US support for the Ayatollah? Supporting his rise to power? I am intrigued please elaborate.
US support for the Ayatollah? Supporting his rise to power? I am intrigued please elaborate.
Negotiate With Iran?
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....
Willful ignorance on the Holocaust
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?
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.
Last edited by selil; 12-07-2006 at 02:10 AM.
Call me paranoid, but if you consider the following.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.
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.
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.
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.Originally Posted by selil
It's the same there. The legends of Darius and
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...
It is worth remembering that ethnic Persians form only a bare majority of Iranians. According to the CIA World Factbook, the numbers break down as:
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.Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%
U.S. quietly increasing back-channel contacts with Iran
Interesting article about increased diplomacy with Iran.
Iran's Proxy War
6 July Wall Street Journal commentary - Iran's Proxy War 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...
The Economist, 19 Jul 07: Iran: The Revolution Strikes Back
....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.
Conference report from the 21 Mar 07 RAND conference in DC on Coping with Iran: Confrontation, Containment, or Engagement?
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.
Having spent a couple of years there some time
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...
Joscelyn: Iran's Proxy War Against America
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/publ...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
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.
Michael Rubin of AEI has argued for far too long that the diplomatic engagement with Tehran is futile because the Iranian regime cannot be trusted at all.
What, no kiss? On the second date?
"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/
Gulf-Iranian rapprochement / acommodation? Prof. Marc Lynch ("Abu Aardvark") in the CSMONITOR:
'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 ...
Just curioustity peaking here but
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.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks