Observing Iran (catch all historical thread)

[Uboat509]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

CEIP, 11 Mar 08: Reading Khamenei: The World View of Iran's Most Powerful Leader

....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]

IRAN: US GOVERNMENT PLANNING AZERI-LANGUAGE BROADCASTS TO IRAN, 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, 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]

Chatham House's The World Today, Mar 08: Iran: Winter of Discontent?

....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]

ISN Security Watch, 10 Jun 08: Iran: Putting the brakes on Ahmadinejad

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.

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]

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]

http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/2009011...undered-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]

I think a lot of this reporting is based on three ISIS articles.

[davidbfpo]

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/t...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/displ...ry_id=13055972 and concludes 'Documentary-making at its best'.


davidbfpo

[Bob's World]

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]

WINEP, May 09: Engaging Iran: Lessons from the Past

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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.

Huffington Post and the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan have excellent Twitter and blog summaries.

The National Iranian American Council blog and Tehran Bureau are must reads as well. Tehran Bureau has a superb article on the political factions in Iran's bureaucracy here.