/lang-en/page-pubs-index-1/static/xdocs/research/static/occpapers/occ-paper_15-en.pdf)

....Compared to other countries of the Middle East, the Iranian people have a high level of political maturity; an organized popular movement for democratic socio-political change in Iran has a history of more than 100 years. Despite the regime’s claim of total social control, Iranian civil society seems to have thrived since the mid 1990s and has succeeded in reclaiming certain critical areas of social life. Some observers of Iran, particularly those with an insider’s perspective, are convinced that the “problem” of the Islamic Republic can only be effectively solved in the interest of the international community if the initiative for a social and political change comes from within Iranian civil society.

In order to estimate the possibilities and limitations of Iranian civil society in bringing about social and political change, it is helpful to observe its effectiveness in a sensitive area, namely that of independent public information. The beginning of the internet era in Iran has given Iranian civil society the possibility to create and defend alternative spaces for intellectual and political discourse, outside the realm of the regime-controlled established media. This paper deals with the internet as the vehicle and instrument of the new, independent Iranian information society. It starts with a recapitulation of the recent spectacular development of Persian web logs. It then looks at the ambivalent function of the internet, on the one hand offering a virtual refuge for civil society and on the other hand serving as a target of the Islamic regime and its ideological followers to expand their authority and influence. Four case studies demonstrate how the internet has supported the grassroots democracy movement both within and outside of Iran and made the disconnected communication between civil society within the country and the Iranian diaspora in Western Europe and North America possible. The paper ends with observations about some cultural-linguistic and social implications of the web log phenomenon for the future of the Iranian society. It comes to the conclusion that the independent information society will – particularly by the use of media like web logs – indirectly and only in the long run lead to political changes in Iran.....
Complete 37 page paper at the link.

Ron Humphrey
01-04-2008, 04:52 PM
Nation-state cohesion in the Middle East, as with most postcolonial areas, is a matter of degree.

However I think a lot of the more amateurish analysts think the Azeris of Iran are much more disgruntled than they actually are, and overestimate the degree to which the Iranian state depends on Persian ethnocultural ID rather than Iranian nationalism and religion. After the Azeris, and maybe the Kurds, there really isn't a significant minority population that matters.

I think I would probably count myself among that number which for one is the reason I continue to work towards better understanding by this type of interaction.

That said I think an awful lot of Nationalistically strong dictatorially run organizations throughout history have paid the price for underestimating minority populace.

We'll see ;)

tequila
01-04-2008, 05:09 PM
Foreigners often make the same error, however. Saddam Hussein paid for such a mistake with much of his best armor in Khuzestan in 1982.

Also I think it is quite a mistake to characterize the Iranian system as one that is "dictatorially run", as in say, Iraq where Saddam controlled all levers of power. Iran is more like the Soviet Union in the 1980s, where many power centers competed for power and position in the security and political bureaucracies.

bourbon
01-04-2008, 06:17 PM
But I am I guess still missing where Iran has any real Mass to its presence outside of Terrorisim connections, nuclear threats, and out and out bluster.

Where's the beef? :confused:

Ron, Tequila noted the oil factor - I would like to share some of my notes to further sketch out this issue.

Oil being the lifeblood for Gulf nations and the source they derive their power from, confines a part of this jockeying for power to the inner workings of OPEC. Votes on OPEC production levels – the throttle and break on the global economy, are weighted by proven reserves. Reserves are based on recoverable oil in place in the current economic environment. So the price of oil becomes an important factor, because it can increase or decrease a producing nation's voting share. As it stands now the top six producers reserves break down as such:

1. Saudi Arabia - 264,251
2. Iran - 138,400
3. Iraq - 115,000
4. Kuwait - 101,500
5. United Arab Emirates - 97,800
6.Venezuela - 87,035
(Million Barrels) Source: OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin 2006

Historically Iran and Venezuela are “price hawks” - they want a high price because they have fewer reserves, while the Gulf states are “price doves” - keep the price relatively low, but sell a lot of it. Iran , Venezuela, and the other price hawks never had enough share of the vote. The Saudi's were the king of OPEC by vote share. Venezuela however has a huge amount of extra heavy crude (bitumen), roughly 90% of extra heavy crude reserves, that gets counted in its OPEC reserves when it becomes economically viable to extract. When this happens the hawks will be able to eclipse the doves in vote share. Saudi and the Gulf state's power will diminish.

Also viewed through this lens we can see how Iraq is pivotal. Should Iraq become an Iranian proxy state the two nations voting together would be able to challenge the Saudi hegemony in OPEC. And we see how Iran's ability to influence events in Iraq is directly threatens Gulf state power. Also note the Shia population of Saudi sits atop much of the key oil fields and installations in the east.

Ron Humphrey
01-04-2008, 06:31 PM
Ron, Tequila noted the oil factor - I would like to share some of my notes to further sketch out this issue.



This helps to place in perspective some of the concerns out there.

I wonder, in this case (if) Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait were to vote together then what would that do. Even more theoretically what if another country were to be brought into OPEC. One with perhaps verrryyy large Reserves?

And then if Iraq actually reached a more stable point where the viable access to more resources gave them a greater share?

Does this point to why it might be so important to Iran to undermine efforts there in any way possible?

bourbon
01-04-2008, 09:25 PM
This helps to place in perspective some of the concerns out there.

I wonder, in this case (if) Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait were to vote together then what would that do. Even more theoretically what if another country were to be brought into OPEC. One with perhaps verrryyy large Reserves?

And then if Iraq actually reached a more stable point where the viable access to more resources gave them a greater share?

Does this point to why it might be so important to Iran to undermine efforts there in any way possible?

Well, it could be part of a reason. But I do not think that they want to undermine our efforts by any way possible. There is evidence that before and for awhile after we went into Iraq, that Iran wanted stability and was willing to help in the reconstruction. Democracy and elections in Iraq could empower the Shia and Iran, so they could have acquired the OPEC vote that way. I imagine if they completely wanted to undermine our efforts by any means, we would see a flood of MANPADS to insurgents - ala what we did to the Soviets.

But you bring up an interesting point about Iraq. Iraq's reserves are understated, its never been adequately explored or developed, there is likely a lot more there. There is a history of suppressing Iraqi oil production; from the “red line agreement” with the partners of the Turkish Petroleum Company in 1928, to post WWII where oil companies deliberately capped production and exploration, to OPEC's creation in 1960, to the industry being crippled in the 1980's Iran-Iraq war, to post war sanctions. A lot of this production and exploration suppression has been deliberate.

So it brings up an interesting angle on why we went into Iraq and what happened when we got there. I think it shows some interesting divisions in the administration, the government, the exiles, and the Iraqi's. Just look at if for example that the oil industry had completely privatized and sold off, an idea championed by some, and blocs were divided up sold off to many different companies. It all gets very interesting and convoluted.

Watcher In The Middle
01-08-2008, 05:07 AM
Ahmadinejad loses favor with Khamenei, Iran's top leader
By Nazila Fathi; Published: January 7, 2008

TEHRAN: A rift is emerging between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, suggesting that the president no longer enjoys the full backing of Khamenei, as he did in the years after his election in 2005.

In the past, when Ahmadinejad was attacked by political opponents, the criticisms were usually silenced by Khamenei, who has the final word on state matters and who regularly endorsed the president in public speeches. But that public support has been conspicuously absent in recent months.

There are numerous possible reasons for Ahmadinejad's loss of support, but analysts here all point to one overriding factor: the U.S. National Intelligence Report last month, which said that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 in response to international pressure. The report sharply decreased the threat of a military strike against Iran, allowing the authorities to focus on domestic issues, with important parliamentary elections looming in March.

Link to Article (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/07/africa/tehran.php?page=1)

...in his decision making. Might this be part of the Iranian "issue" in the Strait of Hormuz?

Just a crazy thought that maybe the best short term policy for the US to take here is to firmly endorse Ahmadinejad's continued "leadership", because truth is, having him in place as Iran's President appears to be the best set of economic sanctions we could ever hope for. It looks like another year of Ahmadinejad as President = 5 years worth of effects of economic sanctions.

I'm trying to picture President Ahmadinejad dealing with "the enemy" endorsing his continued leadership.

I know, totally crazy idea. But if Iran's leadership is unsure as to what we are up to these days, imagine what they would think if that actually happened.

Just a thought.

Jedburgh
01-08-2008, 01:39 PM
HRW, 7 Jan 08: Iran's Broadening Clampdown on Independent Activism (http://hrw.org/reports/2008/iran0108/iran0108webwcover.pdf)

Individuals from an ever widening range of groups in Iran are subject to arrest on security grounds for political activism and peaceful dissent against the government. Those arrested are frequently detained in facilities operating outside the regular prison administration, most notoriously in Section 209 (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/09/550223ed-2834-4920-ad27-61c1327f8519.html) of Tehran’s Evin Prison, where they may be subjected to torture and abusive interrogation. After weeks or months the authorities frequently release those held on conditional bail or a suspended prison sentence, using the ever-present threat of a return to jail to intimidate them against further activism or open dissent.

Crackdowns on peaceful dissent have been a hallmark of all governments in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and there was already ample legal latitude for the persecution of government critics when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in August 2005. It is the great expansion in scope and number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government that seems to distinguish the Ahmadinejad period to date.

Since August 2005 Iranian security forces have detained at least 35 members of the Iranian women’s movement in Evin 209. They have also held teachers calling for better wages and pension plans, students and activists working towards social and political reform, as well as journalists and scholars with no history of activism. In the majority of these cases, the detainees have spent some or all of their detention in solitary confinement (sometimes for months), been denied access to counsel or visits with their families, and been put under severe psychological and physical pressure to give confessions, whether truthful or otherwise.....
Complete 56 page report at the link.

Jedburgh
01-15-2008, 01:52 PM
CSIS, 3 Jan 08: Iran and the US: Key Issues from an American Perspective (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/080110_iran.us.pdf)

It does seem clear from past official statements that there are five basic issues that must be addressed from an American perspective for negotiations to succeed, and that the issue will be how a given Presidency chooses to address them, not whether they must be addressed:

• The history of tensions, charges, and recriminations on both sides.

