We would be grateful for any contributions to help support the work of RaceForIran.com. Please Click the buttons below to make a secure donation. Or, please send a check for any amount to: New America Foundation, Attention: Simone Frank (for RaceForIran), 1899 L Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC, 20036 (please write for RaceForIran.com on the memo line of your check).
| $20 | |
| $50 | |
| $100 | |
| $250 |
The New America Foundation/Iran Initiative will host Shireen Hunter today at 12:15pm EST. Hunter will discuss her new book, Iran’s Foreign Policy in the post-Soviet Era: Resisting the New International Order.
– Ben Katcher
She badly undersstimate the role of religion and Shia influence. Because of it she underestimate Irans influence in the region. Moreover she stress ethnicity but forget to say that Tajikistan and Afghanistan speaks farsi like the Iranians.
By the way Sistani is an Iranian and he is anyway the greatest und most influence cleric in Iraq. I am very disappoint about her flaw analysis. There are beyond that much more mistakes in her analysis.
Nasser,
Thanks. Iran seeks stability in Afghanistan and suppression of the opium/heroin trade. Iran, of course, is hostile toward the Taliban, but wants all foreign troops out.
Pakistan did not collapse, even after the secession of East Pakistan, so the opportunity to take Pakistani Baluchistan never presented itself to the Shah.
Iran is trying to help resolve the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I think this is commendable.
I think Turkey will not allow an independent Kurdistan, carved out of Iraq.
Richard,
I think the presence of illegal Jewish colonists ought not cause boundary changes. The Green Line is the Green Line, and in my view it is to Israel’s own benefit to recognize as the border the border recognized by almost every country on earth.
Perhaps tens of thousands of UN peacekeepers would be needed, for many years. Israel would have to be prevented, totally, from invading by land or attack from the air. Totally.
Obviously the “one-state” solution would mean no “Jewish” state at all. The Russians, the Chinese, and even the Iranians see this result at not achievable (in absence of colossal conflagration).
Mr. Canning: In addition to the fact that Israel has so severely cut Palestine up as to make it unlikely that, without wholesale expulsions of settlers and Israeli communities – an act that might well trigger upheavals in Israeli society – an independent Palestinian state can be economically viable, the REAL “facts on the ground” are that as long as Zionist fanatics are running Israel, a Palestinian state would be nothing but a target for Israeli aggression.
The instant some militant fires a rocket at Israel, Israel would “declare war” on the Palestinian state and reduce it to rubble. They would get away with this because they would no longer be an “occupying power” but it would be “state against state war”. They wouldn’t have to resume their occupation (although they might) – they could just let bomb the Palestinians to force them to flee their own “state”.
It simply is not possible to implement a two-state solution as long as Zionist fanatics are running Israel. My approach of de-legitimizing the Israeli state, returning to the Palestinian Mandate, then imposing a new state on the entire area with equal guarantees for Palestinians and Jews, is the only viable option that sidelines the hardliners on both sides.
Granted, this isn’t going to happen. But it is the only solution. A Palestinian state on its own is doomed.
Pak:
“P.S. I am sorry for being rude to you earlier, for calling you a joke. You are not a joke; you simply make me laugh.”
There is a saying in Turkish which would translate as: “To a mentally handicapped person everything is laughable.”
Laugh some more.
First of all I was not the one who started a debate with you over Pahlavi vs. IR, you asked a question “do you not think that Iran under shah would gain territory after the fall of USSR?” so you started the comparison by your question which was comparing PPahlavi foreign policy with IR foreign policy.
And I answered you based on recorded history: “Ottoman empire disintegrated in 1923 (somewhat like USSR) and at the time we were under Reza Shah, let alone gaining territory, we LOST parts of mount Ararat (Tehran convention of 1932). So in all likelihood if we were under Shah when USSR fell, we would have lost some more territory (parts of our own Azerbaijan come to mind)”
Self-sufficiency is about not being on a single cash crop (or raw material) which could not feed you and makes you completely vulnerable to sanctions. Ever heard of uni-product “banana republics”?? Self-sufficiency is about not being a banana republic or an “oil kingdom” (under MRP we effectively became). Self-sufficiency is about the difference between Mosaddegh and MRP. Self-sufficiency is about being able to stand on your own two feet.
Qajar dynasty sold our oil concessions to BP? Well D’Arcy contract was extended under
Reza Shah, and had it not been for Mosaddegh, we would still be under BP.
And you claim MRP changed the conditions of the oil concessions in a significant way? How stupid of the US/British to overthrow Mosaddegh then, they should have instead overthrown Shah and installed Mosaddegh!!
State of our economy (because of massive loans that the corrupt Qajar kings would get from foreigners in exchange for concessions) was fairly bad. But during the Pahlavi it got even worse. If you don’t know that in terms of Agriculture we were self-sufficient under the Qajar (and even under Reza shah and even a good part of MRP) then you are extremely misinformed. What is bad is not your lack of knowledge, no one can know everything. What is bad about you is that you don’t even try to learn.
True, we didn’t have the technology to develop our own oil industry (we still face big challenges in that department although we have progressed a lot), but instead of buying useless military junk we could have invested in R&D to gain the knowledge.
You think Japan in the last quarter of 19th century had any technological know-how? Or do you think that Japan came to an industrial level to declare war on USA by “free trade” and spending its money on becoming an import oriented uni-product country???
If you really want to learn about White Revolution and its devastating effect on our agriculture go and read the book that I mentioned earlier from google book.
Look, the numbers are out there for everyone to see, during the Pahlavi dynasty we couldn’t feed ourselves, and during the IR we are almost self-sufficient in wheat and we have even started to export eggs.
The “comparative advantage” could come to a joke when we are in a world of sanctions and colonialism. There are “strategic” goods that if you are not self-sufficient, in a country such as Iran you are at the mercy of the dominant countries. That is the whole problem with economies which were based on the uni-products such as Banana or Coffee or Sugar or Tobacco.
Another point is that MRP is not being criticized for selling the oil, he is being criticized for what he did with the revenue coming from it.
You are also asking me to elaborate on what I wanted to show by giving that reference, I think it was obvious? I said that our agriculture was destroyed during the Pahlavi era, and you disagreed, I just thought perhaps you would like to learn a bit about the well known facts regarding our agriculture and its history in the past 70 years.
PS. OUR SUBJECT IS NOT ABOUT ECONOMY AND QUITE FRANKLY I AM BORED TALKING TO YOU. SO THIS IS MY LAST MESSAGE TO YOU.
Kooshy,
Please reassure those Iranians inside Iran that they would be their SOBs. Can’t they already see that!
Pak a few observations
First- if you are to stand up for Iran’s rights and independence where better then on a site operated by a former CIA employee, this is the fastest, cheapest, easiest way for an Iranian raising their voice of disagreement with what CIA has done in the past or perhaps plans to do in future with our country, and shows them how solidly we stand for Iran’s right and independence, I am sure since at least one of the principals is a former CIA employee, current CIA employs will want to know what they write unless like in the days of condor they have already been sanctioned, so supposedly me and you will get the chance to raise our voice of opposition for their operations against Iran’s interests.
Second- me and you we both live outside of Iran, let me tell you what I hear from Iranians inside Iran, mostly from formerly Greens , if you happen to have seen the Movie Patton, pay attention to the very last words he speaks about the Russian general, and this is what you hear in Iran:
“These guys, might be SOBs, but we know they are our SOBs, Shah was also an SOB, but he was their SOB, and we know that, these new guys you like so much, are also
SOBs, but what we don’t know is, if they will be our SOBs or theirs, therefore not worth to try.
Cheers
P.S. Scott knew that Leveret worked for CIA did he mention that?
Soraya says: “It disappoints me greatly to see the New America Foundation and the Leveretts give a platform to Ms. Hunter. What is her expertise again?!”
I am with you Soraya. It is perplexing why the Leveretts and the NAF would provide a platform for Shireen Hunter. Surely, there are hundreds of other scholars worldwide who can provide a non-conventional enlightening perspective on Iran’s foreign policy. There already exist numerous other fora for Ms. Hunter et al. to promote their position and much of what she has to say is already circulating in the deafening propaganda echo chamber.
Dear Pirouz_2,
“Under the Pahlavi dynasty our economy changed from self-sufficiency into a uni-product colonial economy which was based on ONE RAW material called oil…”
Before I delve into our debate, I would like to understand how you interpret self-sufficiency (I believe your interpretation is probably similar to North Korea’s). I do not have PhD in history, but I am fully aware of the dire state of Iran’s economy prior to the Pahlavi dynasty, especially before MRP. So, if by self-sufficiency you mean having an economy built upon agriculture, having near to no industrial sector (and practically no other sector), and STILL failing to feed your population (along with numerous other ills), then indeed Iran was self-sufficient before the Pahlavi dynasty. Bravo Iran. I wish we could return to the good old days.
Despite my lack of a PhD in history, I know how it was the Qajars who sold us out to BP and other Western corporations. So you are wrong (again). Ignoring the fact that MRP colluded to overthrow Mossadegh, he did actually re-negotiate the contract with BP to the benefit of Iran. Like it or not, Iran did not have (and still does not have) the technological knowledge and capability to build a fully functioning, competitive oil industry. That is why before the revolution Iran was extracting and refining almost double the amount of oil it is extracting and refining today. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but it is reality. As I mentioned before, MRP explicitly stated how Iran’s oil was a commodity to sell. What else should he have done? Drink it?
“Under pahlavi dynasty our agriculture was killed completely to point that we were completely dependent on outside for food. Today in Wheat we are close to self-sufficiency and in several food items we are even exporters.”
“We fed ourselves using our own agrcultural products. In case you don’t know, it was only after the “White Revolution” that Iran’s agriculture was devastated and reduced to a level next to zero. From a country which could feed itself, under the Pahlavi dynasty we became a nation whose sole agricultural export was Asparagus, Safaron and Pistachio.”
Your opposition to the White Revolution speaks volumes. And I kindly ask you to list the “several food items” that Iran now exports. It does not happen to include saffron and pistachio by any chance, does it? And the reason I questioned your ardent support of self-sufficiency in wheat is that you fail to mention the cost of such self-sufficiency. The drive for wheat production actually damaged other food industries in Iran significantly, especially fruits. Arable and productive land has been decimated in order to mass-produce wheat; hence one reason why Iran now imports oranges from Israel.
This whole saffron and pistachio export scandal is no scandal from an economic perspective. It is called comparative advantage. May be you should look it up. Why are you so afraid of international trade anyway? Oh I remember – you want Iran to be self-sufficient like North Korea.
“It is easy to understand that Iran could feed itself at the time of even Reza Shah (and even the first years of M.Reza Shah), Iran had no considerable income (with no exports and oil revenues going completely into the pocket of the BP) and therefore could not have a major “import”, it relied on subsistent farming and could feed itself.”
This does not make sense.
“ “A more reasonable eastimate is that agricultural production rose about 2-2.5% per year, population 3% and consumption of agricultural products 12%…. THE AGRARIAN SITUATION PLUS A GROWTH IN FOOD CONSUMPTION MEANT A RAPID RISE IN AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS, WHICH WOULD CREATE A MAJOR PROBLE M WHEN OIL INCOME BEGAN TO RUN OUT. THE GOVERNMENT ALSO REDUCED SHEEP PRODUCTION, FORCING EVER MORE IMPORTS OF MEAT AND WOOL”
FROM: Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution page: 155.
You can also look at this:
“After nearly achieving agricultural self-sufficiency in the 1960s, Iran reached the point in 1979 where 65 percent of its food had to be imported. ”
http countrystudies[DOT]us/iran/73.htm”
Thank you for the references, but what are you trying to prove? That population and consumption of agricultural products outgrew agricultural production? Do you suggest that the Pahlavi dynasty culled the population instead?
“I don’t know how much you know about economics…”
It shows. Your self-sufficiency argument (which is incoherent) is completely shallow and not backed up by any evidence, other than the fact that Iran had to become a net importer of agricultural goods (as did most nations, other than North Korea).
“This bashing of “self-sufficieny” as opposed to global “free trade” is an idea mainly introduced and promoted by Milton Friedman and the school of Chicago.”
I understand your grievances regarding globalisation. I think many people do. What agitates me is that you offer self-sufficiency as an alternative, which is simply impossible, and your arguments are desperately elementary (and resonant of regime propaganda).
Anyway, I am not here to defend the Pahlavi dynasty’s economic policy; as I said, I do not want to be dragged into Pahlavi vs IRI debate. But your failure to acknowledge the gains made under the Pahlavi dynasty (which brought Iran out of the dark ages) and your insistence on bending over for the regime, is plain wrong. Most of the progress made since the revolution has blossomed from the foundations built by MRP. The regime is actually reversing many of these gains and eroding indigenous industries. It is ironic that a good handful of traditional craftwork found in the Bazaars of Shiraz now originates from a factory in China.
P.S. I am sorry for being rude to you earlier, for calling you a joke. You are not a joke; you simply make me laugh.
James, I still think that the US and Iran can benefit from an independent Kurdistan that will want external support in a hostile neighborhood (similar to Armenia) and Iran can still maintain its territorial integrity.
I agree with you on the Shah’s intentions towards Baluchistan but I still think he mishandled the opportunity. Regarding Azerbaijan, it has always made claims on Iran’s territory which is precisely why I am arguing for greater support for Armenia!
Lastly, I would like to know your views on my recommendations on Afghanistan.
Nasser,
The Shah of Iran hoped to take the portion of Baluchistan that is part of Pakistan, into Iran, if Pakistan disintegrated.
Syria also opposes any independent Kurdistan. Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran all have a common interest in maintaining territorial integrity of themselves.
Back before the collapse of the USSR, the Soviet boss of Azerbaijan had his eyes on Iranian Azerbaijan, hoping to annex it in event of collapse of Iran and independence for his state. This despite hostility toward the scheme, from Moscow.
Pak:
First I am glad that you have finally got the answer to your original question, that if Shah had remain in power after the fall of the USSR we would in all likelihood lose some territory instead of gaining new ones.
So we ave settled your original question.
Now I said: “Under the Pahlavi dynasty our economy changed from self-sufficiency into a uni-product colonial economy which was based on ONE RAW material called oil…”
And “Under pahlavi dynasty our agriculture was killed completely to point that we were completely dependent on outside for food. Today in Wheat we are close to self-sufficiency and in several food items we are even exporters.”
AND I STAND BY IT. Look you don’t need to have a PhD in history to know this. Iran’s oil was being exploited by the BP until 1951 and therefore we had almost no income from the oil (a tiny fraction of the oil revenue was given to Iran all the rest was going to BP).
We fed ourselves using our own agrcultural products. In case you don’t know, it was only after the “White Revolution” that Iran’s agriculture was devastated and reduced to a level next to zero. From a country which could feed itself, under the Pahlavi dynasty we became a nation whose sole agricultural export was Asparagus, Safaron and Pistachio.
It is easy to understand that Iran could feed itself at the time of even Reza Shah (and even the first years of M.Reza Shah), Iran had no considerable income (with no exports and oil revenues going completely into the pocket of the BP) and therefore could not have a major “import”, it relied on subsistent farming and could feed itself. The situation completely changed after the Whilte Revolution and with the sharp increase in our oil income. With the sharply increasing overall population (mainly affecting the urban areas) and a stagnant agricultural production, we became almost completely reliant on imported wheat from outside (mainly from USA). Not to mention the red meat and chicken.
This was the case when (as of 1979) our population was ~35 million. Today our population is ~74 million and a few years ago we even exported wheat.
I don’t know what to tell you, if you don’t know this, but this is a very well known fact and all you have to do is a google search. I feel even funny debating about the most commonly known “facts”.
Here I quote some stuff that I found from the “google book”:
“A more reasonable eastimate is that agricultural production rose about 2-2.5% per year, population 3% and consumption of agricultural products 12%…. THE AGRARIAN SITUATION PLUS A GROWTH IN FOOD CONSUMPTION MEANT A RAPID RISE IN AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS, WHICH WOULD CREATE A MAJOR PROBLE M WHEN OIL INCOME BEGAN TO RUN OUT. THE GOVERNMENT ALSO REDUCED SHEEP PRODUCTION, FORCING EVER MORE IMPORTS OF MEAT AND WOOL”
FROM: Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution page: 155.
You can also look at this:
“After nearly achieving agricultural self-sufficiency in the 1960s, Iran reached the point in 1979 where 65 percent of its food had to be imported. ”
http countrystudies[DOT]us/iran/73.htm
YOU SAID:”I am not an expert in military history, so I cannot dispute your claims about the Shah’s military. I do however know a thing or two about economics, and your claims are laughable to say the least.”
I don’t know how much you know about economics, but your knowledge of history is any measure then perhaps you don’t know much about economics either.
This bashing of “self-sufficieny” as opposed to global “free trade” is an idea mainly introduced and promoted by Milton Friedman and the school of Chicago.
It is a bankrupted school of thought in economy which is being fundamentally reviewed even in the west. It’s the main culprit for the crisis of 2008 which caused incredible devastation and from which we still suffer.
Dear Pirouz_2,
When it comes to Iraq, you are full of sympathy. When it comes to Iranian youth being killed by Iranian savages, you are “principled”. You are also cozying up to a former CIA agent. Simply put, you are a joke.
Nasser:
This is my last message to you, because quite honestly answering your non-sense is not worth the time and effort.
YOU SAID: “I find it to be an incredible failure of diplomacy on Iran’s part to be able to have turned the whole world against you so much so that everyone wanted Iraq to win.”
It was not a failure of diplomacy AT ALL. It was the fear of an Anti-US revolution which could have spreaded over the whole region. They did the very samething during the time of Mosaddegh they even went as far as doing a Naval Blockade, when he nationalized our oil, before toppling him by a coup d’etat. So perhaps he was a failed diplomat too? Aparently anyone who stands up for the country should be considered as a “failed diplomat”?!?!?
“Also I agree with Ms. Hunter that Iran’s recent policy over Iraq has been a failure and it has been far too cooperative because feared instability across its border. I think it’d totally be in Iran’s interest to have more chaos in Iraq and even have it fragment (yes I know Turkey and the Saudis won’t be happy with that).
I think this attitude of fearing instability costed Iran during the Karabakh war as well where Iran could have supported Armenia more but refused to do so because it feared instability. What a missed opportunity!”
I am shocked that you people don’t even feel the slightest of shame about the way you talk. You people are the Iranian equivalents of John Bolton!
But it is not just that, it is also an indicator of complete ignorance of the foreign policy issues on you guys part!
No, a disintegrated Iraq would very much harm both Iran and Turkey and it would play right into the hands of the Israelis. In fact that is their “ideal” goal, to disintegrate Iraq and then help disintegrate Iran and Turkey and create a larger LAND BOGGED Kurdistan which is in constant fight with it’s neighbours.
Are you really this ignorant, or are you an Israeli pretending to be an Iranian???
James you also say: “The neocons wanted Iraq partitioned. Turkey would not tolerate an independent Kurdistan. Full stop.” i think this issue is not ultimately for Turkey to decide. Yes, with a hostile Iran the US would not want to alienate Turkey also. But, if Iran and US decided to support a Kurdish state it could do so.
I can cite other instances of Iran’s unwise support of territorial integrity of other states. I think it didn’t take the full opportunity to support Armenia against Azerbaijan. The Shah helped Pakistan crush the Baluch insurgency; now Iran has a nuclear neighbor instead of a Baluch buffer state. Iran can support secessionist tendencies in Western and Northern parts of Afghanistan and gain greater security and opportunities of drawing pipelines to China through friendly territories but it doesn’t do so.
James Canning, I’ll have to disagree with you. You say: “I think Iran is wise to support peace and stability in the Middle East, and the territorial integrity of the countries in the greater Middle East.” While it is true that it is Iran’s interest to have stable prosperous neighbors it shouldn’t hope for more powerful hostile ones. I think Iran is needlessly paranoid of internal instability and losing its own territory and so adopts a principled position of supporting territorial integrity; in my opinion unwisely.
I think Iran doesn’t have an interest in having a strong Iraq reemerge. Yes, it is possible a Shitte oriented Iraq might seek greater cooperation from Tehran (I’m sure this is what the rulers in Iran are banking on) but it is also possible (I’d argue even more so) that Iraq would eventually assume its traditional role of hostility towards the Persians regardless of the nature of the ruler there. The Iraq-Iran war can be viewed from the Iranian perspective as another Arab invasion and Iraq always serves as a launchpad for such interventions. So it is infinitely in Iran’s interest to have a divided, weak and pliant Iraq.
Richard Steven Hack,
There are no “facts on the ground” that prevent a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine problem. Many Israelis, and “supporters” of Israeli annexation of the illegal colonies, try to argue that the colonies are “facts on the ground” – - meaning they must be part of Israel permanently. Wrong! The UN should recognize an independent Palestine comprising the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The problem then will become one of how to get Israeli troops, security, etc., out of Palestine.
Iran should continue to support UN 242.
Nasser,
I think Iran is wise to support peace and stability in the Middle East, and the territorial integrity of the countries in the greater Middle East. The neocons wanted Iraq partitioned. Turkey would not tolerate an independent Kurdistan. Full stop.
Iran is wise to support the Iraqi central government and to seek stability in the context of a total withdrawal of all American forces from Iraq.
I find some of the readings of Shireen’s comments here to be baffling. When I said she was a realist, I meant that she is aware that pushing an ideology when you aren’t the Big Man on Campus internationally is counterproductive. How this gets turned into her wanting Iran to be the West’s poodle is beyond me.
I wouldn’t go as far as she does to say that Iran’s foreign policy is “inept”, I think they have played the US and employed their allies fairly well in general. But she is correct that Ahmadinejad’s remarks on the Holocaust isn’t winning Iran any allies in the West, however well it might play in the Arab street (even assuming Ahmadinejad’s views are technically correct and correctly translated).
She is, however, as I said in my earlier post, completely wrong about Iran supporting the two-state solution. Iran should support a one-state solution – and I believe it does. This does not make Iran “inept” but makes it a realist – because the two-state solution, as many have pointed out, is basically dead in the water except for people who aren’t familiar with the facts on the ground. Admittedly, this flies in the face of the West’s ignorant view of the subject, but I can’t see Iran advocating something that simply isn’t workable just to score points with the West on this topic. So she’s wrong on that point, clearly.
She is probably correct that pushing the Islamic line isn’t doing Iran any particular good either, except, again, on the Arab street. Whether she is correct that EVEN on the Arab street, it’s not doing any good, I can’t comment since I don’t know any polls of the Arab public on that point. But it definitely doesn’t help in dealings with the West, since the West is paranoid on the subject of the rise of Islamism. So an emphasis on Iranian national interests makes more sense and is more realist than trying to achieve solidarity with an Arab world that still distrusts Persia while alienating the West even more.
I think it’s clear that Flynt saw flaws in some of her arguments since he did a certain amount of pushback, but overall her perspective has some validity. I think some of the criticism here has been too extreme.
James Canning,
Thank you for your reply.I agree.
The US only started to Supply the Saudi’s after the Islamic Revolution as another counterweight to the IRI becouse of Saudi anxiety about IRI gaining regional dominance and possibly exporting its revolution throughout the region.
I’m sure that the US didn’t mind reselling Items that Iran had already paid for to Saudi Arabia & Turkey.
“And in fact the last 6 years of war were a treason to Iran and it was a crime committed by IR against our people.” Thank you Pirouz_2 that is all I wanted to hear. Many innocent people need not have died.
I find it to be an incredible failure of diplomacy on Iran’s part to be able to have turned the whole world against you so much so that everyone wanted Iraq to win. Also I agree with Ms. Hunter that Iran’s recent policy over Iraq has been a failure and it has been far too cooperative because feared instability across its border. I think it’d totally be in Iran’s interest to have more chaos in Iraq and even have it fragment (yes I know Turkey and the Saudis won’t be happy with that).
I think this attitude of fearing instability costed Iran during the Karabakh war as well where Iran could have supported Armenia more but refused to do so because it feared instability. What a missed opportunity!
Pak,
Turkey clearly is a regional power already, and it operates without the huge advantage Iran has with its enormous reserves of oil and gas.
Close cooperation between Turkey and Iran is in the best interests of the entire Middle East.
Bahram,
American armaments manufacturers were only too please to sell vast amounts of weaponry to Iran. The US government played cheerleader, partly for reasons of security calculations that you mention. The primary fact, however, was simply that Iran was not hostile to Israel.
American armaments manufacturers were keen to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, and did so to a much smaller degree, The reason, of course, was opposition from the Israel lobby in the US. Many many major deals were blocked or truncated to please Israel.