• The view that the Ahmadinejad presidency and Iran’s leadership as a whole have become much more hard-line, repressive and difficult to deal with, and continued US support for regime change.

• American charges that Iran continues to support terrorism: The Problem of Israel, Syria, and Lebanon.

• Iranian actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

• Iran’s broader role in the Gulf and the MENA region, and

• The Iranian nuclear issue.
Complete 22 page paper at the link.

wm
01-15-2008, 02:23 PM
Got to love a document that calls out five basic issues then lists six bullets. Is one of the six a late-breaking edit?

Jedburgh
01-15-2008, 02:44 PM
Got to love a document that calls out five basic issues then lists six bullets. Is one of the six a late-breaking edit?
I gotta say, Cordesman's papers are always full of typos, and structural errors like the one so obvious here - but he tends to make very cogent points. Despite the rushed appearance of much of what he puts out (in contrast to some of the cleaner pubs by CSIS), I always enjoy the read.

wm
01-15-2008, 08:34 PM
I admit that his content is usually engaging, but the mistakes he makes remind me of Arthur trying to count to three when he calls for the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. It also remind me of seeing dust bunnies under a troop's bed during inspections with my "practiced infantryman's eye." Lack of attention to detail like this tends to make one wonder about what else may be wrong with the analysis.

Ron Humphrey
01-15-2008, 08:50 PM
I admit that his content is usually engaging, but the mistakes he makes remind me of Arthur trying to count to three when he calls for the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. It also remind me of seeing dust bunnies under a troop's bed during inspections with my "practiced infantryman's eye." Lack of attention to detail like this tends to make one wonder about what else may be wrong with the analysis.

I'd say that three and four are mostly one in the same for all intensive purposes :wry:

Jedburgh
01-15-2008, 09:05 PM
New from WINEP: Apocalyptic Politics: On the Rationality of Iranian Policy (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/download.php?file=PolicyFocus79.pdf)

.....Contemporary Islamic fundamentalism in Iran—and even generally in the Islamic world—finds its representatives not in the traditional seminaries but among modern educated engineers and doctors. One of the remarkable consequences of this fact for Western policy makers is that while Shiite traditionalist theologians are thinking and acting within a specific theological framework which makes their behavior highly predictable, the new fundamentalists do not follow any established theological system and model. Therefore, understanding their rationale as well as predicting their political actions becomes very difficult.
Complete 50 page paper at the link.

wm
01-15-2008, 10:32 PM
I'd say that three and four are mostly one in the same for all intensive purposes :wry:

One might say that only two issues are really operative--the face-to-face issues between the US and Iran and the efforts by Iran to assert power inappropriately in the whole MENA/SWA area. For what it's worth, for all intents and purposes I found 2 and 6 to be subsets of Bullet 1 while 3 and 4 are circumscribed as sub-categories of the 5th bullet. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

(But, of course I'm not Cordesman or another CSIS employee and don't need to punch out a lot of words to make people read my stuff and think it is deep analysis. :rolleyes:)

William F. Owen
01-16-2008, 07:44 AM
(But, of course I'm not Cordesman or another CSIS employee and don't need to punch out a lot of words to make people read my stuff and think it is deep analysis. :rolleyes:)

YES! So glad you said this. I am constantly annoyed by having to wade through 100-pages .pdfs to find that author could have said it all in 10! :mad:

The study of COIN and military thought is in great danger of becoming pseudo-academic, and IMO has already. A certain author of a very well known book on "Asymmetric Warfare" confessed to me (after an hour of arguing) that he had had to "bulk" the book out for the publisher. All could have been said in one chapter! :mad:

...and yes, I know this is the ME forum and I'm not supposed to be here, or said I wouldn't post.. :wry:

Jedburgh
01-17-2008, 03:16 PM
USIP, 16 Jan 08: Negotiating With the Islamic Republic of Iran (http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr199.pdf)

Summary

• Both Iranian and American sides come to the negotiating table burdened with years of accumulated grievances and suspicions. Their recent history has led both sides to assume the worst about the other and to see it as infinitely devious, hostile, and duplicitous. Yet, while talking to Iran may sometimes be difficult and unpleasant, it is also worth doing and may help both sides to find common interests lurking behind walls of hostility and distrust.

• To enhance the prospects of a fruitful encounter, American officials should pay attention to a variety of traits that their Iranian counterparts are likely to demonstrate. Although some of these characteristics might make productive negotiation difficult, American negotiators should remain patient and focused on the issues under discussion.

• Iranian negotiators may base their arguments on an abstract ideal of “justice” instead of defined legal obligations. This distrust of legalistic argument springs from the belief held by many Iranians that the great powers have long manipulated international law and the international system to take advantage of weaker countries. The American negotiator should, therefore, look for unambiguous, mutually agreeable criteria that both define ideals of justice and avoid legal jargon.

• The combination of Iran’s great imperial past and its weakness in the last three hundred years has created a gap between rhetoric and reality. Yet, while history certainly matters to Iranians, they will on occasion bury the past to reach an agreement, especially if that agreement serves a larger interest.

• There are parallel governing structures within the Islamic Republic, making it difficult but also important for American negotiators to be sure they are talking to the right people. The factionalization of the Iranian political system can make Iranian negotiators reluctant to reach an agreement lest they become vulnerable to charges of “selling out” to foreigners.

• Grand gestures may overshadow the substance of issues under negotiation, and American negotiators need to be able to distinguish substance from political theater.

• Iranians feel that they have often been treated as fools in political contacts, and they will be very sensitive to American attitudes. If they sense that the American side considers them irrational and unreasonable, they are likely to react in exactly that way. American negotiators should thus treat their Iranian counterparts with professional respect and not lecture them on what is in Iran’s national interest.

• The Islamic Republic believes itself surrounded by hostile American, Arab, Turkish, and Sunni forces, all determined to bring about its downfall. Conspiracy theories are very popular, and events such as the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War are often considered the outcome of great power plots.

• If an American negotiator senses that that the Iranians are overplaying a hand and pushing a momentary advantage beyond its value, the best response is to ask, “On what basis are you asking for that?” and to insist that the Iranian side come up with some understandable basis for its position. Mediation or arbitration by an impartial body can sometimes help to counter what appear to be unreasonable demands.

• What works in any negotiation—preparation, knowing each side’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA (http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/batna/)), building relationships, and understanding underlying interests—will work in negotiations with Iranians. What can undermine any negotiation—such as ill-advised public statements—can also compromise negotiations with Iranians.
Complete 16 page report at the link.

Stan
01-17-2008, 03:40 PM
RIA Novosti Opinion & Analysis (http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080115/96910457.html)


Moscow changes stance on Iran

According to certain diplomatic sources, Russia is ready to agree to use harsher wording in the third UN Security Council resolution on sanctions against Iran to be discussed at the meeting of the Iran Six, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, in Berlin in the second half of February.

However, the sources failed to clarify whether Moscow could expect any concessions from the West in response for its compliance...

Some sources mentioned that this was down to Moscow's disappointment with Tehran, which failed to comply with its request to least temporarily suspend uranium enrichment, as required by the earlier Security Council resolutions. During his last year's visit to Iran President Putin personally suggested to the Iranian government the so-called zero enrichment option.

Until recently, Moscow had hoped Iran would cooperate, and even suggested the group of six should praise its active collaboration with IAEA. But there was no positive response. That is why Russia has lost some of its enthusiasm about Iran's willingness to clarify all the issues with the IAEA regarding its nuclear program in the next four weeks, the diplomatic sources maintained.

Rex Brynen
02-13-2008, 11:26 AM
'Bomb kills' top Hezbollah leader (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7242383.stm)

BBC News, 13 February 2008



Lebanese group Hezbollah says one of its top leaders, Imad Mughniyeh, has died in a bombing in Damascus, and has blamed Israel for assassinating him.

and

ANALYSIS: Hezbollah terror chief was more wanted than Nasrallah (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/953923.html)
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
Haaretz, 13 February 2008


Imad Mughniyah was the number one wanted terrorist on Israel's list, ahead of Hassan Nasrallah.

tequila
02-13-2008, 11:34 AM
Wow - a major win for Israel, especially given Mughniyeh's operational legend. One wonders how much help other Lebanese factions lent to the Israelis here, assuming it was them (a pretty safe assumption)?

bourbon
02-13-2008, 12:15 PM
General Ali Reza Asgari who reportedly defected last year, was Mughniyah's primary Iranian contact in the 80's and was said to have a strong relationship with him. Possibly some insight was gleaned from him and put to good use.

Tom Odom
02-13-2008, 01:44 PM
Wow - a major win for Israel, especially given Mughniyeh's operational legend. One wonders how much help other Lebanese factions lent to the Israelis here, assuming it was them (a pretty safe assumption)?

I shed no tears for that guy.

A toast to Peter McCarthey and Rich Higgins. May this news make them smile...

Tom

tequila
02-13-2008, 05:14 PM
A toast to Peter McCarthey and Rich Higgins.

Amen.

A lot of 1/8 Marines alumni are smiling on hearing this news as well. Semper fi, brothers.

Rank amateur
02-14-2008, 12:06 AM
One wonders how much help other Lebanese factions lent to the Israelis here, assuming it was them (a pretty safe assumption)?

We'll never know for sure; he might've made the mistake of sleeping with his bodyguard's wife.

Jedburgh
02-14-2008, 02:24 PM
The Terror Wonk, 13 Feb 08: After Mughniyah: Will Hezbollah Retaliate? (http://terrorwonk.blogspot.com/2008/02/after-mughniyah-will-hezbollah.html)

Long-time Hezbollah operations director Imad Mughniyah has been a seminal figure in the evolution of modern terrorism. He has links to Arafat and bin Laden, and is believed to have masterminded suicide vehicle bombings in Beirut, Argentina, and Saudi Arabia. His demise by car bomb in Damascus is just (and fitting). It is an open question as to whether or not it will prove to be a major body blow or inspire revenge attacks.

There may be reason to worry, but it is also possible that this was the best possible time to target Mughniyah.....

Rex Brynen
02-14-2008, 03:40 PM
The Terror Wonk, 13 Feb 08: After Mughniyah: Will Hezbollah Retaliate? (http://terrorwonk.blogspot.com/2008/02/after-mughniyah-will-hezbollah.html)

And, not surprisingly, Hizbullah has said it would:


Nasrallah vows to strike Israeli targets abroad (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954278.html)
Haaretz - 17:02 14/02/2008


"You have killed Hajj Imad outside the natural battlefield," Hassan Nasrallah said, addressing Israel and referring to Hezbollah's longtime contention it only fights Israel within Lebanon and along their common border.

"You have crossed the borders," Nasrallah said in the fiery eulogy at Mughniyah's funeral in south Beirut. "With this murder, its timing, location and method - Zionists, if you want this kind of open war, let the whole world listen: Let this war be open."

Rob Thornton
02-14-2008, 08:03 PM
You have killed Hajj Imad outside the natural battlefield," Hassan Nasrallah said, addressing Israel and referring to Hezbollah's longtime contention it only fights Israel within Lebanon and along their common border.

"You have crossed the borders," Nasrallah said in the fiery eulogy at Mughniyah's funeral in south Beirut. "With this murder, its timing, location and method - Zionists, if you want this kind of open war, let the whole world listen: Let this war be open."

I guess its all perspective. It seems when its convenient to them, its along their border - of coursse there is some perspective about where the broder really is I guess - there are probably some that would argue their border goes to the sea. There are just some folks that need to killed - clearly Mughniyah was long over due.
Best, Rob

Surferbeetle
02-17-2008, 02:50 AM
2-15-08 "A senior military commander of the radical Islamic Jihad movement was killed Friday night along with at least five others as a powerful explosion destroyed his house, but the Israeli military denied having anything to do with the blast."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/15/mideast/gaza.php

2-13-08 "It there is, or rather if there was, a man who symbolized the very essence of the 'Axis of Evil,' his name was Imad Fayez Mughniyah. The link between Iran and Hezbollah, between the extreme Ayatollah ideology and the Lebanese Shiite movement is epitomized by Mughniyah."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/953926.html

Rank amateur
02-17-2008, 07:25 PM
cnn: The U.S. intelligence chief said Sunday that internal Hezbollah groups or Syria may be to blame for the killing of a Hezbollah commander (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/02/17/us.threats.ap/index.html)

Uboat509
02-17-2008, 10:44 PM
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter who actually offed this guy. Israel will be blamed either way. If it was an inside job then the ones who did it will just scream that much louder how Israel did it. I suspect that Israel won't mind.

SFC W

bourbon
02-18-2008, 01:37 AM
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter who actually offed this guy. Israel will be blamed either way. If it was an inside job then the ones who did it will just scream that much louder how Israel did it. I suspect that Israel won't mind.

SFC W

I agree in the sense that Israel will take allot of the blame. But disagree that it doesn't matter who did it. If the Syrian government was responsible, it could be pretty significant.

Our relationship in the post 9/11 era with Syria has been pretty interesting. We have gone from active cooperation with Syria to fight AQ in the wake of 9/11, to a hostile posture against Assad. It has gotten to the point where it's been reported that we are supporting the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood opposition. If the Syrians did it, it could speak volumes. Whether or not we listen is another thing.

Rex Brynen
02-18-2008, 02:22 AM
It seems unlikely to me that the Syrian government would use a car bomb for a local hit. The regime, after all, prides itself on tight domestic security--and the explosion has been seen with some shock/surprise by Syrians.

(On the other hand, if you wanted to make a domestic hit not look a domestic hit... oh, the wheels within wheels of these things.)

In the absence of any other information, it seems to be the Israelis are most likely the responsible actor.

Uboat509
02-18-2008, 04:39 PM
Even supposing that it was the Syrians, the question then becomes which Syrians? And why this guy? Was it some house cleaning to curry favor with west (unlikely) or was it some internal matter? These groups tend to be good at eating their own. It would not suprise me to find out that that is what happened.

SFC W

Rank amateur
02-18-2008, 09:36 PM
Hitler had Rommel killed and then gave him a hero's funeral. Tony Soprano told his wife that Adrienne ran off with another man. Hezbollah fits nicely between the two.

If Syria - or Hezbollah - did it who signed off on the "operation" is a very interesting question. I think it matters.

bourbon
02-19-2008, 12:26 AM
Even supposing that it was the Syrians, the question then becomes which Syrians? And why this guy? Was it some house cleaning to curry favor with west (unlikely) or was it some internal matter? These groups tend to be good at eating their own. It would not suprise me to find out that that is what happened.

SFC W
Why is it unlikely the Syrian's would try to curry favor with the U.S. and the west? Our posture toward Syria has been bordering on belligerent. Assad faces threats from us, Israel, and the Brothers/AQ that we are backing. Self-preservation is primary for him and his clan. Killing Imad Mughniyeh would be a good token of showing his desire to avoid hostilities.

Ron Humphrey
03-06-2008, 01:41 PM
Ron, Tequila noted the oil factor - I would like to share some of my notes to further sketch out this issue.


1. Saudi Arabia - 264,251
2. Iran - 138,400
3. Iraq - 115,000
4. Kuwait - 101,500
5. United Arab Emirates - 97,800
6.Venezuela - 87,035
(Million Barrels) Source: OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin 2006




This helps to place in perspective some of the concerns out there.

I wonder, in this case (if) Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait were to vote together then what would that do. Even more theoretically what if another country were to be brought into OPEC. One with perhaps verrryyy large Reserves?

And then if Iraq actually reached a more stable point where the viable access to more resources gave them a greater share?

Does this point to why it might be so important to Iran to undermine efforts there in any way possible?


Well, it could be part of a reason. But I do not think that they want to undermine our efforts by any way possible. There is evidence that before and for awhile after we went into Iraq, that Iran wanted stability and was willing to help in the reconstruction. Democracy and elections in Iraq could empower the Shia and Iran, so they could have acquired the OPEC vote that way. I imagine if they completely wanted to undermine our efforts by any means, we would see a flood of MANPADS to insurgents - ala what we did to the Soviets.

But you bring up an interesting point about Iraq. Iraq's reserves are understated, its never been adequately explored or developed, there is likely a lot more there. There is a history of suppressing Iraqi oil production; from the “red line agreement” with the partners of the Turkish Petroleum Company in 1928, to post WWII where oil companies deliberately capped production and exploration, to OPEC's creation in 1960, to the industry being crippled in the 1980's Iran-Iraq war, to post war sanctions. A lot of this production and exploration suppression has been deliberate.

So it brings up an interesting angle on why we went into Iraq and what happened when we got there. I think it shows some interesting divisions in the administration, the government, the exiles, and the Iraqi's. Just look at if for example that the oil industry had completely privatized and sold off, an idea championed by some, and blocs were divided up sold off to many different companies. It all gets very interesting and convoluted.

Especially considering current developments in Iraq and:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0305/p09s01-coop.html

Where would this put things currently?

bourbon
03-07-2008, 06:18 PM
Especially considering current developments in Iraq and:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0305/p09s01-coop.html

Where would this put things currently?
Ron,
Short answer: I don't know

I don't know what effect Brazil will play. I need to see some analysis on their production and reserves, some of the economics in particular. What's the type of oil they are pulling? At what price does extraction become economically viable, and increase your reserves? Stuff like that.

I don't like the analogy he makes with railroads and cartels. It would be hard to classify railroads as a commodity.

The Saudi's, like any market leader, want to maintain their dominance. One way to do this, is by driving prices up to encourage competitors to invest heavily in infrastructure for hard to extract oil (it becomes economically feasible), then crashing the price of oil. The other guy eats it, and you maintain your position. The Saudi's did this to pre-Chavez Venezuela in the 90's (Venezuela was also flagrantly breaking their quota iirc).

Is this the Saudi strategy now? I don't know. I am not sure they have the surplus production capacity to do it now. Makes you think though. What effect does a high price on the Iranians? On one hand it means increased revenues, on the other their domestic consumption (which is heavily subsidized) has been rapidly increasing - this has been a cause of some unrest. What good is a high price for oil if you use it all yourself, and dont bring alot to market? Combine this with sanctions; their refinery capacity doesn't meet demand and they cant build new ones, nuclear power would alleviate domestic demand for oil and gas and increase revenues. You start to see how the Saudi's could utilize oil price fluctuations against economic and regional competitors.

Jedburgh
03-12-2008, 02:18 PM
CEIP, 11 Mar 08: Reading Khamenei: The World View of Iran's Most Powerful Leader (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/sadjadpour_iran_final2.pdf)

....Since Khomeini’s death, Iran watchers have turned their attention to various individuals, groups, and trends in trying to determine the country’s future trajectory: From 1989 to 1997 the individual focus was on President Rafsanjani, the group focus was Islamic technocrats, and the theme was post Iran–Iraq war reconstruction. From1997 to 2005 the individual focus was on reformist PresidentMohammed Khatami, the group focus was the studentmovement, and the theme was democracy and civil society. From 2005 to present, the individual focus has been on hardline President Ahmadinejad, the group focus has been on the Revolutionary Guards, and the theme a return to revolutionary radicalism.

Yet if there has been one anchor throughout these periods and today, it is Khamenei. Both his domestic vision for Iran (more Islamic than republican) and his foreign policy views (neither confrontation nor accommodation) have prevailed. He has resisted Rafsanjani’s desire to reach amodus vivendi withWashington, Khatami’s aspiration for amore democratic state, and Ahmadinejad’s penchant for outright confrontation. Though known as a great balancer, he has consistently favored conservatives over reformists.

Like Khomeini’s, Khamenei’s writings and speeches present arguably the most accurate reflection of Iranian domestic and foreign policy aims and actions. They depict a resolute Leader with a remarkably consistent and coherent—though highly cynical and conspiratorial—world view. Whether his audience is Iranian students or foreign dignitaries, or the topic of his speech is foreign policy or agriculture, he rarely misses an opportunity to invoke the professed virtues of the 1979 revolution—justice, independence, self-sufficiency, and Islam—and to express his deep disdain for Israel (“the Zionist entity”) and opposition to the ambitions of the United States (“global arrogance”).

Based on this premise—that Khamenei means what he says and his words broadly reflect the Islamic Republic’s policies—this study is a portrait of Ayatollah Khamenei in his own words, based on a careful reading of three decades of speeches and writings. To devise a more effective approach toward Iran, a better understanding of Khamenei is essential.....
Complete 42 page paper at the link.

bourbon
03-12-2008, 07:54 PM
IRAN: US GOVERNMENT PLANNING AZERI-LANGUAGE BROADCASTS TO IRAN (http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav031008a.shtml), By Joshua Kucera. EURASIA INSIGHT, 3/10/08.


The US government is planning to beam Azeri-language radio broadcasts into Iran, in a bid to influence opinion among the significant ethnic Azeri population there.

The new programming was proposed in the State Department budget that begins in October 2008. It must first be approved by Congress. If approved, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty would begin broadcasting two hours a day of Azerbaijani-language programming in shortwave into Iran, said Jeff Trimble, director of programming for RFE/RL.


"Cooler heads prevailed," said S. Enders Wimbush, the former director of Radio Liberty and a fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington. "There’s nobody, even in this White House, which can get a little loopy at times, who wants 15 more ‘berserkistans’ out there." .......

....Nevertheless, the new Azerbaijani-language programming does have a more subtle political purpose, Wimbush said. "Most of the critical elite in the Soviet Union spoke Russian, but we broadcast in 14 languages because it drew audiences toward us," he said. "The medium, in many respects, was the message: ‘The Americans care enough to treat us, to address us as we are. They don’t feel as if they have to go through this Russian filter.’ And I’m sure that’s very much the same kind of thinking that’s going on here in Iran. It’s a big population – if they were in the Balkans or Eastern Europe we would have broadcast to them a long time ago."

From the archives:

Iran's Ethnic Factions Threaten to Split the State (http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/2005/P6477.pdf), By S. Enders Wimbush. RAND Paper, P-6477, 1980. (PDF)

Recently, I've been looking at the published work of Soviet nationalities guys like Wimbush, Bennigsen, Paul Henze, and Graham Fuller, from the 80's to the early 90's. I have a creeping suspicion that there are some interesting parts being left out of the historical narrative on the break-up of the USSR. Some interesting stuff.

Jedburgh
03-15-2008, 01:33 PM
Chatham House's The World Today, Mar 08: Iran: Winter of Discontent? (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/twt/download/-/id/1603)

....At present the Islamic Republic elite is proving to be the system’s worst enemy. Far from expanding their social base and reinforcing public legitimacy – a policy administered with various degrees of speed and success by both Rafsanjani and Khatami – the revolution and the Republic it spawned now appear not only to be retrenching but contracting.

Even individuals who were at the forefront of the revolutionary struggle and the 1980 war against Iraq, are being excluded from the political process, in a procedure which can only exacerbate the fragility of the system and paradoxically encourage the paranoia of the self anointed elect.....

Jedburgh
06-12-2008, 12:51 PM
ISN Security Watch, 10 Jun 08: Iran: Putting the brakes on Ahmadinejad (http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=19060)

While Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's erratic posturings on the world stage have attracted a great deal of global media attention, the effect that his policies are having on his own country's conservative factions - those myriad groups that had paved the way for his presidency in 2005 - has largely escaped the scrutiny of experts and the international press. This may be partly due to the fact that conservatives are always anxious to paper over their differences and partly because of Ahmadinejad's singular success in enforcing compliance on fellow conservatives.

That chapter in intra-conservative relations, however, may be closing for good. (http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=18777)

As we approach Iran's pivotal 2009 presidential race and as a new parliament is inaugurated, a major realignment in the conservative camp is set in motion with significant support from most of the country's top leadership, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Unlike his undistinguished predecessor, the new speaker of parliament, former nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, is preparing to curb Ahmadinejad's excesses head on.....

Bill Moore
01-11-2009, 06:09 PM
Another interesting article on how sosphisticated smugglers use the internet to acquire illicit materials. While nothing new this article is just another example of why the whole of government approach (and it is working to some extent) is essential in our war efforts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28601531/


While illegal trafficking in weapons technology has occurred for decades -- most notably in the case of the nuclear smuggling ring operated by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan -- the new documents suggest that recent trading is nearly all Internet-based and increasingly sophisticated.

Many of the schemes unknowingly involve U.S. companies that typically have no clue where their products are actually going, the records show.


"The current system of export controls doesn't do enough to stop illicit trade before the item is shipped," he said. "Having a law on the books is not the same as having a law enforced."

Bill Moore
01-11-2009, 06:18 PM
http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20090110/888/twl-ten-of-world-s-top-banks-laundered-m.html


New York, Jan.10 (ANI): Ten international banks, including British-based Lloyds laundered "billions of dollars" for Iran through New York banks, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau announced Friday.

Lloyds admitted it laundered 300 million dollars and agreed to pay a 350 million dollar fine and open its books to investigators.

In the scheme, first disclosed last March by The News, Iran would deposit huge sums in the international banks, which then converted it into dollars and parceled it out under altered names and routing codes. The money was moved through a series of smaller banks and ultimately drawn on for banned purposes.

Much of the money went to Iranian banks, which typically send money to terror groups in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon and Afghanistan through front organizations and so-called charities, according to the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control.

Entropy
01-12-2009, 02:43 AM
I think a lot of this reporting is based on three ISIS articles (http://www.isis-online.org/).

davidbfpo
02-14-2009, 08:52 PM
Currently being broadcast on BBC2 a three part documentary series on 'Iran and the West', the series are exceptionally well-made and all parties get a chance to be interviewed. The first part reports on the revolution: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hmrvt

Note this is only available for fourteen days.

The second part is tonight and is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ht3p7

One review by The Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4539821/TV-review-Iran-and-the-West-BBC2.html and one sentence says it all: 'There was simply narrative, as impartial as seemed possible, very tightly told. It was told partly through fascinating archive footage from the time, and partly through the words of the film’s interviewees'.

Another from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13055972 and concludes 'Documentary-making at its best'.


davidbfpo

Bob's World
02-15-2009, 11:05 AM
Looking forward to reviewing. Am currently in the process of writing a short piece on why the populace of Saudi Arabia is a greater threat to America than the Government of Iran; and how the Saudi Government fully understands that, and plays all three to their advantage.

Jedburgh
05-26-2009, 01:06 PM
WINEP, May 09: Engaging Iran: Lessons from the Past (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubPDFs/PolicyFocus93.pdf)

In the thirty years since Iran's Islamic Revolution, which resulted in the overthrow of the Iranian monarchy and the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Western governments have repeatedly tried to engage Tehran. This collection of essays, the product of a special colloquium hosted by The Washington Institute in March 2009, analyzes four such periods of diplomatic activity:
The full diplomatic relations achieved between the United States and Iran's 1979 revolutionary government within the latter's first ten months of ascendancy
The covert outreach to Iran in the mid-1980s by senior U.S. officials
U.S. and European efforts to improve Western-Iranian relations after Muhammad Khatami was elected to the Iranian presidency in 1997
Post-September 11 U.S. and European outreach to Iran in pursuit of common interests.
Despite the achievement of some limited results, each of these efforts ultimately failed -- some spectacularly so. What, then, are the lessons to be gleaned from the historical record of Western engagement with Iran's Islamic Republic? In Engaging Iran: Lessons from the Past, senior policy practitioners representing both Western and Iranian points of view join longtime observers of Iranian politics to offer timely advice to the Obama administration for shaping a proactive and effective U.S. Iran policy.

goesh
05-26-2009, 05:36 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521730,00.html

Iran Sends 6 Warships to International Waters in 'Saber Rattling' Move

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521679,00.html

Ahmadinejad Calls for Face-to-Face Showdown With Obama at United Nations

George L. Singleton
05-27-2009, 03:09 PM
Give the Presiden of Iran free passage to visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, and let him take pix, that will be fine.

AmericanPride
05-27-2009, 10:13 PM
Given that the Iranian President has no formal control over that state's military and foreign policy, I very much doubt his antics are at all directed at foreign powers or constitute any credible threat. Rather, his saber-rattling is designed to keep himself in favor at home with the country's religious right. Iran will not attack Israel -- the Iranians have been pursuing modernization and integration into the international community via economic development and influence in the Persian Gulf; Iran's greatest rival is Saudi Arabia (and to some extent the GCC). Israel is a way to 1) mobilize Arab Muslims who would otherwise cringe at cooperating with Persians, 2) thereby dividing the Arab community, and 3) leverage threats against US interests in order to buy face time and access to the US-run international system in a similar strategy as Egypt.

Ken White
05-28-2009, 01:35 AM
All they want is a little respect; they and the North Koreans.

Unfortunately, like kids and tantrums, they don't realize that excess adverse attention is detrimental to their goals. Or, even more like kids, they realize it but are compelled to do it anyway...

tequila
06-17-2009, 04:23 PM
So ... the most momentous public unrest to hit the Middle East since the "Cedar Revolution" and we have no dedicated discussion thread?

So far, I'm stunned at the remarkable strength and staying power of the demonstrators. This is no movement exclusively of spoiled children of north Tehran or liberal students. This is a mass movement that is maintaining and even growing its strength despite an increasingly violent crackdown.

I'd like to gauge the SWC's opinions on the following:

1) Roots of the uprising? Is this a coup by Ahmadenijad and Khamanei in the form of a clumsily and blatantly rigged election? A fair election?

2) Possible outcomes of either an Ahmadenijad/Khamanei victory in suppressing the protests, a compromise outcome of some sort, or a removal of either Ahmadenijad and Khamanei.

3) U.S. response - should the President and State Department be more vocal, or will doing so only strengthen A/K's hand?

Best news sources I've found thusfar:

Twitter, of course. Nothing like following a possible world-historical event in real time.

As Spencer Ackerman has said, PersianKiwi (http://twitter.com/persiankiwi) is probably the world's most important journalist right now.

The NYTIMES has been on the spot with great reporter, including Bill Keller from Isfahan here (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/world/middleeast/17notebook.html?hp).

Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html) and the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/) have excellent Twitter and blog summaries.