Dear Pirouz_2,
No, I am not disputing that fact, but I am disputing a lot of other “facts” in your previous posts, such as:
“Under the Pahlavi dynasty our economy changed from self-sufficiency into a uni-product colonial economy which was based on ONE RAW material called oil…”
“Under pahlavi dynasty our agriculture was killed completely to point that we were completely dependent on outside for food. Today in Wheat we are close to self-sufficiency and in several food items we are even exporters.”
“It is not an old wisdom, it is a bankrupted idea proposed by the likes of Milton Friedman, to fool people like us not to pursue our economic independence and self-reliant industrialization.”
I am not an expert in military history, so I cannot dispute your claims about the Shah’s military. I do however know a thing or two about economics, and your claims are laughable to say the least. Anyway, you are the one who tried to drag me into a Pahlavi vs IRI debate, when I asked a simple question that did not require such a debate. If you want to inflate your own ego, then please go ahead. But I will not respond if you just list baseless, history-distorting propaganda. Anyway, you still have not explained why you think not.
Pirouz;
YOU WROTE: “Pirouz 2, the reason the IRIAF switched to point defense was attrition. Doing the math, the IRIAF reasoned that without available replacement aircraft, it would soon cease to exist (particulary in the case of strike fighters).”
Yes you are very right. And that was precisely what I was saying.
“It must be conceded that without the alliance of Iraq, the US, the USSR, France, KSA and Kuwait, Iran would have won the war with its highly spirited, volunteer forces.”
That part is true too, without the whole west (plus USSR) Iraq would have lost the war.
But that was not what I was trying to say. And in fact the last 6 years of war were a treason to Iran and it was a crime committed by IR against our people. HOWEVER THAT WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE POINT I WAS MAKING. My point was that since at the prime of those weapons we were on retreat and in their absence we were on the offense, it becomes fairly obvious that those weapons were USELESS and just with a well disciplined an motivated army with literally a fraction of the cost of those weapons we could have stopped Saddams advance from day 1!
Hello everyone, this is my first post and i would like to address some of issues in regards to the military,before and after the revolution.
When the United States was arming the shah’s military, it did so becouse during the cold war the U.S and nato did not have a major military presence in the Persian gulf. The idea was to give Iran the means to hold back a Soviet advance on the Stratigic Persian gulf region for three weeks to allow the US time to deploy its forces in the region against the soviet union.This was why they had informed Saddam Hossain that Iran could only be able to put up military resistance for three weeks! During the last decade of the shah there were around 40,000 US contractors working in Iran many of them were defence contractors. Iran had a verry impressive military on paper but the reality was that all the technical work was done by the US personnel. this is why during the Iran iraq war the western media was reporting that the iranian airforce was virtually grounded and was canabolizing its own aircraft just to be able generate a few sorties.the Americans honestly did not believe that iran could maintain sophisticated weapon systems such as F-4 and F-14s without american support.
For those who believe that Iran fought an eight year war against an adversary that that had access to modern armament from the USSR,France,china,Brazil,South africa and pretty much any country with a defence industry by relaying on human wave tactics is naive to say the least.
I’m short on time but i just want to say that durring the Lebonan war of 2006, the israelis suffered over 160 deaths as a result of hesbollah’s actions.Only 43 of them were civilians.When Israel started the war they had calculated that it would take them three days to destroy Hesbollah.
Dear Pak;
As usual when confronted with historical evidence (Tehran convention of 1932) and when run out of logic, you resort to rudeness.
So Tehran convention of 1932, Irans loss of Bahrain during the Pahlavies are not “facts and evidence”?
رو که نیست، ماشاالله سنگ پای قزوینه
Dear Nasser,
Indeed, I was not giving a free pass to the Green Movement. I was just tackling the assumption that the Green Movement would somehow sell-out Iran. There is no reason to think as such. We do share similar views and I am glad that I am not alone!
Dear pirouz_2,
Come back when you have factual arguments and not a regurgitation of regime propaganda.
Dear kooshy,
1. It is absolutely true that the US, in the form of the Shah, retarded Iran’s political evolution, especially after 1953. However, this was the fault of the Shah – thus an Iranian problem – and not the fault of anyone else. In essence, don’t hate the player (the US); hate the game (international relations).
2. Do you believe that Turkey’s standing has been reduced because of its relations with the US and especially Israel? I believe otherwise. I believe that Turkey has amply demonstrated a successful long-term strategy of conformity, without impeding sovereignty, and with an eventual desire of becoming a regional power (for now this is working). I believe that to an extent the Shah was on a similar path. Of course, the Shah did not nurture the domestic politics of Iran. But again, that was the fault of himself – an Iranian – and not anybody else.
3. Again, I absolutely agree that Iran’s sovereignty should never be challenged. But let us be realistic. Look at South Korea, Japan, Germany and to a lesser extent Italy. They are economic powerhouses. They are significant political players. They are regional superpowers. Now look at Iran. Our economy is crumbling. We are constantly at the brink of war. Nobody listens to us. Our desire to become a leader of the third world is hardly succeeding and, if anything, we are only inspiring extremists in Somalia and Pakistan. Ferdowsi wrote his epic to emphasise the greatness of Iran. He did not write it as a policy of isolating Iran and giving Iran a bad name. Anyway, Iran’s constitution is loosely based on the French constitution (Arjomand); does that mean the IR sold Iran out?
I believe that US-Iran relations will ultimately be rewarding for Iran. I would go further and say it is necessary. But it would need very careful management, which returns us to Ms Harper’s fundamental argument that Iran’s foreign policy has been a failure for a long time.
Pirouz 2, the reason the IRIAF switched to point defense was attrition. Doing the math, the IRIAF reasoned that without available replacement aircraft, it would soon cease to exist (particulary in the case of strike fighters).
It must be conceded that without the alliance of Iraq, the US, the USSR, France, KSA and Kuwait, Iran would have won the war with its highly spirited, volunteer forces.
Nasser;
Since you skipped the first part of my response I am assuming that you concede that had the Shah been in power, let alone gaining territory from the fall of USSR, in all likelihood we would have lost some (parts of our own Azerbaijan comes to mind).
As for the other parts of your comment:
First of all, what devastated the conventional Iranian armed forces and put a lot of them out of the job was the “Nojeh” coup d’etat attempt which was architected by the West. And a lot of people agree that probably the West did that just to send the Iranian armed forces into disarray, as a prelude to the invasion. So there you go with your theory of “friendship between the wold (USA) and the sheep (Iran)”.
However, neither the disarray of the Iranian armed forces, nor the tactics of human waves are relavant to my argument:
Our airforce and Navy was in full power pretty much from the first week of the war, and we ruled the skies and the sea. BUT WE WERE LOSING TERRITORY (in the first 1-1.5 years).
We had no tanks to speak of and our airforce after the second year of the war, had completely retreated into the point defence of some of our strategic assets as we were severely short of spare parts and ammunition (air to air missiles, bombs etc.), AND IRAQIES RULED THE SKIES AND ATTACKED OUR SHIPS IN THE PERSIAN GULF. STILL WE WERE ON THE OFFENCE AND WE WERE GAINING TERRITORIES (THE LAST 6 YEARS OF THE WAR).
OBVIOUS CONCLUSION: Shahs weapons bought at astronomic costs were USELESS!
With literally a fraction of those weapons, if we just had an army which was not in disarray we could have stopped Saddams advance from day 1, just as we were able to push back his generously armed -by the west- armies ALMOST EMPTY HANDED in the last 6 years of the war!
This is not an argument about how wise Khomeini’s war strategies were, nor is it about whether we lost or won the war eventually; this is about HOW USELESS THOSE EXPENSIVE WEAPONS WERE!
Just to make it full-proof to you that your argument is completely baseless and self-contradictory, consider the following:
Saddam attacked us with the full support and encouragement of the West, right?? I hope you are not going to deny this piece of history because USA apologized for their full support to saddam on numerous times later on.
Well, are you suggesting that Shah, was buying those weapons FROM USA so that if USA pushes Saddam to attack us that we would defend ourselves against his USA supported armies???? Does this even make any sense to you?
Last but not least, listen to Dariush Homayoon, who is a well known Shahi, even he admits it openly that the purpose of buying those weapons was to make Iran a “superpower” and that it was an idiotic mistake caused by the short-sightedness and pure IGNORANCE of Shah! Can you imagine? being a superpower by buying military junk from a source when you need to buy every single piece of equipment/spare part to use those weapons from USA itself!!!
And so you think Shah was thinking that Iran’s nuclear deterrence was to protect it from the invading armies of USA and Israel?
Ok, how self-contradictory can you possiblly get?? You are saying that the West was selling Iran the nuclear power plants so that it would be used as a deterrence against itself?!?!?! And this is happening when Shah used to ask the British Embassy on a WEEKLY BASIS for orders and recommendation on what to do that week in the face of the revolution?
So the stooge which was brought to power by a military coup from CIA/Intelligence service, the stooge who was asking for commands from the British Embassy on a weekly basis, actually tried to buy nuclear technology from his own masters to protect him against their invading armies?!?!? Is this what you are suggesting?!?!?
By the way, did you know that Shah “granted” some $50 million -in the 60s or 70s I am not sure- to Israel to support THEIR nuclar program? I guess he did that because he was very worried that USA or Israel may attack Iran, huh??
On Iran’s military capabilities, you don’t need to take my word by the way, read something from Fariborz Haghshenas, he is an expert on the Iranian military who has published widely on the subject. He is the author of the Washington Institute Policy Watches “Iran’s doctrine of Asymmetric Naval Warfare”. Here I copy and paste an excerpt from his conclusion in his article on IRGC’s assymetric warfare capabilities in the Persian Gulf:
“Iran has developed a comprehensive doctrine of asymmetric warfare, based on its experience during the Iran-Iraq War as well as more recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. And thanks to to its efforts to develop a robust asymmetric warfare capability in the naval arena, the Islamic Republic holds the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz- the world’s oil lifeline- in its grisp…. The IRGCN in its current incarnation is highly motivated, well-equipped, well-financed force, capable of executing its unique doctrine of asymmetric naval warfare.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5922823/Irans-Asymmetric-Naval-Warfare
The issue here is not about Iran being able to destroy US navy, no one in his right mind is debating that! The issue is that Shah in his wildest dreams could not imagine that based on local experts he could generate ANY DOCTRINE LET ALONE A NAVAL DOCTRINE TO PROTECT IRAN AGAINST USA. His commanders couldn’t go to washroom without the US army consultants allowing them to do so!!
Pirouz, this would probably be my last post but I just have to vent.
you say: “I am afraid that again you are forgetting the history: in the first two years of the war when all those military gadgets were still very “leading edge” and “fancy”, Iran was on the defence and was losing territory.On the contrary, during the final 6 years when we had very limited number of tanks and almost all of aircrafts were sitting in hangars for the lack of spare components and amunition (all of which was made in the West and was not being given to us because of the sanctions)” It wasn’t just lack of spare parts that made these weapons unusable. It was more significant that the Khomeinists carried out purges of competent military personnel, officers and technicians that rendered these equipments virtually useless! Like many others I happen to hold the view that the chaos inflicted on the Iranian strategic and military community by the new revolutionary government is what caused Iran such losses and presented a golden opportunity for Saddam to invade. However impotent the Shah might have been domestically he realized that Iran resides in a dangerous strategic environment and therefore neeeded to be strong; while the Khomeinists were caught SLEEPING during the invasion.
You then go on to say: “we were on the OFFENCE and we were advancing in the Iraqi territory.” Yes, through such idiotic maneuvers so characteristic of us self mutilating Shias as “human wave attacks” that eventually led to millions of deaths. Need I point out that Khomeini in his vindictiveness and infinite stupidity could have stopped the war sooner and refused to do so.
“In fact if there is any use to the Iranian nuclear power it is its “deterrence” capability. Now Shah was going to deter whom from attacking Iran? USA? or Israel?!?!?”
Yes Pirouz it would have served as a deterrence against both and Iran today would not have to be subjugated to constant threats of war.
Lastly, it seems to me that many Iranians like you seem to regard Iran like it is so strong or something and that is why the US is afraid of them; or something to that effect. Need I point out that Iran is a country that ultimately fought Iraq for 8 years and LOST! How long did it take the US to crush Iraq? I hope the rulers in Tehran do not harbor your illusions of grandeur because such attitudes are not just foolish but dangerous and could lead to the deaths of many other innocent Iranians.
Pak
“I believe that having relations with the US is not necessarily the same as being a stooge or “policeman”. Why does there have to be such an absolute interpretation? Do you not think that the likes of Japan, South Korea and India have benefited from their relations with the US? Even Iran under the Shah – do you not think Iran benefited? Of course mistakes were made by the Shah – big mistakes – but that should not define what Iran-US relations will always be.”
Dear Pak
1-The answer is no, I don’t think Iran benefited at all, US ousted a democratically elected government of Iran, that was the biggest damage any country had inflected to Iran in modern times even bigger then occupying Iran during WW II.
2-A US gate keeper policy for Iran reduces Iran’s standing in the Muslim region without resolving the I/P issue acceptable to Arab streets that damages the Shieh Iran.
3-I personally don’t desire Iran becoming a South Korea or Japan or Italy or Germany at the price of its sovereignty where its constitution is written by a US general and has foreign tropes based in its territory. No that is not what I want, and I also don’t believe what you wish for is why, Ferdowsi wrote, us the Iranian 30000 rhyming couplets.
Alas, Shireen Hunter still loyal and attached to her past, serving the Monarchy.
Nasser since your post is completely wrong and out of touch with reality I will just answer it point by point based on RECORDED history:
“Imagine there was no revolution in Iran and the Pahlavi dynasty remained in place. Do you not think that Iran would have benefited significantly from the fall of the Soviet Union, in terms of territory?”
No. I do not believe that. My reason? History my friend history:
Ottoman Empire fell and disintegrated in 1923. Iran went under Reza Shah (officially) in 1923. WHAT WAS THE RESULT?
Did we gain any territory? ON THE CONTRARY WE LOST: Tehran convention of 1932!!
The policies that you advocate, were followed to the letter by Turkey after the fall of USSR. Do you see them being in love with USA? or do you see every single politician who wants to make a score in public eyes distansing himself from Israel/USA? In fact USA has the lowest sympathy in the world in Turkey!
By the way, don’t you guys feel even slightly bad that you suggest that we should do the foot work for Americans to rob the central Asia and Caucasus, so that we can get rich??
“I’ll say it again had the Shah not purchased those weapons and after his collapse Saddam invaded, Iran would have been completely defenseless. ”
I am afraid that again you are forgetting the history: in the first two years of the war when all those military gadgets were still very “leading edge” and “fancy”, Iran was on the defence and was losing territory.
On the contrary, during the final 6 years when we had very limited number of tanks and almost all of aircrafts were sitting in hangars for the lack of spare components and amunition (all of which was made in the West and was not being given to us because of the sanctions) we were on the OFFENCE and we were advancing in the Iraqi territory.
“In fact, Khomeini in his infinite wisdom carried out numerous purges and abolished the nuclear program which I think has had disastrous long term consequences. ”
It is beyond me (and almost all intellectuals, and even Green people such as Abbas Abdi and Hajjarian) why we would need a nuclear power for electricity which would be always dependent on foreign provided Uranium, and this is when we are sitting on an ocean of oil and gas and ABUNDANT amount of sun shine (for solar energy) and Wind power. Germany and Denmark despite their much higher rate of energy deman and much less amount of sun shine are powering up entire cities using the solar power.
In fact if there is any use to the Iranian nuclear power it is its “deterrence” capability. Now Shah was going to deter whom from attacking Iran? USA? or Israel?!?!?
” I take issue with the characterization of Iran’s rudimentary military industry as adequate or self sufficient when Iran barely has an air force. And I very highly doubt it can shut off the strait of Hormuz which receiving severe consequences and not just from the US. The concern is more that such attempts would drive up insurance prices and the price of oil but no one seriously considers Iran’s capable of taking on the fifth fleet.”
In the shalow waters of “persian gulf” using assymetric tactics Iran is said by US military analysists to be capable of inflicting heavy damage on the 5th fleet. You can search on You tube to find the footage of Iranian drone hovering over the US aircraft carrier for over 20 minutes. That by itself, shah could not imagine in his wildest dreams.
“This [Hezbollah beating Israel] is truly laughable, I highly doubt anyone believes Hezbollah can take on the IDF as you say and I am a Shia. But it is true that they cannot be wiped out without inflicting catastrophic civilian casualties and so can be said to have won in the guerilla sense.”
Now I am afraid you are way too much under the influence of the zionist propaganda:
Israel in 2006 received it’s most humiliating military defeat since 1956. Entire armoured coloumns were destroyed at the hands of Hezbollah fighters, and one of their corvets was nearly sunk by the anti-ship missiles made by Iran and given to Hezballah. During the entire conflict they could not occupy a single spot in the Lebanese territory and had to retreat from every single attack that they made on the land. If this is not victory, then I would guess Vietnam was not a victory for the Vietnamese either!!
As for the civilian casualties: It is an inevitable part of defending your homeland against an aggressor. Then perhaps because of the mounting civilian casualties you would suggest that the Soviets lost the battle of Stalingrad too?!?!?
“I wont debate you on the economic issues as it seems you have very strongly bought onto to the IRI propaganda. But I’ll relay on this old wisdom from economists that self sufficiency is the road to poverty and trade is the road to prosperity.”
It is not an old wisdom, it is a bankrupted idea proposed by the likes of Milton Friedman, to fool people like us not to pursue our economic independence and self-reliant industrialization.
While watching the video I noticed Shirin’s perceptions and realizations of her “facts” can lie in a WIDE spectrum of true to false. At times she doesn’t makes sense at all and on the other times documented fact fully back up her argument.
I could write a long article matching her statements with the actual relaities.
Here I just mention two, lying at extreme end of the range:
1- On the “True” end of the spectrum are quite a few assertions such as her evaluation of Hezbollah and Hammas. Israel branding them as terrorists is a joke that makes you shiver. (Shiver in the sense Kafa, Sartre or Hadayat have described)
2- On the “False” end is her assertion that Iranian Army is weaker than the time of Reza Shah (Father of the late Mohammad Reza Shah). That army of conscript fizzled in couple of days when Russia and Britain invaded Iran in summer of 1941. Iranian historian refer to very few incidents of real resistance. The most notable was Iranian Navy’s bravery of a few patriotic Navy Officers in the South.
Iran’s Army today consists of two segments. The first segment similar to Shah’s time is manned by conscripts. The second segment is run by Revolutionary Guards.
In Iran Iraq war the traditional army performed relatively OK. They were instrumental in a very clever counter offensive that resulted the liberation of Khorramshahr capturing thousands of Iraqi soldiers. But what became the major cause of present day solidification of nationalism-Islamism was the exceptional bravery of the Guards. I think if Shirin uses Google Search by typing “Casper Weinberger Iran resistance Russia” of diggs de-classified info she might find the reaction of Weinberger on a DoD report of how courageously Iranians are fighting with teeth and nails and how convenient it would be if they could be exploited in any war against the Soviet Union
Shirin is definitely out of touch with realities of present day Iran. If, with probability of one in billions Israelis or Americans take her assertion of weakness of Iranian defense forces seriously and send their ground troops to Iran they are going to get agonizingly dumbfounded.
Also I doubt she knows that in February 11, 2010, many leftists, atheists or many who voted for Mousavi marched in support of IRI. That march which probably is the largest ever in Iran’s history was also a demonstration against the foreign interventions in Iran showing them the “big lies” such as “widespread fraud in June 2009 Election” are now exposed……and ….showing them much more…..
I am sorry if I misconstrued this statement PAK: “…although I am disappointed to see how some people have chosen to attribute the Green Movement with a damaging foreign policy. There is no reason to think as such.” It seemed to me you were giving the Green Movement a free pass on their foreign policy conduct while I remain equally critical of them as I do of the idiotic hardliners. Again, I’m sorry if I misunderstood your position on this since we seem to be in general agreement on the other discussed issues :)
Dear Nasser,
I was originally writing out a long response to pirouz_2 but then thought better of it. When I saw your latest post I thought I had mistakenly posted my original response! You summed it up perfectly.
Pirouz I was in no way advocating for the Shah but simply pointing out some of the successes he did have. It is undoubtedly true that he had many foreign policy failures and I concede that and I hope you can also concede that this present Islamic government made serious blunders as well. As Pak pointed out: “Imagine there was no revolution in Iran and the Pahlavi dynasty remained in place. Do you not think that Iran would have benefited significantly from the fall of the Soviet Union, in terms of territory?”
I have to very strongly disagree with your views regarding the Iranian military capabilities in particular. You write: “Under pahlavi dynasty we wasted astronomical amounts of petro-dollars on junk military equipment from USA..” I’ll say it again had the Shah not purchased those weapons and after his collapse Saddam invaded, Iran would have been completely defenseless. In fact, Khomeini in his infinite wisdom carried out numerous purges and abolished the nuclear program which I think has had disastrous long term consequences. I take issue with the characterization of Iran’s rudimentary military industry as adequate or self sufficient when Iran barely has an air force. And I very highly doubt it can shut off the strait of Hormuz which receiving severe consequences and not just from the US. The concern is more that such attempts would drive up insurance prices and the price of oil but no one seriously considers Iran’s capable of taking on the fifth fleet.
“Today Hezballah by OUR ARMS is capable of defeating Israeli army and our influence in this region has skyrocketted.:” This is truly laughable, I highly doubt anyone believes Hezbollah can take on the IDF as you say and I am a Shia. But it is true that they cannot be wiped out without inflicting catastrophic civilian casualties and so can be said to have won in the guerilla sense.
I wont debate you on the economic issues as it seems you have very strongly bought onto to the IRI propaganda. But I’ll relay on this old wisdom from economists that self sufficiency is the road to poverty and trade is the road to prosperity.
Dear Nasser,
I am not sure what you disagree with, because I agree with most of what you said.
I believe this whole death to Russia/China incident is actually a manifestation of your argument and not a criticism of the Greens. Because of the partisan nature of Iranian foreign policy, the regime is heavily (if not overly) dependent on Russia and China. This is in complete violation of the “neither east nor west” mantra. Therefore I believe the people who chanted death to Russia/China were merely venting their frustration at the regime’s hypocrisy, and not presenting a specific ideology.
Pak I’ll have to disagree with you and reiterate my belief that all factions of Iranian politics let their personal conflicts take precedence over national concerns and thus jeopardize Iranian foreign policy goals and this also applies to the reformists. This seems to be a national characteristic. For example, both the reformists and hardliners at different times tried to sabotage each other’s efforts to have better relations with the West simply because they did not want their competitors to get the credit. This seems to me like an incredibly immature approach and shows how little concern they have for overriding national issues. I thought Ms. Hunter correctly identified this trend in Iranian politics and points out that mature nations do not let partisan bickering get in the way of achieving overriding national aims. By the way, I see this trend in Turkey also where they let factional bickering get in the way of achieving national aims because their resentment of their competitors is simply so great. This allows room for foreign meddling i.e. supporting military coups. Most western countries including the US are able to reach broad bipartisan agreements on important foreign policy issues and by and large do not let interpersonal animosities get in the way of achieving important foreign policy goals.
Getting back to my criticisms of the reform movement, one particular incident comes to my mind. During the electoral controversy the Green guys (Rafsanjani in particular) decided to chant death to Russia and China. I mean how incredibly mature is that, go ahead and alienate the only semi-positive relations you do have left and suggest outside interference is ok as long as it is on your side. This trend also extends to the Iranian expatriates, many of whom openly call for American interference on their side or even military attacks so advance their personal domestic aims!
Dear Pirouz_2 (and/or pirouz_2),
Thank you for your response, although you did not explain why you think not.
No offence, but I will not get dragged into a Pahlavi vs IRI debate (I was merely questioning whether Iran would have gained territory from the collapse of the Soviet Union, had the revolution not occurred). A lot of your arguments are completely wrong, especially the ones regarding the economy, and are consistent with the regime narrative (i.e. propaganda). We must treat history with honour and not distort it to pursue our own interests, even if it means defending the Shah in some aspects – shock horror! Also, these Pahlavi vs IRI debates are unnecessary and should make no difference, although such debates do identify an underlying insecurity of regime supporters, as it shows they are in constant need of inflating their egos.
Regarding your second post, I do not follow. How is South Korea akin to Israel?
I generally get the impression that you, and people who share your vehemently anti-US stance, believe that having a relationship with the US is imposed entirely against the will of the people. For example, I remember reading somewhere on this blog how Columbia is a stooge for the US because it leases military bases to them. Your negative reaction to my mention of South Korea is another example. Yet there is no mention of the fact that president Uribe has a popularity rating of over 60%. The same with South Korea: president Lee has an approval rating of over 50%. Why so?