The National Iranian American Council blog (http://niacblog.wordpress.com/) and Tehran Bureau (http://tehranbureau.com/) are must reads as well. Tehran Bureau has a superb article on the political factions in Iran's bureaucracy here (http://tehranbureau.com/2009/06/16/the-leaders-of-iran’s-election-coup/).

bourbon
06-17-2009, 05:17 PM
Thanks for sharing good news sources. I am looking forward to what Ken White and Rex Brynen have to say. I will share one article by Bob Baer:

Don't Assume Ahmadinejad Really Lost (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904953,00.html), by Robert Baer. Time Online, Jun. 16, 2009.

Before we settle on the narrative that there has been a hard-line takeover in Iran, an illegitimate coup d'état, we need to seriously consider the possibility that there has been a popular hard-line takeover, an electoral mandate for Ahmadinejad and his policies. One of the only reliable, Western polls conducted in the run-up to the vote gave the election to Ahmadinejad — by higher percentages than the 63% he actually received. The poll even predicted that Mousavi would lose in his hometown of Tabriz, a result that many skeptics have viewed as clear evidence of fraud. The poll was taken all across Iran, not just the well-heeled parts of Tehran. Still, the poll should be read with a caveat as well, since some 50% of the respondents were either undecided or wouldn't answer.



3) U.S. response - should the President and State Department be more vocal, or will doing so only strengthen A/K's hand?
I do not think we should be more vocal; this is not about us, it is up to the Iranian people. Stand against any violence, and for human rights and free speech. Meddling in the domestic affairs of Iran has brought nothing but trouble for us in the past.

Rex Brynen
06-17-2009, 06:19 PM
To be perfectly honest, I don't know if the election was stolen--Iranian pre-election opinion polling is notoriously unreliable, and when in Tehran in the past I've been struck on how isolated middle class/professional/intellectual north Tehran is from the rest of the country. I tilt towards some degree of electoral fraud at the moment.

It would be useful to know how big the demonstrations are elsewhere--Isfahan (http://twitpic.com/7ki6e) is the only place where I've seen substantive confirmation, and there they've been big. The Tehran crowds are huge, although there's still an obviously disproportionate middle class share (evident from the dress of women protesters).

A key issue will be the behaviour of the security forces. Will the police follow instructions if ordered to suppress the demonstrations? Or will the regime have to rely entirely on the IRGC and Basij?

Another key issue is Khameini.. who to this point seems firmly in the Ahmadinejad camp. However, he has to be worried about events spiraling out of control, and may need to look for a face-saving formula. I'm not sure what that would be, however--rerunning the elections after endorsing them would be humiliating for the Supreme Leader.

Obama is playing it absolutely right. Signs of strong outside support for Mousavi only feed the external conspiracy narrative in Iran, and push potential fence-sitters in the regime and security services in the wrong direction.

I'm not always a Robert Fisk fan, but his recent pieces in The Independent have been excellent:

Iran's Day of Destiny (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-irans-day-of-destiny-1706010.html)

Fear has gone in a land that has tasted freedom (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-fear-has-gone-in-a-land-that-has-tasted-freedom-1706912.html)

tequila
06-17-2009, 06:33 PM
Ken Ballen from Terror Free Tomorrow explains some of the problems with his own poll, which Baer bases his piece on:

Iranians want more democracy (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/16/ballen.iranian.democracy/)


Our op-ed published on Monday has drawn much attention -- and misunderstanding. Our nonprofit organizations conducted the only independent and transparent nationwide public opinion survey in Iran before the June 12 vote. The poll found that Ahmadinejad was leading his nearest opponent, the more reform-minded candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi, by a more than 2-to-1 margin, with almost a third undecided.

Our poll concluded three weeks before the election. It does not predict the final vote, nor does it measure a possible surge for Moussavi, which many believe occurred in the final weeks. Instead, as we wrote on Monday, our survey indicates "the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud" because of Ahmadinejad's formidable early lead.

This single finding, however, has obscured our most important findings, and their significance to what is now enfolding in Iran.

Nearly 80 percent want the right to vote for all their leaders, including the all-powerful supreme leader, while nearly 90 percent chose free elections and a free press as the most important goals they have for their government -- virtually tied with the top priority of improving the Iranian economy.

And here is the most important fact of all: More than 86 percent of those who told us they support Ahmadinejad also choose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their leaders. In other words, in our survey, Ahmadinejad supporters back real democratic reforms in Iran as much as supporters of the more avowedly reform candidate Moussavi.


That over 50% of people in Ballen's poll refused to express a preference for a candidate (and this was before Moussavi's surge in the last week --- the election cycle in Iran is purposefully kept very short) in the early stages of the election, while definitely expressing support for liberal goals, indicates that support for a liberal alternative to Ahmadenijad was definitely out there waiting to be grabbed. That makes a sweep for Ahmadenijad very unlikely.

Tehran Bureau is definitely a pro-opposition website, but this article makes clear that Moussavi's support was not restricted to north Tehran:

Iran's Rural Vote and Election Fraud (http://tehranbureau.com/2009/06/17/irans-rural-vote-and-election-fraud/)


I just heard a CNN reporter in Tehran say that Ahmadinejad’s support base was rural. Is it possible that rural Iran, where less than 35 percent of the country’s population lives, provided Ahmadinejad the 63 percent of the vote he claims to have won? That would contradict my own research in Iran’s villages over the past 30 years, including just recently. I do not carry out research in Iran’s cities, as do foreign reporters who otherwise live in the metropolises of Europe and North America, and so I wonder how they can make such bold assertions about the allegedly extensive rural support for Ahmadinejad.

Take Bagh-e Iman, for example. It is a village of 850 households in the Zagros Mountains near the southwestern Iranian city of Shiraz. According to longtime, close friends who live there, the village is seething with moral outrage because at least two-thirds of all people over 18 years of age believe that the recent presidential election was stolen by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

...

The president was very unpopular in Bagh-e Iman and in most of the other villages around Shiraz, primarily because of his failure to deliver on the reforms he promised in his successful 2005 presidential campaign. He did have some supporters. Village elders confided, “10 to 15 percent of village men, mostly [those who were] Basijis [militia members] and those who worked for government organizations, along with their families.”

...

By Saturday evening, the shock and disbelief had given way to anger that slowly turned into palpable moral outrage over what came to be believed as the theft of their election. The proof was right in the village: “Interior Ministry officials came from Shiraz, sealed the ballot boxes, and took then away even before the end of voting at 9 pm,” said Jalal. In all previous elections, a committee comprised of representative from each political faction had counted and certified the results right in the village. The unexpected change in procedures caught village monitors off guard, as it did everywhere else in the country.

By Saturday evening, small groups of demonstrators were roaming the main commercial streets of Shiraz, a city of 1.5 million residents, and protesting the announced results as a fraud. People refused to believe that Ahmadinejad could have been re-elected. Larger demonstrations took place on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, beginning in the late afternoon and continuing long after the sun had set. These attracted carloads of supporters from Bagh-e Iman and other villages, including several that were 60 kilometers from Shiraz.

Although the crowds shouted slogans such as “Death to Dictatorship,” most protestors shouted “Allah-o-akbar,” the popular chant of the 1978-79 Revolution. Indeed, in Shiraz, thousands climbed unto the roofs of their homes Sunday to shout ‘Allah-o-akbar’ for several hours.

Most villagers are supporters of the Islamic Republic, but they are ready for the reforms that they say are essential so that their children will have a secure economic future. They saw hope in Mousavi’s promise to implement reforms, even though he is a part of the governing elite.

Ken White
06-17-2009, 07:01 PM
I'm inclined to agree with Baer; I think Ahemdinajad probably won though that does not mean the vote wasn't fiddled. The fiddling just gave him a larger majority.

This was a battle between Rafsanjani (with Mousavi as hired proxy) and Khameini (with Ahmedinejad as controllable proxy) for who would really run things. It looks as if most of the Iraniha figured that out, decided Rafsanjani was already more than wealthy enough and opted for Khameini. I suspect most are willing to let Ahmedinejad continue his anti-corruption campaign, which Rafsanjani and his big business associates and the secular north Tehran socialites would like to see disappear...

Most everyone would like to see the Komite (the moral police) and the Baseej disappear and that was one of Mousavi's big drawing cars. Easy to say, less easy to do when those two are the Guidance Council's boys and girls, not those of the government of the day. Iit is perhaps notable that he said nothng about disbanding the Pasdaran.

Many forget that Mousavi was Khomeini's Foreign Minister and Prime Minister (until that job was eliminated by the new Constitution) and he was a real piece of work. He is no Mr. Nice Guy and arguably dealing with him would be a bigger problem than dealing with Ahmedianajd ever could be.

I also agree with Bourbon -- we need to stand clear. Support in any form for the protestors will just make it harder on them in the long run. It will also make it more difficult to talk to Iran which we eventually will have to do. Been rather stupid IMO to let things fester this long.

The university students and the moneyed elite in the North Tehran Hills, the majority of the twittering crowd are not the bulk of the Iranian populace. the bulk are pretty pious Shia and they are not yet ready for a revolution IMO. Iran will change governing styles when it is ready. That will almost certainly not be on a western timetable.

ADDED: I think one would be wise to not pay too much heed to English (or any western) language reporting out of Iran. If it's not in Farsi, it's probably suspect. Westerners tend to give more credence to western language speakers but most in Iran do not speak a western language and those that do are quite adept at manipulating that ability to their advantage. Recall, you're dealing with a place where haggling is a national sport....

turtle55h
06-17-2009, 08:03 PM
I don't forsee my developing the habit of agreeing much with our current president, but his decision to keep US out of any means of intervening with current Iran election situation is wise and prudent. Let's not fool ourselves. There is no pro US side in this recent "election." Perhaps, one side can be deemed at least potentially more reasonable towards US interests but to believe the current situation in Iran will ever veer near being remotely pliable towards western interests would be foolish. To take a stand in the current powder keg developing due to the recent election would be insane.

George L. Singleton
06-18-2009, 02:38 AM
As a young officer I visited Tehran twice between 1963 and 1965. The Shah, who I liked, was in power.

Having a scotch and water in a Hilton Hotel street front bar in N. Tehran, abruptly the plate glass window blew inward and we were all hit by flying glass. Minor cuts and bruises, no one seriously hurt, fortunately...bomb was in a nearby curb parked Mercedes...almost all cars in Tehran in the 1960s were Mercedes.