By the way pak
It is interesting that you mention south korea and India and their relationship with USA. Suth Korea still has hundreds of thousands of civilians in mass graves created by the USA, and India when it was making major strides in industrialization was on really bad terms with the USA.
And you really can’t compare Iran to South Korea anyway, the South Korea in our region is Israel. Iran if it follows you Mrs. Hunters suggestions will become the next Egypt for you!!
The relationship between Iran and USA and wanting to make it “good” is like wanting to make a “good” relationship between the sheep and the wolf!!
Dear Pak:
Absolutely not. Iran under Pahlavi dynasty lost territory after territory: Bahrain, Part of the mount Ararat, shipping rights on tigris and euphrates (if I remember the history correctly) and also some territory to Afghans.
Under the Pahlavi dynasty our economy changed from self-sufficiency into a uni-product colonial economy which was based on ONE RAW material called oil. Today our non-oil exports have increased SIGNIFICANTLY.
Under pahlavi dynasty Iran lost its right over its own oil (the concessions were extended under reza shah, and mohammad r. also did his best -including a coup- to keep it that way)
Under pahlavi dynasty, constitutionalism was killed (today the amount of political freedom that we have is in no way even comparable to what we had during the time of Shah)
Under pahlavi dynasty our agriculture was killed completely to point that we were completely dependent on outside for food. Today in Wheat we are close to self-sufficiency and in several food items we are even exporters.
Under IR the ratio of university students/total population has increased by 10 folds.
Under IR we have not lost any territory.
Under IR we are the world number 1 in scientific growth.
Under pahlavi dynasty we wasted astronomical amounts of petro-dollars on junk military equipment from USA, today Iran’s military expenditure is the smallest in our region and furthermore we buy technology and not the ready product (with minor exceptions) and therefore our military has become at an incrediblly smaller price SELF-SUFFICIENT added to the fact that today we are being considered by many as being able to shut the strait of Hormoz against the will of the SOLE super power of the world, something Iran was not able to even dream in its wildest dreams during the time of Shah.
Today Hezballah by OUR ARMS is capable of defeating Israeli army and our influence in this region has skyrocketted.
I can go on if you want. But for now this should suffice.
Dear kooshy,
You said: “Simply because if you did entertained yourself with her presentation and comments, you would have understand that she is advocating the same foreign policy of the shah’s era, that is basically to become the US policeman in the region and towing the US line where ever it goes.”
I believe that having relations with the US is not necessarily the same as being a stooge or “policeman”. Why does there have to be such an absolute interpretation? Do you not think that the likes of Japan, South Korea and India have benefited from their relations with the US? Even Iran under the Shah – do you not think Iran benefited? Of course mistakes were made by the Shah – big mistakes – but that should not define what Iran-US relations will always be.
A very interesting video and ensuing discussion on this blog, although I am disappointed to see how some people have chosen to attribute the Green Movement with a damaging foreign policy. There is no reason to think as such.
Ms Hunter is right when she says that the regime has pursued an Islamic foreign policy and not a national one (to the detriment of both Islam and Iran). The regime is too ideologically driven. Foreign policy should protect the interests of a nation, which means that pragmatism is paramount. Ideology and pragmatism are practically opposites.
The regime’s foreign policy is defined by short-termism. I believe their Israel policy is an example of this short-termism. As Ms Hunter points out, the regime made a big mistake by going all-in in terms of the Israeli problem. This gamble has clearly not paid off and never will. In fact, it will probably lead to war. Ms Hunter correctly uses Turkey as a counter-argument. Turkey was the first Muslim nation to recognise Israel and the two nations continue to share relatively good relations. Yet Turkey is also the greatest legitimate source of criticism aimed at Israel. Iran is instead viewed as a loose cannon. Look at the aid flotilla examples. Turkey’s efforts have almost led to the end of the Gaza blockade. Iran’s efforts went largely unnoticed, so much so that the flotilla expedition had to be cancelled due to a lack of support (I think the expedition is on again though).
Another weakness of the regime’s foreign policy is its domestic policy. Simply put, Iran has very little legitimacy abroad because of its actions at home (we can proudly boast to have public opinion on our side in the great nations of Somalia and Pakistan for example). If Iran can demonstrate that is has a mature, moderate and prosperous domestic policy, its foreign influence should simultaneously increase. This is naturally beneficial for the Iranian people, but especially important given the global trend of supporting democracy and human rights. Again, Turkey is a good benchmark.
Dear pirouz_2,
You said: “Under Pahlavi dynasty we lost territory (ie. Bahrain), losing territory is an ordeal as yet to come during the IR!!”
Imagine there was no revolution in Iran and the Pahlavi dynasty remained in place. Do you not think that Iran would have benefited significantly from the fall of the Soviet Union, in terms of territory?
Nasser
“Why are you some of you guys suggesting she is some sort of royalist tool when she is sufficiently critical of all modern Iranian governments including Mossadeq, the Shah and the current clerical regime?”
Simply because if you did entertained yourself with her presentation and comments, you would have understand that she is advocating the same foreign policy of the shah’s era, that is basically to become the US policeman in the region and towing the US line where ever it goes.
Nasser
“I think she is correct to point out that the Mossadeq era has been so mythologized in the Iranian psyche that is impossible for Iranians to take an unemotional and critical look at his reign.’
This is not about emotions dear, Pirouz_2 correctly pointed that Mosadegh managed to change the fundamental bases of Iran’s policy that had almost existed since the Russian wars, from, positively balancing in between the powers (conceding to both sides) to a negatively balancing in between powers (not conceding at all) for that reason he was not willing to make concessions therefore he was ousted. Today they call that “No Eastern No western Islamic republic” isn’t the same thing.
Nasser
“As for Bahrain, would you rather the Shah have taken a track similar to Saddam on Kuwait and have met his fate? He did manage to take back the three islands though.”
So you are suggesting that under the British and US pressure he conceded one part of Iran for another part of Iran, isn’t that the same thing Fathali Shah did with Russians in the caucuses treaties almost 200 year earlier?
I was shocked to hear Shireen Hunter looking down on foreign policy makers who were appointed after revolution just because they did not come from A PARTICULAR BACKGROUND.
Is Iran policy makers than worse than “US national security adviser JAMES JONES” who was called a CLOWN by Stanley McChrystal.
how about Vice President Biden being called SHORTSIGHTED.
shireen Hunter is a SNOB and arrogant.
Nasser,
You make a number of good points. Is it fair to say that opposition from dissidents interfered with the LEU exchange proposal last year? This certainly is my understanding.
“Ms. Hunter hasn’t grew out of Iran’s shah era foreign policy, if that is considered realist we then must be still living in 1970’s…”
Why are you some of you guys suggesting she is some sort of royalist tool when she is sufficiently critical of all modern Iranian governments including Mossadeq, the Shah and the current clerical regime?
I think she is correct to point out that the Mossadeq era has been so mythologized in the Iranian psyche that is impossible for Iranians to take an unemotional and critical look at his reign. She rightly pointed out that Mossadeq seemed highly incompetent at both dealing with the outside powers and managing competing factions at home. I think for example Mossadeq could have taken added steps to assure Eisenhower that his flirtations with the communists weren’t serious and he supported the Cold War aims. Also let’s not forget that the Americans did not just pull off a coup in a foreign country all on their own; Mossadeq had managed to simultaneously alienate several parliamentarians, the military, the clerics and the Iranian communists. I’m in no way supporting the American actions because we all know that the long term ramifications of those actions were disastrous but Iranians need to critically examine their own mistakes (things they actually have control over) instead of childishly blaming outside powers for not treating their fairly and thus holding grudges that sabotage their long term national interests.
She was also sufficiently critical of the Shah so I don’t think she is in no way longing for those days as some of you claim. I’ve seen a lot of people criticize the Shah for spending so much money buying Western weapons and I can’t help but disagree on this point. Just imagine had he not purchased all those weapons then Iran would have been completely defenseless when it was attacked by Saddam. As for Bahrain, would you rather the Shah have taken a track similar to Saddam on Kuwait and have met his fate? He did manage to take back the three islands though.
I don’t get why Ms. Hunter is receiving so much hostility from you guys. As someone of Iranian descent she obviously cares about Iranian interests and is merely trying to take a critical look at the present government’s foreign policy choices; much as how American patriots like the Leveretts take a critical view of American policies.
I think she was rightly critical of the Iranian habit of using foreign policy choices as a tool for political infighting without concerns for broader national interests. She harshly condemns dissidents that allow domestic disputes to override national concerns and allow for outside interference or worse yet, call for military attacks. Ms. Hunter also rightly pointed that many of these reformists that are now hailed in Western media sabotaged efforts to have better relations with the West because of their domestic disputes and this is one reason it is hard for the Iranians to formulate better foreign policies.
pirouz_2,
Would it not be more accurate to say the Shah accepted the fact Bahrain was not a part of Iran? Surely there was no opening for a different result.
@Everyone:
By the way, as usual I forgot to mention an important item on the list and as this case turned out to be it was the most bovious of the differences:
Under Pahlavi dynasty we lost territory (ie. Bahrain), losing territory is an ordeal as yet to come during the IR!!
It diappoints me greatly to see the New American Foundation and the leveretts give a platform to Ms. Hunter. Waht is her expertise again?!
kooshy,
One needs to bear in mind the extreme ignorance, and frankly, stupidity, of the American public. Many if not most think being “imperial” means being powerful and safe, and rich, and thus many if not most equate attacks on “imperialism” and “hegemony” with being hostile to the average American. This is a huge PR error, and it works against the best interests of Iran.
kooshy,
High energy prices cause a great flow of wealth to the Middle East from North American and Europe. The opportunities for the various countries in the M.E. are enormous. Iran should be working toward good relations with the UK, France, Germany, Italy, etc., by continuing to stress it does not seek nukes and is not inclined to attack any other country unless attacked first. Very simple message. No need to harp about “hegemonistic powers” etc etc etc.
Kooshy:
You are right. I did not mean all Azeri supports state of Israel but due to Zionist project of destabilization and ‘regime change’ situation is not the same and we have to be very careful and work closely together with other groups against the apartheid state.
Realist – Since the Iranian revolution of 1979 due to Varity of reason that I can point if necessary, Iran and the entire ME region are in process of a major change, which this has effectively destabilized the long term hegemonic security of the northern countries. To continue this process to a democratic Middle East this resistance needs to be unified with all means at the grass root level and to be vary of deceptions and above all it must utilizing to its advantage who ever friend or foe that is willing to participate without use of force or terror.
@Everyone:
Ever since the death of Aqa Mohammad Khan Ghajar, Iran’s foreign policy has always faced two options:
A)Positive Balance
B)Negative Ballance
Both options are wbout keeping the balace between the two mighty foreign forces which have tried to dominate Iran (Russia/UUSR vs. the British/USA). The difference is that option A was about keeping the balance by making concessions to both sides and keep both sides happy. Option B on the otherhand (notablly formulated by Dr. Mosaddegh) was about keeping the balace in Iranian foreign policy by making concessions to NEITHER SIDE and instead adjusting the Iranian foreign policy according to our own interests.
Throughout the modern history of Iran, option A has mostly prevailed. This was very much the case during the time of Ghajar dynasty (except for the brief periods of two constitutionalist era both interrupted with military coups, the first by the Russians and the second by the British which brought the Pahlavi dynasty into power and killed the constituionalist movement in Iran) and it got worse (in fact FAR WORSE) during the Pahlavi dynasty (with the exception of the brief period of Mosaddegh who actually formulated the doctrin of “negative balance” and was interrupted by the infamous coup of 1953 AKA operation Ajax).
All that time Iran was keeping a positive balace between the two powers with leaning more towards one power or the other at different periods (mostly towards the West). The direct result of that policy was the economic policies and reforms which transformed Iran from a “self-sufficient” country which could feed itself to a country which was 100% dependent of oil exports WITH LITTERALLY NO OTHER EXPORTS (the carpet and pistachio exports were negligible) and an ever widening gap between the rich and poor the direct result of which was revolution of 1979.
In fact the era which Mrs. Hunter so passionately defends was so disasterous that towards the end Shah would call the British Embassy on a weekly basis and would ask them what he was supposed to do in the face of the revolution (I say this based on the testimony of the then British Embassador to Iran).
After 1979 revolution the situation started to change. Despite the anti-American/Anti-Israeli rhetoric, the actual situation was not quite as anti-American as the rhetoric. Under the table a lot of deals were made between the new Iranian government and the US (Reagan Administration). However, after the Irangate scandal, US did not quite make accept to give the new government the position that it gave to Shah.
Starting from the time of American hostages in Lebanon, Iranians tried to approach the US and offer their services in the “olden ways” but they were each time “used” by the US government without getting anything in return.
So starting from roughly the time of Mr. Khatami, there started to appear a trend in the IR’s elite that if we can’t be their servants then perhaps we should use force against their interests. So that to get them to take our interests into consideration, we should force them by threatening their interests in this region.
Which has been the single most important difference between the reformist camp and the principalist camp. Reformists are in favour of doing concessions and getting what they want through establishing a subserviant relationship with the west (“ideally” along the lines of Mobarak in Egypt), and principalists supporting the idea that concessions should be demanded from the West by using our leverages in this region against them.
So quite contrary to what Mrs. Hunter claims, IR administration (especially at the time of Rafsanjani) tried several times to approach and offer their shah-like services, but albeit, the West refused to have even their servants have a “Turban”.
In essence the choice of “independence” was not chosen by the IR willingly, it was forced into its throat by the west! And in fact this the major difference between Mosaddegh and the IR.
Now let’s have a look at the record of “achievements” of the Pahlavi dynasty and compare it to the “achievements” under IR (the last 16 years when IR has been acting as a truly sovreign state, the first 14 years of IR had nothing but disaster after disaster for the country).
Pahlavi Era:
1)A nation of frugal but self-sufficient economy was taken and converted to a nation of totally import based purely-consumer, which had ZERO production except the raw material (ie.oil) an essence much similar to the banana republics in the Latin America, an oil kingdom was created.
2)Consitutionality and the rule of people was KILLED and a brutal dicattorship was established.
3)Scientific activity and technologic R&D were non-existant and in fact discouraged.
4)Agriculture was completely destroyed and Iran became completely dependent on importaed food.
5)Precious petro-dollars were wasted over useless military junk bought from the West at astronomical costs.
IR (the last 16 years):
The first 14 years of IR was not really all that different from the Shah era, in fact it was even worse. But just a BRIEF period of the last 16 years where the sanctions have FORCED us to go towards self-sufficiency:
1)Agricultural production has increased by the order of magnitude, Iran is nearly self-sufficient in Wheat production and completely self-sufficient and even “exporter” in several items of food (eg. eggs)
2)Non-oil exports have increased EXTENSIVELY.
3)Scientific growth has sky rocketted, so much that right now Iran ranks the Wrold NUMBER 1 in terms of scientific growth and in terms of scientific output we are on par with Sweden and have surpassed countries such as Austria, Belgium, Denamrk and Norway.
4) The ratio of University students to total population has increased by an order of magnitude (either 10 time or 20 times) compared to the time of shah.
5) While we are far away from a “democracy”, a “liberal democracy” is DE FACTO in place and the amount of political freedoms are not even remotely comparable to what we had during the time of Shah.
I rest my case!
paul,
Is there any point in trying to put Iranian foreign policy into the category of being “leftist”? The neocons claim Iran is extreme rightist (fascist).
Ahmadinejad says Iran seeks good relations with all the countries in the world, except for the US and Israel. I think Iran would welocme normal relations with the US, if the US were capable of acting intelligently in its dealings with Iran.
Realist,
Surely Turkey is pursing a policy intended to foster peace, stability and economic growth in the Middle East, in the context of justice for the Palestinians.
Bussed-in Basiji,
The regime of the late Shah clearly went overboard in playing up the imperial antecedents of the Iranian state, espectially those from 25 centuries into the past.
And in pursuing a “modern” rich, powerful state, the religious roots were neglected.
Much of the Arab world has been ruled from time to time by Persia, so the cross-fertilisation of the languages is to be expected. Persia in turn was sometimes taken over by the Arabs and the Mongols.
Kooshy:
You are right. I did not mean all Azeri supports state of Israel but due to Zionist project of destabilization and ‘regime change’ situation is not the same and we have to be very careful and work closely together with other groups against the apartheid state.
For example: Khamenaie is Azeri who has been supporting Palestinian cause for a long time. Shireen Hunter is ignorant not to realize the changes in the region; otherwise she would have not suggested that Iran should become a Zionist puppet like Azerbaijan and Turkey. We should not trust Turkey’s latest act for Turkey and US interest. Turkey is planning to cash in from the Anti Iran environment created by Zionist lobby and enforced by Zionist stooges, black and white, in Washington. Turkey is after Arab public support to mobilize them behind Turkey and away from Iran to influence the event to benefit US, Turkey and Israel.
There are opportunists Azeri who have close cooperation with Michael Leeden and the Israel lobby.
On the other hand we had Azeri like Erani and many others who loved Iran and gave their lives for the interest of Iran. Since the establishment of apartheid state and Zionist occupation of foreign policy of the United States by Israel Lobby, the situation has been changed.
Please read Oded Yinon “A strategy for Israel in the 1980s” to know what is the Zionist project and how the role of ‘ethnic’ and ‘religious’ groups are painted. Oded Yinon strategy says:
One- Israel should become the empire of the region to survive
Two- Israel should destabilize and partition the regional states and construct smaller states based on ethnic and religious divide to construct ally for Israel, like: Azeri, Bloch, Kurds, Berbers so on and so forth
Thus, Zionist project is real and is going on since the erection of apartheid state of Israel.
http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0005345.html
Realist
“She is Azeri, and Azeri’s like Azerbaijan and Turkey always have supported Israel.”
Realist- this statement of yours is far from reality and it sounds like someone who deliberately wishes to break the unity among Iranians, beside Ms. Hunter and Michel Ladeen do you have support to prove that Azeri’s always have supported Israel? As is known in Iran planting propaganda by “reversing the horse shoes” not necessarily will work.
No one should take Shireen Hunter seriously. She is still thinking along Zionist lobby line, like during the shah. She is Azeri, and Azeris like Azerbaijan and Turkey always have supported Israel. Ashkenazi are coming from a Turkic tribe, Khazar, who lived in the Central Asia, thus, they have NO CONNECTION TO HEBREWS OF PALESTINE OR THE REGION ITSELF. The history of Israel is based on nothing but LIES AND DECEPTION. It has been constructed to fool people and steal all of Palestine.
No one should be fooled by Erdugan performance. Turkey always betrayed Muslims and acted against the interest of Palestinians and Muslim community to be allowed to serve the United States and Israel’s interest. At the time of Gaza holocaust, Erdugan support of Gaza was limited to few cheap slogans where he later apologized for it from Perez over the phone. Turkey did not call her ambassador for an hour from Israel while Chavez called his ambassador
Erdugan has been given a green light by the US to perform a game against Iran to protect US, Israel and Turkey’s interest against Palestine, Iran and population of Arabs. Turkey has a mission to target Iran’s popularity among Arab population to isolate Iran and Palestine for their interest. The stooges known as ‘Arab moderate head of state’ are totally discredited and Arabs as well as Muslims do not consider these reactionary and Zionist puppet legitimate of Arab head of states. Thus, Erdugon has been chosen to play this role: to gain the trust of the Arab population for the occupiers and Turkey’s position in the region.
Erdugan by cheap slogans, with green light from US, has targeted Arab population to steal Iran’s popularity among millions of Arabs in different countries due to Iran support for Palestine. Turkey is a servant of us imperialism and Zionism and will remain as such. No one should think twice about it.
Shireen Hunter is so racist and her views so outdated that ask an ignorant question:
Why does Iran view Syria an ally? She thinks Israel, apartheid and racist state is “Iran’s natural ally” which must tells you how ignorant she has remained since the fall of the shah.
Iran like other countries and based on interest of Iran and the region against foreign domination design her policy.
She does not understand that the region has been changed since the shah and a culture of resistance has developed due to Zionist expansionist policy and their stooges in Washington. Don’t waste your money on her book.
Just one question Shireen: If the regime is so inept, why hasn’t the US with all its might and military power been able to supplant it for thirty+ years?
Bussed-in Basiji
As explained earlier, “nationalist” versus “Islamic” identity is a false dichotomy. The defining element of MODERN Iranian national identity is Shia Islam and the Farsi language as the official language in a multi-lingual nation
In another topic you wrote
A major problem among western analysts (influenced by Iranian exiles) is the notion the RevGuards and Basij are somehow separate from “the people”. RevGuards and Basij are part of Iranian society. And I repeat when Reagan and Rumsfeld were buddies with Saddam they were the ones fighting him and preventing him from taking over Iran together with what was left of the Iranian army. So yes as I said earlier, there is an economic shift towards these people and it is a good thing and they deserve it.
You are absolutely right, if it wasn’t for these modern Arashs of Iran, Saddam Husain an American ally which was encouraged and helped by the Americans to capture and occupy oil rich south western Iran, would have by now forced Iranians to speak Arabic and perhaps would have have another “Two centuries of silence”
B-in-B, remember the calendar fiasco? My aunt and I were commenting on that not too long ago.
The whole problem for US policymakers started by relying on the b.s. analysis of exiles like Shireen Hunter. Stop it already, you were making progress.
As explained earlier, “nationalist” versus “Islamic” identity is a false dichotomy. The defining element of MODERN Iranian national identity is Shia Islam and the Farsi language as the official language in a multi-lingual nation(incidentally according to Dehkhoda dictionary 50% of Farsi words used today have Arabic roots, some like “Agha”, “Khanum” and “Toman” have (gasp!) Mongolian roots and many common words like “chakmeh” are straight-up Turkish- if you want “pure” Farsi go to Tajikistan)
The cultural policy of the Pahlavi era was to factor out Islam from Iranian identity (for political reasons) and replace it with some half-assed imperial Achaemenid mythology- ruining both valuable elements in the process. Hunter unfortunately remains captivated by these illusions and it negatively affects her analysis.
Pirouz “Is it inept to be principled. In Hunter’s view, yes.”
It’s not easy to be a non-Iranian American who advocates FOR Iran and urges that Iran resist the pressures of the US and Israel.
When someone like Shirin Hunter speaks from a background of strong credentials, as an Iranian, speaking from the podium of a friendly host, The New America Foundation, and introduced by Dr. Leverett, all factors conferring on the speaker the appearance of being ‘one of the good guys,’ an outsider gives her words and judgments a great deal of weight. A listener automatically assumes such a speaker reflects what the Iranian people want and that she has at heart the best interests of the Iranian people. I’m not an Iranian, it’s not for me to say what the Iranian should or should not want or have. But I do have some basic understanding of what is just and what is unjust, and what my country had done and is doing to Iran is egregiously unjust.
Like most of the people on this forum, I suspect I know a bit more about Iran than the average American who only knows what he hears on evening news or incessant biased radio. I was duped by Shirin Hunter’s presentation; imagine the impact her words would have on a Hannity fan.
I don’t agree with Shirin Hunter’s view that Iran’s foreign policy has been inept; in fact quite the contrary. To remain independent in a region where U.S. hegemony has taken over demonstrates excellent political skills and smarts. Iran has demonstrated both. Iran may never be liked by Arab leaders, but it is sure looked up to by the Arab masses who are sick and tiered of their leaders being a puppet of the U.S. She should know there are two leaders who are praised in the Arab world, Hassan Nassralah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Everywhere I go, whether it is in Europe, or the Middle East or Asia the general Muslim masses praise Iran whether they be Shiites or Sunnis.
Hunter believes that Iran cannot remain independent therefore give in to the U.S. Imperialist power and Israel’s desire for hegemony and expansion. This is what the Shah of Iran did – and this is why there was a Revolution.
She calls Mossadeq’s foreign policy as being stupid – Wow! Who was it who broke the clutch of the British from domination and control of Iran’s oil – if not Mossadeq? It was definitely not the Shah whom she seems to admire.
If Iran’s foreign policy was inept and stupid – she would have been bombed to pieces by now, or a regime change would have taken place with the direct interference of the U.S.
I can’t watch the stream (we’re on vacation and I have not had and will not have much access to the internet for a few days), but I read what paul said and I wanted to point out that Iran has not threatened any country with destruction or military action (presumably you mean Israel). Bye. :)
The more I think about this discussion, the more shocking I really find it. I mean, it’s basically about one thing and one thing only: blaming Iran for the fact that the US is bound and determined to crush Iran. Blaming the victim. Calling it “suicide” when what is happening is the US is strangling Iran economically and will probably crush Iran militarily as well. This kind of victim-blaming compares to the way Israel managed to convince the world that the Flotilla people were the aggressors in a situation where they were not only militarily attacked by Israel, but apparently also in some cases killed execution style!!!!!! To blame the victim this way is Orwellian stuff. The attacker is the defender. The defender is the attacker. The bully is the victim and the victim is the bully. Why did you hit my fist with your face?