Bar tender, a local Iranian, said such episodic bombings, etc. were done by the "Islamic extremists." This particular event was some time during 1964, I think in February!

Radical events are the worst, ever, in today's Muslim world. There has long been radicalism in the name of religion all over the Muslim world, and anyone who says this ain't so isn't dealing with the truth and long term reality.

My opinions on the election there:

1. You cannot count 40 or so million votes in 2-4 hours when paper ballots, not machines, are used to vote.

2. It is illogical and amazing that a partial recount would take at least 10 days, and a full recount up to two months.

3. All this says no matter who anyone thinks did or did not win, the votes were in fact not counted at all...bogus outcomes too quickly announced by a panicked status quo religious oligarcy and their thuggery friends/guards/army/police.

My best guess: By this weekend look for riots, the numbers in the streets now are in the low millions, hot a few hundred thousand...and some armed militia and military to change sides and support the demonstrators.

Wait and see, I could be wrong, but my political nose for this part of the world is a darn sight better than all chair bound US and European talking heads who contradict themselves several times a day in overseas news "sensationalism" dialogues.

My track record on events inside Pakistan since 9/11 have been on target heavily...and I now see a real war being waged by the Paks against their former "allys" the Taliban and al Qaida...as the PPP wants commerce/piplelines from and with Iran and the Stans, and to do such Pakistan has to learn to get along with India, a pipeline partner who will help pay the construction cost of the Pakistan leg of the new pipelines, etc, etc.

It was always both Afghanistan and the Pakistan Northern areas that were and still are the core of the terrorist movement, modern day terrorist Taliban and al Qaida. Those who try to defend, absurdly, the Taliban do so using the ancient terminology that refers to religious teachers well before the history era now underway of terrrosim = Taliban= al Qaida. Again, folks just run from the facts.

In Iran it is best for Iranians to overthrow Iranians, and in Pakistan it is mandatory that the Pak government (PPP) and miliary kill of and subdue once and for the wild frontier areas of Pakistan along the Durand Line.

President Zardairi (Mrs. Bhutto's husband) of Pakistan on 6/16/09 saying a new permanent military garrison will remain in Swat is the sort of need and common sense statement which will sooner vs. later encourage the IDP to return to their homes more quickly.

George L. Singleton
06-18-2009, 03:49 AM
23.56
Yesterday, two Iranian film makers presented a document to Green Party MEPs in Brussels which allegedly contained the true results of last week's election. In the document, a letter from the office of Iran's Interior Ministry to Supreme Leader Ayatolla Ali Khamenei, Mousavi is revealed to have won 19,075,623 votes, Mehdi Karroubi 13,387,104 votes, and Ahmadinejad a paltry 5,698,417.
A photograph and translation of the letter has appeared online. Make of it what you will.

The London TIMES tonight also reports that demonstrations have spread througout all of Iran, no longer limited to just Tehran. However, due to the Iranian Government news blackouts, etc. no way to verify as yet.

Also, CNN TV news tonight 6/17/09 reports that Iranian Police have started protecting the marchers/demonstrators, and are reported to be in sharp clashes/fights to stop the Republican Guard attacks on the peaceful demonstrators.

If any truth, and one can assume some truth here, things for the existing Iranian hierarcy, including the leading Ayatollah, are falling apart more swifty than even I would have expected.

COMMENT: Someone on this SWJ thread tonight has asked what the root cause or causes are of this vote surprise and demonstrations. My best guess, and it is only an arm chair guess from across the pond here in US, is that false and failed promises to women voters, who are the majority of the total vote in any Iranian election, have cost AJ his job if the vote is honestly counted. And, I would hope, but have no hard facts to back this wishful thought up, but I hope, and think, that a move away from theocracy to secular governance could be underway???

George L. Singleton
06-18-2009, 04:20 AM
"The mass demonstrations of support for Mousavi have spread to other parts of Iran, too. Rallies attracting thousands have popped up across the country including the central historic city of Isfahan, the conservative northeastern city of Mashhad and Shiraz in the south.

It is not just the election many people in the streets are angry about. They want more personal freedoms and a better economy and international standing. They blame Ahmadinejad for giving Iran a bad name abroad."

You can find this complete article on AOL NEWS if you check it now, 11:20 PM CDT, 6/17/09.

goesh
06-18-2009, 07:00 PM
"Perhaps, one side can be deemed at least potentially more reasonable towards US interests but to believe the current situation in Iran will ever veer near being remotely pliable towards western interests would be foolish. To take a stand in the current powder keg developing due to the recent election would be insane. " (turtle55h)

I'm not so sure I can agree with all of that. There are vast numbers of young people born after the 1979 revolution who simply don't buy into the fundamentalist credo of living and thinking, including the official policy of belief and opinion against the US. From a simple cultural perspective, there is too much Western fashion, lifestyle and ideals being lived by this vast number of young people to say there could not be a significant collective change in official attitude towards the US given the right circumstances. US techies via the net are giving advice and assisting Iranian young people to circumvent the restrictive clampdown on freedom of internet expression. Things like that are long remembered. They are not isolated in their massive protests and demands for more basic freedoms - even some Jews are cheering them on. In LA, thousands of Iranian expapatriots are out in the streets and non-Iranians are driving by honking their horns in approval. This could be a real pivitol moment in history. I think too that our elected leader who voices support for harsh sanctions against Iran could make a simple statement that he and the American people find it alarming and worrisome that protestors have been shot and killed. That is a human rights, basic humanitarian statement devoid of politics.

tequila
06-18-2009, 07:37 PM
This is definitely not just restricted to Tehran, much less north Tehran. Look at the size of this demonstration in Isfahan (http://www.flickr.com/photos/39568807@N02/):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3577/3637076765_5a10595e3f.jpg?v=0

Rex Brynen
06-18-2009, 08:14 PM
This is definitely not just restricted to Tehran, much less north Tehran. Look at the size of this demonstration in Isfahan

That would be the picture I posted earlier, Tequila ;)

The square is about 83,200 m2 (calculated from Google Maps (http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Isfahan&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=27.725603,81.738281&ie=UTF8&ll=32.65765,51.678046&spn=0.004408,0.009978&t=k&z=17&om=1)). Assuming an average density crowd (at 0.4m2 each), and if the square were completely filled, that puts it a little over 200,000 persons. In practice, give the central fountain, the road at the rear, and some space at the front, its somewhat less than that--but still huge. Given that the city has a population of 2.5 million (and around 4 million including the surrounding area), its an impressive turnout.

Ironically, the one time I visited Naghsh-e Jahan Square, Ahmadinejad was speaking there in the that same afternoon. Security was so light in the morning that I was able to go right up to his podium :D

tequila
06-18-2009, 08:27 PM
Oops! Sorry Prof Brynen.

Here's a pic which is claimed for Shiraz:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/large/12981027.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0ZRYP5X5F6FSMBCCSE82&Expires=1245357736&Signature=d6Wh3ERk7bmrkLZtIezuFafmTAo%3D

bourbon
06-19-2009, 06:33 PM
Robert Baer: Don't Forget Mousavi's Bloody Past (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1905477,00.html), by Robert Baer. Time Online, June 18, 2009.

Indeed, Mousavi, Prime Minister from 1981 to 1989, almost certainly had a hand in the planning of the Iranian-backed truck-bombing attacks on the U.S. embassy in April 1983 and the Marine barracks in October of that same year. Mousavi, as my Lebanese contact reminded me, dealt directly with Imad Mughniyah, the man largely held responsible for both attacks. (Mughniyah was assassinated in Damascus last year.) The Lebanese said Mughniyah had told him over and over that he, Mughniyah, got along well with Mousavi and trusted him completely.

frank
06-21-2009, 03:30 AM
all nice and good.
however, the unrest was pre-planned by outside sources.
which country is interested on internal trouble in Iran?
which ethnic group in the middle east causes ALL the problems?
which middle east rogue state hold yearly airforce ex to fly long range and bomb Iran?
which ethnic group makes money of high gasolin prices?
which ethnic group controls the western media that bombards the public with
half-truth and outright lies (about the current situation)?

once you have answers to above questions, you know why.

Ken White
06-21-2009, 04:07 AM
trying to tiptoe through the tulips. This is, after all, a discussion board and not a game show. Actually, it's a small wars / warfare discussion board and NOT a political board; there are plenty of those out there but we leave our politics in a puddle on the keyboard hereabouts and ask that all who post do so. ;)

How much time did you spend in Iran? That's some in-depth knowledge you display. I'm sure that you would not make such accusations against the poor Hittites unless you have some corroboration of your speculative statements and I'm equally sure you can back each of those statements with reams or web pages of linked and relatively unbiased evidence which would perhaps help you make your case. That would also make for an effective post instead of one that appears to use innuendo and say little that will stimulate any meaningful discussion ...

Though I admit I did not know the Hittites had an air force. :D

pjmunson
06-21-2009, 04:58 AM
Today's events show that the crowds were willing to test Khameini's and the regime's will. Question is, will they be willing to go out again knowing that the regime is likely to try to keep upping the pressure?

If they do show again the regime will be forced to decide between going all out and turning up the violence or blinking. If the regime does want to turn up the violence, it has to consider just how much stomach its rank and file have for killing their countrymen. Will the police commander who said today, "I have a wife and kids. Please go home so we don't have to beat you," be willing to keep increasing the violence?

Tom Odom
06-21-2009, 10:10 AM
First they get rid of the "i before e" rule

And now they undermine the Iranian elections....

Yes ladies and gentlemen, the Brits are to blame :eek:


Iran's parliament speaker criticizes election authority (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/21/iran.election/index.html)

Larijani's statement was in direct contrast to that of Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who considers the possibility of ballot irregularities in the presidential elections as almost nonexistant.

"The possibility of organized and comprehensive disruption and irregularities in this election is almost close to zero given the composition of the people who are holding the election," he told foreign diplomats on Sunday.

Mottaki blamed Britain for interfering in the elections, saying it had been planning against the vote for more than a year.

"We witnessed an influx of people from the U.K. ahead of the election," he said, without offering specifics.

Mottaki accused Britain of supporting followers of the Baha'i faith, a religion that originated in 19th-century Persia but which Iran does not recognize.

He also said the West expects a different model of democracy from developing countries.

Bet you thought I was kidding:


New Britain Teaching Guidelines Nix 'I Before E' Spelling Rule (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,527942,00.html)

Print LONDON — It's a spelling mantra that generations of schoolchildren have learned — "i before e, except after c."

But new British government guidance tells teachers not to pass on the rule to students, because there are too many exceptions.

The "Support For Spelling" document, which is being sent to thousands of primary schools, says the rule "is not worth teaching" because it doesn't account for words like 'sufficient,' 'veil' and 'their.'

Chaos in Iran and chaos in spelling bees all because of perfidious Albion :wry:

tequila
06-21-2009, 05:56 PM
Things appear to have calmed at least in Iran today. Mousavi appears to be trying to organize a general strike.

Gary Sick on Mousavi's evolution (http://garysick.tumblr.com/post/127559367/mousavis-new-revolutionary-manifesto) in the past week, to include his manifesto (http://elections.7rooz.com/englishnews/Mousavi's_statement_number_5_to_Iranian_people)iss ued yesterday.


It is apparent from this statement that Mousavi’s movement — and Mousavi himself — have evolved enormously in the past week. The candidate started as a mild-mannered reformer. After the searing events of the past several days, he has dared to preach a counter sermon to Khamene’i’s lecture on Islamic government. Although he never mentions the Leader by name, there is no overlooking the direct contradiction of his arguments. This open opposition to the Leader by a political figure is unprecedented.

Mousavi has in fact issued a manifesto for a new vision of the Islamic Republic. The repression and disdain of the government has brought the opposition to a place they probably never dreamed of going. And no one knows where any of the parties are likely to go next.

Chatham House analyzes the official election results and calls BS (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/download/-/id/755/file/14234_iranelection0609.pdf) (PDF link). Two provinces report 100+% turnout. Most interesting nugget of info is that the Iranian countryside is heavily anti-Ahmadinejad and pro-reformist, from past election data, and increasingly peopled by the down-and-out ethnic minorities of Iran: Baloch, Kurds, Lors, and Arabs.

edit: Add a link to a morale booster video (http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090621_ag_street_clashes.shtml) from BBC Persian service's website. Good to see the demonstrators sending the riot police fleeing for once.

pjmunson
06-21-2009, 06:44 PM
There are multiple videos out showing an Iranian girl named Neda rapidly bleeding out on the streets of Tehran, reportedly after being shot by the Basij militia. A quick look at YouTube shows video shot by at least two different people, plus a rapidly growing number of tribute videos centering around the girl's death. Depending on how things go over the next month, the fortieth day after Saturday's deaths may be a day of major memorials, a tactic that was used during the Iranian Revolution to create a wave of increasing turnout.

davidbfpo
06-21-2009, 08:52 PM
Tequila,

The BBC have additional problems with reporting on Iran; the resident correspondent has been told to leave and the satellite TV channel in Farsi is being blocked: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8111638.stm
The footage of the polie retreating in the face of a crowd is unlikely to be seen I suspect.

Tom O,

I doubt if the UK is behind the current crisis, whatever our history and position in Iranian mythology / history which amplifies any British link. Like you I think the Hittites are more likely.

davidbfpo

Ken White
06-21-2009, 09:31 PM
When I was there, I never ceased hearing from them how evil the British and the Russians (in that order) were. Yet, they did tons of business with the Russians and I noticed there were far more British expatriates than Americans working in Iran at the time. We have now replaced the British and the Russians as the great evil but given the Iranian ability at haggling and the personality conflicts of Persian Empire(s) and self deprecation, I suspect that the dislike that best serves will be that voiced. I also suspect they could and would throw in the Germans, the French, the Canadians (for their wireless technology) and / or the Bahamas if that suited...

and San Marino... :D

bourbon
06-21-2009, 09:34 PM
Yes ladies and gentlemen, the Brits are to blame :eek:
Blaming the Brits seems to be a national pastime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Uncle_Napoleon) in Iran.

George L. Singleton
06-22-2009, 01:39 AM
This time the young population of all of Iran is adamant about a new election, which they will somehow wrangle...my best guess.

A computer analysis by a London think thank this weekend of two major voting block provinces within Iran have more than 100% of eligible voters voting in this recent election.

Why am I not surprised?

I look for more violence, then for the splits in the government and in the religious hierachy to become "sharp and absolute" and at last the police and the regular military to switchsides, but the Revolutionary Guard may hand in there a while longer for the crooks benefit.

Bob's World
06-22-2009, 01:36 PM
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Technology/Ottawan+helps+Iranians+bypass+firewall/1718147/story.html

As the Iranian government is faced with a growing insurgency, it is critical that they implement an effective COIN campaign immediately to restore order to the populace. This article about a Canadian firm that is using new technology to override efforts of the Iranian government to control information/communication access to the populace as a tried and true COIN TTP highlights a key theory of mine.

I contend that the only thing truly new in the world today is the speed and availablity of information, and that while this does not change the nature of warfare (hybrid, IW, global insurgency, etc) it does render obsolete many of the TTPs that have been developed for relatively successful COIN campaigns in the past.

As the government can no longer control information, I contend that the government must actually work much more diligently to identify and address the causation of the insurgency as well as the motivation triggering the current events.

Clearly the Iranians have the ability to simply crush the rebellion physically; or to take out Mousavi and attempt to quell the demonstrations; but while such actions may produce temporary success, they would likely only serve to exacerbate the true underlying causation of unrest.

I would recommend to the Iranian leadership to call for some trusted third-party organization to come in and oversee a re-count at a minimum, or an entire new election. This would address "motivation," but also show good faith in addressing "causation." I would advise them to pubicly announce a commitment to governmental review and reform under whomever is declared the ultimate winner, and to then follow-through on that promise.

Will they do this? I doubt it. Therefore a great strategem for the west would be to offer to provide such an unbiased third-party, subject to approval and acceptance by the government of Iran to serve this function.

If they say no, they look even worse to their own populace and grow even more vulnerable to popular change (without some commitment of western support to back the rebellion).

If they say yes, then that is good too; as at the end of the day we merely want to enable a peaceful evolution toward a better relationship between the government and the populace of Iran; and therefore form a better relationship with both as well.

Steve Blair
06-22-2009, 01:58 PM
When I was there, I never ceased hearing from them how evil the British and the Russians (in that order) were. Yet, they did tons of business with the Russians and I noticed there were far more British expatriates than Americans working in Iran at the time. We have now replaced the British and the Russians as the great evil but given the Iranian ability at haggling and the personality conflicts of Persian Empire(s) and self deprecation, I suspect that the dislike that best serves will be that voiced. I also suspect they could and would throw in the Germans, the French, the Canadians (for their wireless technology) and / or the Bahamas if that suited...

and San Marino... :D

But...but...what about Andorra? I hear they're the root of all eevviilll these days....:D

davidbfpo
06-22-2009, 04:51 PM
Perhaps in response to the Iranian claims, Boris Johnson, London's Mayor, has in his usual style penned a response: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/5599270/What-has-Ayatollah-Khamenei-of-Iran-got-against-little-old-Britain.html

davidbfpo

Surferbeetle
06-23-2009, 02:09 AM
...should be nearby and at the ready when reading Spengler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spengler_(Columnist)) of Asia Times (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page.html), but his latest (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF16Ak01.html) is interesting nonetheless:


By assigning 64% of the popular vote to incumbent President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in last weekend's elections, Iran's reigning mullahs, if there was indeed rigging, made a statement - but to whom? The trumpet which dare not sound an uncertain note was a call to Tehran's Shi'ite constituency, as well as to a fifth of Pakistani Muslims. Religious establishments by their nature are conservative, and they engage in radical acts only in need.

Tehran is tugged forward by the puppies of war: Hezbollah in Lebanon and its co-sectarians in Pakistan. With a population of 170 million, Pakistan has 20 million men of military age, as many as Iran and Turkey combined; by 2035 it will have half again as many. It also has nuclear weapons. And it is in danger of disintegration.

Cavguy
06-23-2009, 02:59 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090621_ag_street_clashes.shtml

Iranian riot police run away from protesters in the above BBC video (@ 2:20). Pretty amazing.

Blackjack
06-23-2009, 05:24 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090621_ag_street_clashes.shtml

Iranian riot police run away from protesters in the above BBC video (@ 2:20). Pretty amazing.

That is rather incredible Cavguy, they got rushed really fast. A human wave tactic to say the least. The only way they could take down that crowd form the grounds is with a few of the R2-D2s with 20mm guns, well that or cluster bombs.

Schmedlap
06-23-2009, 08:32 AM
Uskowi on Iran (http://uskowioniran.blogspot.com/) is a good source. Pretty objective analysis from a guy who works as an Iran analyst. Speaks Farsi - I think he may be a native speaker. He's on the SWJ blogroll and has the SWJ blog on his blogroll.

Just a few thoughts - I think one cause of the youth frustration is that the ruling elite are hopelessly corrupt, but they cover up their activity under the guise of religion. They don't buy the religious authority of the mullahs. They see the mix of politics and religion as nothing buy hypocrisy. Even if the protesters succeed in whatever they're attempting to achieve, if anything, I don't know if this has the potential to translate into something the improves the situation or if it just results in another form of unstable government. I'm not so sure that this is a democracy movement, so much as a "cut the crap" movement.

davidbfpo
06-23-2009, 09:49 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090621_ag_street_clashes.shtml Iranian riot police run away from protesters in the above BBC video (@ 2:20). Pretty amazing.

Cav Guy,

I too watched the clip and noted: that the police only threw stones at the protestors, never had formed lines (OK very limited view) and no rubber or plastic bullets to keep the crowd at a distance. No vehicles, although a line can be seen behind them parked kerbside. Let alone tear gas, which has been used elsewhere.

Riot police sometimes have to retire, even runaway and few I suspect have not.

The other significant aspect to the clip was the crowd's size, mainly if not all males and that only some appeared to be throwing stones. Even the advance was very reluctant, but mobs have their own character.