Of course Iran’s role in all this is not above reproach. Not hardly. But we seem to be COMPLETELY losing sight here of who is doing economic warfare against whom, and who is threatening military attack, even nuclear attack, against whom.
If I had to point to one mistake by Iran over the years as the most serious, it would probably be that Iran’s attempts to build international contacts globally seem to have been too little too late. They seem to have never quite been able to bring their islamism together with their leftism in a coherent way. It’s not islamism couldn’t be a way to build solidarity or that leftism couldn’t be a way to build solidarity, globally (and let’s note that developments over the past ten years globally have made it very very clear that the left is NOT dead or irrelevant)m – it’s that the two seemed to conflict with each other for Iran and Iran never could figure out how to make them cohere, and that made it hard for them to reach out globally in a coherent way.
But let’s not lose sight of who is on the offensive here and who is trying desperately to defend both their national and their physical existence against an attack that seems to acknowledge no ultimate restraints.
Hunter apparently isn’t aware of the fact that Khamanei has publicly acknowledged that the West wouldn’t have the problem it has with the Islamic Republic if it weren’t for Iran’s leadership role in the resistance to Zionist hegemony.
So Iran has taken a principled stance. The question is: is it inept to be principled in the region? According to Hunter, it is.
Pirouz 2:
That would be the USN Fifth Fleet (not the Sixth).
Shirin Hunter shouldn’t be taken seriously. By the way, this is a good website.
This is truly a very disturbing discussion. Hunter is a very polite speaker and is surely well above average in that department. And it is nice to see someone speaking about foreign policy address the shocking way Russia and China have thrown Iran to the wolves, and the shocking way that both the Arab states and even the Arab street seem to have also thrown Iran to the wolves; clearly Iran badly, badly, badly overestimated any anti-imperial or pro-muslim solidarity. But if Hunter’s presentation represents what passes for an ‘alternative’ view in foreign policy establishment circles, than the foreign policy is even more wildly off base than it appears. Hunter’s take is simply an assertion that Might Makes Right is the single overriding principle of international affairs, pushing all other issues pretty much off the table. It’s easy to see that behind this seemingly un-ideological view is a very, very intense anti-Left ideology that embraces the ‘international system’ as the sole evolutionary path for humanity. Here we see that, as usual, ‘realism’ is a cloak for an ideology that does not want to be seen for what it is.
A Might Makes Right analysis of the ‘Iran situation’ really offers nothing new or helpful. Of course it is easy enough to point out mistakes that Iranian governments past and present have made. It would be far easier still to point out mistakes that US governments past and present have made. But the Might Makes Right establishes a Ghordian Knot analysis where only the mistakes of the weaker power matter. The stronger power, by definition, can make no mistakes. How is this helpful? It is only helpful to those who want to blame Iran for a situation that is blatantly, as blatantly as could be, NOT primarily its fault.
And let us not mistake the seriousness of the situation Iran is facing. At the very least Iran is facing economic strangulation which can probably only be compared to that of Cuba, or North Korea. But unlike Cuba, it is not an island; and, unlike North Korea, it has no powerful allies. But we should recognize that the current level of propaganda and sanctions against Iran make war a virtual inevitability, and probably sooner than later. In particular, the sanctions call for the examination of Iranian shipping. This part of the sanctions is a theoretical assault on Iran’s economy and – more importantly – on its sovereignty that is effectively an act of war, especially if it is pursued aggressively, and indications are that the US and Nato-associated countries intend to pursue every aspect of the UNSC sanctions VERY aggressively, also adding many other sanctions that now TRULY amount not only to economic war, but also to collective punishment. The gloves are now well and truly off, and more than that, a trigger for war is in place. Already Iran has reacted strongly to the threat against its shipping, countering with a threat to stop shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. In response, it would appear that Obama has dispatched a very powerful battle fleet to the Persian Gulf.
These sanctions were not just designed to pressure Iran. They were designed to establish an economic war, including collective punishment, AND to trigger a military assault.
Iran is facing Hell On Earth. And FOR WHAT? Hunter could have said it, but she plainly didn’t want to put it quite this way: because Iran has not kowtowed to the Mighty Global Hegemon. Simple as that. The stuff about Israel’s fears and about nuclear weapons is a blatant smokescreen, not based on absolutely nothing, but overblown to an extreme that is truly insane. This is like taking a penny balloon, blowing it up to the size of Massachusetts, and then claiming that it is an asteroid about to hit the earth. Sure, yes, there are mutual suspicions on both sides, but they could be worked out through diplomacy, as an expert in diplomacy should certainly know. But as long as that expert assumes that Might Makes Right, and that this is virtually the only factor relevant to a ‘realistic’ point of view, then the only policy that can be acknowledged as ‘competent’, and not “inept”, is a policy that seeks a place at the feet of the Hegemon.
We see such a policy in Russia. We see such a policy in China. We see such a policy in Pakistan. We see it in Egypt. We see it in Saudi Arabia. Hunter seems to be proposing that such countries should be considered models by Iran. I think it’s really quite obvious that such models may one very strong reason that Iran might consider accommodation to the Hegemon NOT to be in its interest, at least as it’s primary guiding principle.
And there’s the rub. The Hegemon does not seem to be willing to accept any other attitude on the part of any supposedly sovereign country. We saw with Turkey and Brazil how extreme the Hegemon’s attitude on this can be. Think about it. Turkey and Brazil, formally at least, did exactly what the Hegemon wanted in working out a deal with Iran. But what they failed to do was to read in between the lines to gauge the Hegemon’s true intentions. There was an expectation, reminiscent of a mafia thriller, that the ‘lesser’ countries read not just the intention of the ‘Godfather’, but – more importantly – the intention behind the intention. Turkey and Brazil didn’t ‘get it’ that they aren’t supposed to think for themselves. They are supposed to bend over backwards to please the Hegemon, even to the point of ANTICIPATING ITS WISHES.
And it can be argued that the same happened between Iran and Russia and China. Perhaps Iran believed the hype from the Sino-Russian axis, about their purported intent to balance the Hegemon. We cannot entirely blame Iran for not anticipating the extreme swiftness of Russia’s volte-face, particularly. Russian went from the verge of war against the US, and a seemingly growing commitment to the Caspian Region and to the SCO, to a kind of Nato-marriage and US rapprochement that I suspect even the most well-informed observers would not have expected to happen at all, or so fast. In fact, Russia’s version of RealPolitik has been truly stunning, though this has been little observed by pundits. Just six months ago Russia was making overtures in America’s back yard that are almost certainly dead letter now. Just six months ago or so, Putin was making nuclear and military deals with Chavez. Such deals seemed to reflect a real Russian commitment to a multipolar world, but now they can’t be taken seriously at all.
The argument that Russia would never in any case have been willing to deal with a Middle Power in its backyard just doesn’t wash. IF Russia had been serious about a multipolar world, it would have absolutely needed a strong Iran to counter Nato encirclement. But clearly, both Russia and China value their Western markets more than ANY other consideration.
Yet Russian and Chinese flirtation with Latin America and other parts of the Global South demonstrate that the notion of what used to be called the Non-Aligned Movement is not just some pipe dream of absurd Iranian non-realists. We have also seen this movement show some considerable life in the struggle against ‘first world’ dictated trade accords, in the conferences against racism, in the push to bring Israel under the NPT, in the rise of Alba, and the pushback against the US-backed coup in Honduras, in the efforts of Turkey and Brazil to broker peace between the US and Iran, and so on. If it’s true that the Shah was also interested in the Global South, or whatever we should call any notion that the so-called ‘International System’ is NOT necessarily the only evolutionary process that can happen for humanity, then that’s one important area of commonality between the Shahs’ regime that I suppose Hunter would hold up as a model of realism, and the purportedly Super-Inept Islamic Republic.
It now appears inevitable that we will see Iran ground to dust. Country after country has bowed to the US and Israel’s fanatical determination to crush Iran. The entire world’s population, it now seems, has some sadistic desire to see more Shock and Awe on their televisions. It seems that the final act in a tragedy is about to unfold. And, always, it is more intellectually tidy to Blame the Victim.
Pirouz_2
One amazing part of her presentation was when she questioned why Iran’s policy supports Syria, how could you advocate this line is behind me, how many friends
Iran has in “Arab Governments” didn’t Syria stood by Iran in all 8 years of war, when I heard that I was wondering if she is misinformed or too hateful of the current regime, but definitely she doesn’t know or care for Iran’s interest.
Here is a little history lesson for Ms. Hunter if she cares to read
BP’s Other Gifts to America and the to the World
Iran, BP and the CIA
By LAWRENCE S. WITTNER
The offshore oil drilling catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico brought to us by BP has overshadowed its central role over the past century in fostering some other disastrous events.
BP originated in 1908 as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company—a British corporation whose name was changed to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company two decades later. With exclusive rights to extract, refine, export, and sell Iran’s rich oil resources, the company reaped enormous profits. Meanwhile, it shared only a tiny fraction of the proceeds with the Iranian government. Similarly, although the company’s British personnel lived in great luxury, its Iranian laborers endured lives of squalor and privation.
In 1947, as Iranian resentment grew at the giant oil company’s practices, the Iranian parliament called upon the Shah, Iran’s feudal potentate, to renegotiate the agreement with Anglo-Iranian. Four years later, Mohammed Mossadeq, riding a tide of nationalism, became the nation’s prime minister. As an enthusiastic advocate of taking control of Iran’s oil resources and using the profits from them to develop his deeply impoverished nation, Mossadeq signed legislation, passed unanimously by the country’s parliament, to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
The British government was horrified. Eager to assist the embattled corporation, it imposed an economic embargo on Iran and required its technicians to leave the country, thus effectively blocking the Iranian government from exporting its oil. When this failed to bring the Iranians to heel, the British government sought to arrange for the overthrow of Mossadeq—first through its own efforts and, later (when Britain’s diplomatic mission was expelled from Iran for its subversive activities), through the efforts of the U.S. government. But President Truman refused to commit the CIA to this venture.
To the delight of Anglo-Iranian, it received a much friendlier reception from the new Eisenhower administration. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles had worked much of his life as a lawyer for multinational corporations, and viewed the Iranian challenge to corporate holdings as a very dangerous example to the world. Consequently, the CIA was placed in charge of an operation, including fomenting riots and other destabilizing activities, to overthrow Mossadeq and advance oil company interests in Iran.
Organized by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt in the summer of 1953, the coup was quite successful. Mossadeq was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life, the power of the pro-Western shah was dramatically enhanced, and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was once again granted access to Iran’s vast oil resources. To be sure, thanks to the key role played in the coup by the U.S. government, the British oil company—renamed British Petroleum—henceforth had to share the lucrative oil extraction business in Iran with U.S. corporations. Even so, in the following decades, with the Iranian public kept in line by the Shah’s dictatorship and by his dreaded secret police, the SAVAK, it was a very profitable arrangement—although not for most Iranians.
But, of course, actions can have unforeseen consequences. In Iran, public anger grew at the Shah’s increasingly autocratic rule, culminating in the 1979 revolution and the establishment of a regime led by Islamic fanatics. Not surprisingly, the new rulers—and much of the population—blamed the United States for the coup against Mossadeq and its coziness with the Shah. This, in turn, led to the ensuing hostage crisis and to the onset of a very hostile relationship between the Iranian and U.S. governments.
And there was worse to come. Terrified by the rise of Islamic fundamentalism on their southern border, Soviet leaders became obsessed with fundamentalist revolt in Afghanistan and began pouring troops into that strife-torn land. This was the signal for the U.S. government to back an anti-Soviet, fundamentalist jihad in Afghanistan, thus facilitating the growth of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, who eventually turned their weapons on the United States.
Furthermore, as part of its anti-Iran strategy, the U.S. government grew increasingly chummy with Iran’s arch foe, Iraq. As Saddam Hussein seemed a particularly useful ally, Washington provided him with military intelligence and the helicopters that he used to spray poison gas on Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq War. Might not such a friendship, cemented with a handshake by Donald Rumsfeld, have emboldened Saddam Hussein to act more freely in the region in subsequent years? It certainly didn’t improve U.S. relations with Iran, which today is headed by a deplorable government that—consumed by fear and loathing of the United States—might be developing nuclear weapons.
At this point, we might well wonder if it was such a good idea to overthrow a democratic, secular nationalist like Mossadeq to preserve the profits of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now renamed BP). Indeed, given the sordid record of BP and other giant oil companies, we might wonder why we tolerate them at all.
Dr. Lawrence S. Wittner is Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany. His latest book is Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement (Stanford University Press).
@Kooshy
One of the most important things that most supporters of his late majesty and the well-informed (!!!) greens tend to forget, is what you very cleverly did not forget and mentioned at the end of your previous post:
After years of bowing to USA and the West, Turkey, has benefited so much (!!) from the shameful foreign policy of being the servants of the west, that right now, the moment any leader wants to score a few points in the Turkish publics eyes, attacks US/Israel and distances himself from them. The situation is so serious that a BBC poll showed that Turkey has the highest Anti-American sentiment in the entire world (even worse than Palestine and Pakistan!).
I wonder if the fact that just recently (a couple of years ago perhaps) an entire turkish village (in the Western Turkey where people are relatively well-off) had to sell one of their kidneies to pay their debts, has anything to do with hating the pro-US foreign policies. After all it was the economic “benefits” of that alliance which has brought down Turkey to a level where people have to sell their kidneies to be able to make the ends meet!
By the way since all economists in the Iranian government think of Turkey as an economic model, it should be mentioned that more than half of that country relies on less than 9% of the GDP! In Turkey 8.9% of the GDP is from the traditional agriculture while 27.3% of the employment is from the very same sector. One can easily do the math, since families working in the agriculture tend to have much larger families in Turkey, 27.3% of the employment translates to the majority of the population.
Pirouz_2
“But unfortunately those “leftists” are too blind to see that Saddam with the help of “aliens from Mars” attacked Iran and again by the chemical weapons which aliens from Mars provided him he poisoned us! So all those “lizard eating” disgusting Arabs are the ones who are to be blamed!!”
You are exactly right; did you notice that his majesty’s envoy to the civilized world completely ignored the reason for Iran-Iraq war since it did not fit her foreign policy criteria? How Bob Gates described Russian foreign policy “schizophrenic” it also fits her.
@Kooshy:
“Ms. Hunter hasn’t grew out of Iran’s shah era foreign policy, if that is considered realist we then must be still living in 1970’s and unlike what she suggest in a semi unipolar world, by firmly advocating Iran’s support for Israel is more broadly beneficial for Iran’s interest then support for a unified Islam it suggest to me that she has spent too many years out of Iran and the region, does she understand why turkey is distancing herself from siding on Israel side?”
An excellent comment. I agree with you completely.
I think the most important question here is this: Should Iran choose a path of anti-imperialist struggle as in the time of Mosaddegh, should it submit to the Western desires as Mrs. Hunter suggests? Did Mosaddegh face any less trouble when he fought against the Imperialism?
Ah…now I get it: Mosaddegh was just like the worst time of Ghajar dynasty too. Thank god his majesty in his infinite wisdom kissed the US/UK feet and when they made a coup d’etat he was able to save us from those disasterous foreign policies.
Anyway, Mrs. Hunter’s remarks are racist to begin with, and -I hope people will forgive my language- quite a bit ignorant: a large part of Arabs in the middle east are Shiite and they even look up to Iran (right or wrong, I am a secular person but that is not the issue here). Our competitors in this region are not those “camel milk drinking”, “lizzard eating”, disgusting “Arabs”. Like us, they too have been the victim of the Western imperialism for the past 100 years (although we were victims of the West for a longer time!). Like us, they too are carrying the legacy of “colonialism” (Iran was never an official colony, but for all intents and purposes it was de facto a colony until 1979 -with the short lived exceptions of the constitutional era and the time of Mosaddegh), and they too are suffering from the curse of the “black gold”.
It could very clearly be seen that she is his late majesty’s diplomat and is on the same level as the greens who are ready to jump into bed with Israel (after all, those innocent Israelies too, like us, are singled out and “threatened” for their endangered “race” and “language”), sacrifice our single most important ally (Hezballah) and bow down to USA but when it comes to the language of the fish of the southern seas we must declare war -if necessary- to make those lousy Arabs call it “Persian gulf” so that all the sharks in the Persian gulf start talking “Persian” instead of that disgusting Arabic! And of course the rulers of the “PERSIAN” gulf will be the 6th fleet of the USA!!
Not to mention that we should give up the likes of Bahrain if the Master orders so(just as his majesty in his infinite wisdom did it)! That is just to serve our national interests! Give up Bahrain but instead call the body of water that it resides in as PERSIAN GULF! BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!! Very clever and nationalistic foreign policy indeed!!
But unfortunately those “leftists” are too blind to see that Saddam with the help of “aliens from Mars” attacked Iran and again by the chemical weapons which aliens from Mars provided him he poisoned us! So all those “lizard eating” disgusting Arabs are the ones who are to be blamed!!
Mirror, mirror, who is ugliest one?
German Chancellor, Angela Markel, who never waste an opportunity to blame Tehran for the suppression of freedom of choice – cannot handle a similar “freedom” in her own backyard. Her government has suspended a lawmaker for calling Israel “Stop cooperation with the state of Jewish scoundrel” in parliament. Holger Apfel, also demanded that Markel’s government: “Don’t give in to the thriving holocaust industry”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/german-lawmaker-israel-is-jewish-terrorist-state/
Can President Obama change a US political culture bred in Soviet cold war period? We dictated two positions on the political spectrum: “either you are with us, or you are against us”. President Obama from start had to make that distinction among nations. Our foreign policy would not allow non-compliance of other nations with our dictates on any issue. This is well depicted to our response to Brazil and Turkey approach to independent foreign policies in regard to Iranian Fuel Cycle. We still remember French Fries being renamed Freedom Fries. USA has international interests and her foreign policy is to force those interests. Any other independent position is not acceptable.
It does not make any difference who governs Iran and state of democracy in the country; the objectives have been to keep Iran subservient to USA and a satellite nation. Iranian nuclear fuel cycle is not in violation of the International Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, but I think the insubordination of the Iranian governments has irked the US and English administrations. USA faced the same problems with Iran in short period before 1953; Iranian people wanted to think for themselves and a small branch of democracy was pushing through the burdens of many years of being remotely governed by England, Russia and later by USA.
What are the interests of Iranian people? I think they should desire the same thing as any other sovereign nation, freedom from foreign intervention and national security.
Ms. Hunter hasn’t grew out of Iran’s shah era foreign policy, if that is considered realist we then must be still living in 1970’s and unlike what she suggest in a semi unipolar world, by firmly advocating Iran’s support for Israel is more broadly beneficial for Iran’s interest then support for a unified Islam it suggest to me that she has spent too many years out of Iran and the region, does she understand why turkey is distancing herself from siding on Israel side?
Israel does not want to attack Iran. It never did. It wants the US to attack Iran. As the Leveretts established, Israel initially wanted the US to attack Iran, not Iraq. Only when Israel was assured that “Iran would be next” did they come on board for the Iraq war.
Cheney got them $30 billion worth of arms sales as a bribe to attack Iran, because he couldn’t get the Pentagon and Bush to go along with it. But the Israelis just took the money and continued to demand that the US do the attack.
Now Israel is upset because Obama is dithering about and isn’t willing to attack Iran, bogged down as he is in Afghanistan because of his incompetence, until he has no other option. Unfortunately, Obama’s policies, again as the Leveretts have argued, will eventually end up at that exact point. Either that, or he will fob off the problem on the next administration – and if that administration is Republican, war is guaranteed.
Ahmed, try again, this discussion is not to be missed.
Shireen is a powerful thinker who evidences passion for a strong Iran to claim its place in the world. Her analysis of the impact of the breakup of USSR was brilliant. She is also stubborn and arrogant, also qualities that command my admiration!
However, Dr. Hunter is internally conflicted in her positions that “Iran/nationalism trumps Islam” juxtaposed against, “Iran is alone in the region.” It is my understanding that Khomeini sought to exploit Islam as a unifying force — a way to bring together Egypt, the Arab states, Syria-Jordan-Lebanon, AND Iran — around the common bond of Islam. These are all states whose quest for nationhood in the post-WWII world had been denied to them by the establishment of Israel, and by the US’s at first reluctant, later full-throated and unbalanced support for/use of Israel as a lever to further deny the Islamic states realization of their national ambitions. Shireen Hunter does not seem to recognize the dissonance of holding those two positions.
Until Khomeini, Israel employed the ‘periphery doctrine’ — a combination of befriending and dividing its neighbors in order to ensure Israel’s security. Pahlavi Iran was Israel’s ‘friend’ until young Iranians who took over the American Embassy “wove together” proof that Israel and the US had been systematically looting and abusing the Iranian people. (see Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men)
I also disagree with Shireen Hunter’s emotion-based sympathy for Israel. I believe she’s looking at the picture of Dorian Gray that’s on display in the museum (Yad Vashem?), but she is not coolly and objectively applying the “discipline of foreign policy and diplomacy” to the task of assessing the true character of militant zionism that is a blemish on the face of Judaism, on peace in the region, and on the US. On that score, I believe the audience member with whom Hunter grew impatient had worthwhile things to say.
Shireen appears to be related to the “realist” school of foreign policy, applying it to Iran. IOW, Iran needs to be realistic about its capacity to compete with the US – and to a lesser degree, Israel, because of Israel’s US backing – in the Middle East.
This is a reasonable position. The only problem is the usual one that the end result will be the US and Israel continues to bleed the Middle East, and nobody can do anything about it.
Shireen’s suggestion that Iran support a two-state solution is completely wrong. A two-state solution to the Palestinian problem is both a non-starter for Israel (unless extremely pressured by the US – which isn’t going to happen) and will never work because of the fundamental problem that Israeli Zionism (as well as Hamas fundamentalism) will still be in place after the Palestinian “state” (however weak and impoverished) is established.
As I’ve said before, five minutes after the Palestinian “state” is created, some Islamic militant will launch a rocket at Israel. Israel will use that as the excuse to literally DESTROY the Palestinians, and get away with it because it’s “war between two states”, not Israel behaving badly as an occupying power.
Until you sideline the Zionist fanatics in Israel, and the Islamic fundamentalists in the Palestinian community, there can be no peace. And the ONLY way to do that is to de-legitimize the Israeli state, form a new bi-national state, sidelining the hardliners on both sides by means of a constitution created by persons outside the hardliner camp and elections which sideline the hardliners, and force the average Palestinian and the average Israeli to deal with each other as a fait accompli.
The alternative is going to be either a genocidal or ethnic cleansing of Palestinians – or somebody nuking Tel Aviv with one of Israel’s own nukes. Take your pick.
A better solution is for the US to support the disarming of Israel’s nuclear arsenal, support a bi-national solution, and engaging Iran fully using these moves as a credible indication that the US is serious about normalizing relations with Iran.
Not that I think ANY of this has the remotest chance of happening. Which means the situation will only get worse. There absolutely is NO chance of a solution based on current policies on all sides. The only guaranteed result over the new few years will be a war with Iran and continued wars between Israel and Lebanon and the Palestinians and continued terrorism everywhere else sparked by the US unconditional support for Israel and continued pointless hostility toward Iran.
Rehmat,
The bungled Israel interception of the convoy seems to be resulting in at least a lessening of the severity of the foolish Israeli blockade of Gaza.
There have been several reports in Spiegel online recently that cannot have caused much pleasure to the Israeli government.
I think it is rather unlikely that Israel would attack Iran without advance approval from the US. And that advance approval is very unlikely to be forthcoming, unless Iran makes some unwise decisions.
Shireen Hunter states that in the Islamic world ethnicity always trumps Islam (1 hr, 2min). Is that true? It leads directly to her conservative position that only acceptance of American hegemony is possible or wise, as no forceful pan-Islamic alliance is possible.
How can Iran or Hams trust the leaders of the Zionist entity who never had the slightest shame to keep repeating their lies?
The latest come from Israeli Trade Minister, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, in an interview conducted by Christoph Schult of the pro-Israel German newspaper, Spiegel Online, June 21, 2010, said: “We walked into a trap. The so-called “peace flotilla” was a planned provocation by mercenaries of the “axis of evil”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/ben-eliezer-israel-walked-into-a-trap/
Bravo! Yes, UN 242 is the basis for resolving the Israel/Palestine problem. Israel gets out of the West Bank entirely. And out of the Golan Heights. Iran can support this programme, as consistent with the best interests of the Palestinians.
It’s a shame the stream isnt working for me.