What would be interesting is whether the scene was in a middle class area or a working class area. I am mindful of the focus on Tinamen Square footage, when the worst scenes were in the working class districts.

From a faraway armchair viewpoint.

davidbfpo

jmm99
06-23-2009, 09:22 PM
re: their man in Beirut - punch this (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2009/06/mousavi-celebrated-in-iranian.html).

bourbon
06-23-2009, 09:49 PM
re: their man in Beirut - punch this (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2009/06/mousavi-celebrated-in-iranian.html).

You would think Jeff Stein would have a subject for his next blog post from this:

Retired Adm. Lyons maintained that he could have destroyed the terrorists at a hideout U.S. intelligence had pinpointed, but he was outmaneuvered by others in the cabinet of President Ronald Reagan.

"I was going to take them apart," Lyons said, "but the secretary of defense," Caspar Weinberger, "sabotaged it."

davidbfpo
06-25-2009, 10:28 PM
Worth a quick read, no idea how valid the comments are, but website is great: http://www.jihadica.com/ (currently first item).

davidbfpo

marct
07-10-2009, 07:27 PM
Proving once again that there is an international language, here is some commentary from Al-Hayat Al-Jadida on the recent elections.

http://www.memri.org/images/uploaded/ia_53409_2.jpg


Once again, a big "Thank You" to MEMRI (http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA53409).

Charles Martel
12-13-2009, 02:31 AM
PJMedia is reporting that a letter of support for the protesters signed by Commanders in the Iranian Army. The text of the report can be found at: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/military-mutiny-in-iran/

If this is true, it would explain why the QF and IRGC have been gaining influence and the Regular Army (and, I would say, Regular Navy) increasingly seem to be sidelined.

Even if the current regime in Tehran is overthrown, the opposition leaders are only slightly less radical, but it may open up some opportunity for a realistic rapprochement with the West.

Dayuhan
12-13-2009, 10:32 AM
Any independent confirmation that this letter exists? Google News turns up nothing, and it would be news; one would expect it to be discussed.

Charles Martel
12-13-2009, 12:24 PM
Absolutely agree. We'll see if other sources confirm.

Dayuhan
12-13-2009, 10:04 PM
I noted the opening sentence:


Leading commentators and diplomats have been pondering for quite some time why the Iranian leader is not prepared to act against the revolution in a major way.

The reference to "the revolution" seemed a bit unrealistic, and I thought for a moment that the writer might be channeling Michael Ledeen.

Tukhachevskii
12-14-2009, 10:31 AM
Although the Iranian Army largely paved the way for Khomeini and the "Revolution" when they "stood aside" and "recommended" that the Shah leave for "health reasons" the Iranian Army has always been rather lukewarm towards the Ayatollahs; Hence the establishment of the IRGC in the first instance. The fact that the Iranian Army is now tacitly supporting what the Western media rather fllipantly call a "revolutionary" movement elides the fact that they were also largely supportive (if not en bloc) during the tenure of Khatami and the 17th Khordad reform movement of which, and this should be remembered, the current events is an offshoot. Many of Khatami's alter kampfer (and even Rafsanjani's family) are associated with the current events. The Army, however, would never challenge the rule of the Faqih but would, as before, more than likely simply stand aside especially given the existence of the highly motivated IRGC and their adjunct, the Basij militia (a factor they didn't have to take into consideration before).

davidbfpo
12-14-2009, 10:37 PM
I am puzzled at this letter, having read the original article and some of the wishful thinking comments that followed. Pajamas Media is a new blogsite to me and appears sall I say slightly conservative in outlook.

Given the skill shown by the Iranian state in diplomacy for many years could this skill have been applied to the "letter from the Army"? Would any Iranian military officer sign such a letter which issues a warning to the regime, I think not.

Have any of the more Iran focused websites reported or followed up the story, which appeared in a Dutch magazine - Holland is a country not known for its Iranian links, in fact another country in the region has better relations with the Dutch (fill in this space at your leisure).

jcustis
12-29-2009, 06:37 AM
There is all sorts of buzz about the current goings-on in the MSM, to the point of some claiming that this could mean irrevocable changes (perhaps revolutionary?) in the status quo of that country.

Thoughts or other observations?

Charles Martel
12-29-2009, 02:25 PM
Wish I could be more optimistic, but the Iranian regime will lash out violently at any hint of real rebellion. Our best course is to support democracy against tyranny and let the world draw their conclusions on who we mean. Lots of middle east countries fit the description. There is a real internal trend towards replacing the current Iranian regime, but it will take much more than we have seen. Best of luck to real freedom fighters (as opposed to terrorist poseurs).

William Sidney Smith
12-29-2009, 07:10 PM
The letter appeared on gooyanews. It is a little suspect. The language is a touch archaic. A similar recent document about the Iranian nuclear program also looks too good to be true.

Tukhachevskii
12-30-2009, 12:14 PM
I have suspicions that small scale riots, disturbances and, dare I say it, even stage-managed/deliberatly provoked incidents are being (whatever their original intention) perverted by ....not the US and Israel but rather the US based National Council of Resistance of Iran http://www.ncr-iran.org which was formerly a pro-Marxist/Socialist anti-clerical/Islamist organisation founded by former members of Khomenie's revolutionary Government who have since dropped their Marxist slant and adopted a pan-Iranian multi-ethnic programme and who attempted to get close to the former Bush administration when strikes on Iranian nuclear facilties were first being touted. However, the fact that the NCR is a US front for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK) which is listed on the State Department's FTO list and whose status in Iraq still remains to be settled (they are, I belive still in US custody) muddies the waters. Anyway, what leads me to this conclusion, (although, of course, other "interested" parties inside and out of Iran may be involved too), is that reports about mutinous Army officers (and even IRGC personnel) comes from sources which have links to the NCR (among others). Amnesty International, while providing no dates on their web page states that 24 Army officers have been arrested since the "troubles" began http://www.amnesty.org/en/page/24-iranian-army-officers-detained. However, the Washington Post stated that 16 "senior" IRGC officers were arrested back in July for maintaining contact with certain segments of the Iranian Army. The problem is that the source for the Washington Post article is a news item from the Cyrus News Agency which is known to have links, unofficial of course, with the NCR (again, amongst other dissident groups)http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2009/jun/15/revolutionary-guards-arrested-iran/. I am not for one moment proposing that every act of protest in Iran is backed by some external power (Iranians and Arabs are fond of conspiracies so we need not add to them) but then again that connection, especially in the manner in which the Western media appears to be being "played"/or complicit in creating the impression that what's going on in Iran is more than a storm in a tea-cup. It might be, but it seems that many of the reports such as that posted on pyjamas media appear to be convieniently slanted to create an impression of the fragility of a regime which is nothing if not the reverse.

These are, of course, my (simple-minded) impressions of some of the news reports I have read. We'll wait and see while heeding old Kissingers warning that "there is no defence against preconceptions".

omarali50
12-30-2009, 04:36 PM
I co-wrote this article about Iran for some Pakistani websites (so please keep the target audience in mind, the tone and references are likely to be a bit off for some people here). comments welcome.

http://wichaar.com/news/284/ARTICLE/18052/2009-12-30.html

Vahid
01-20-2010, 08:48 PM
The opposition in Iran has been organising ahead of the eagerly anticipated official day to mark the 31st anniversary of the revolution (Let's be reminded that the opposition to Ahmadinejâd in Iran has been using the officially-sanctioned holidays to voice its disapproval of the incumbent government). In spite of the outright threats issued by the government officials in Iran against protesters, the preparations for massive demonstrations are well underway:

http://www.payvand.com/news/10/jan/1170.html

davidbfpo
01-20-2010, 10:08 PM
A commentary on the situation in Iran: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704362004575000663644083200.html.

I am no expert on Iran and remain pessimistic on the outlook.

Vahid
01-21-2010, 04:01 PM
A commentary on the situation in Iran: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704362004575000663644083200.html.

I am no expert on Iran and remain pessimistic on the outlook.

Interesting article. On your pessimism, let me elucidate that the mood amongst the opponents of the regime has been the contrary. In spite of the ruthless treatment (rape, muder, torture) that many of the ardent opponents of the incumbent government have been subjected to, the belief in the establishment of a democratic Iran and the positive mood had never so palpable ever since the overthrow of the shah (Perhaps that is why comparisons with the shah's regime are now in the ascendant). Of course, one thing that should be discerned about Iranian politics is the fluidity of people's alliances (in fact, this appears to be what the Mousavi camp represented by the Green Movement appears to be banking on). In other words, people can change sides very easily, and for the time being this trend has been in favour of Mousavi.

Regards,
Vahid

graphei
01-24-2010, 05:59 PM
The Islamic Revolution took years to build up to the point of ousting the Shah. While I don't think it will take the 20+ years before something happens, it will probably take some more time. I want to wait and see what happens around that day and then I'll revise. Until then, I'm cautiously optimistic and here's why.

1. My sources on the ground who were alive during the Islamic Revolution say there is a similar electricity in the air. More graffiti opposing the Supreme Leader has been appearing as of late. Considering not too long ago that would be unthinkable, I'd say a significant paradigm shift has happened.

2. The administration admitted abuses were going on and closed Kahrizak. When this happened it shattered a whole lot of myths in the process. The notion that an Islamic Republic is some how immune to such abuses because each servant to the State would be the most pious was a big one. The Shah's forces committed similar abuses prior to be ousted and it's one of the angles the opposition, especially the Islamic ones, ran with to bolster popular support. The fact that an 'Islamic' government is resorting to the same tactics as the 'Atheists' pissed a lot of people off.

3. People are dying at each protest. Unfortunate, yes, but they become icons for the opposition. The administration is either refusing proper Islamic burial, moving bodies around, or desecrating graves. Such practices are patently un-Islamic, and the Opposition knows it. People who were on the fence during the election are annoyed with how the administration has handled everything. Personally, I can't wait to see what happens June 20 when Neda's one year anniversary rolls around.

4. This has lasted longer than the summer and shows no signs of slowing down.

5. The government can turn off the net and cell phones all it wants, they usually don't do it fast enough to stop information being spread or people gathering. Even if they do turn all of it off all the time, the information will spread the good old fashioned way.