Russian President Dmitry Medvedev meets today with President Obama in the Oval Office, in advance of the two leaders’ participation in the G7/8 and G20 summits in Canada this coming weekend. Iran will undoubtedly be an important topic on the agenda for Medvedev’s meeting with Obama. Last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates described Russian policy toward Iran as “schizophrenic” (see, here). As we noted then, rather than describing Russia’s Iran policy as “schizophrenic”, we see Russia’s Iran policy as an ongoing attempt by decision-makers in Moscow to balance among multiple interests vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic. But the way in which Russia strikes this balance has shifted in some significant ways over the last year or so. As a result, Iranian policymakers and analysts are re-evaluating the benefits and difficulties of the Islamic Republic’s relationship with Russia. All of this reinforces the enormous strategic opportunity that the United States has vis-à-vis Iran—but, unfortunately, there is no evidence that the Obama Administration understands this or is prepared to act on it.
Russia’s Iran policy
Since the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union, the Islamic Republic has worked hard to cultivate a strategic partnership with post-Soviet Russia. Of course, for many Iranians, there is heavy historical “baggage” attached to relations with Russia/the Soviet Union. But, from an Iranian perspective, Russia is the “great power” that has been most intent on finding ways to counter-balance American hegemony in the post-Cold War world—an important strategic consideration given ongoing U.S. hostility toward the Islamic Republic.
From a Russian perspective, Iran has been a market for sales of conventional weaponry (though never as large as some other markets for Russian arms, such as China and India) and civil nuclear technology (epitomized in Russia’s role at Bushehr). Iran has also been a constructive partner for Russia on regional security issues in Central and South Asia, taking what could be described as “pro-Russian” positions on a number of regional conflicts (e.g., Tajikistan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Chechnya, and Afghanistan) since the early days of the post-Cold War period.
In addition, Russia has sought to present itself as a potential partner in the development of Iran’s energy resources. In 1997, Russia’s state-owned Gazprom became one of the first foreign energy companies to invest in the development of the massive South Pars gas field (in a joint venture with Total and Petronas). After Vladimir Putin became President of the Russian Federation in 2001, Gazprom and the Islamic Republic’s Ministry of Petroleum formed a joint committee to “coordinate” Iranian gas exports with Russia. The Russian government provided early political support for a planned gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan and India, while Gazprom offered technical support and even indicated its willingness to help finance the project.
Just a few years ago, Iranian-Russian relations seemed to be headed toward even closer strategic cooperation. (For example, in what seemed at the time an important symbolic statement, in 2007 Putin became the first non-Muslim head of state or government to be received by the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.) But, since Dmitry Medvedev replaced Putin as President of the Russian Federation in 2008 (with Putin becoming Prime Minister), the limits on Russia’s willingness to act in strategic partnership with the Islamic Republic have become increasingly apparent.
It has become clear, for example, that Moscow’s willingness to support Iran’s emergence as a gas exporter is ultimately conditioned by Russia’s own position as the world’s leading producer and exporter of natural gas—a position which, among other things, gives Russia an especially strong interest in forestalling direct competition with prospective Iranian gas exports to European energy markets, where Gazprom is established as the leading foreign gas supplier.
More broadly, Moscow’s still compelling need to balance its interest in closer ties to Tehran against other important foreign policy interests—including relations with Washington—has regularly frustrated Iranian efforts to maximize the strategic and economic gains from cooperation with Russia. Over the last 20 years, Russia has been willing on a number of occasions to curtail its arms exports to Iran in exchange for concessions from the United States. Likewise, in response to American pressure/blandishments, Russia stepped back from commitments to provide the Islamic Republic with uranium enrichment and reprocessing technologies.
Russia’s foreign policy “balancing act” is also reflected in its approach to the Iranian nuclear issue. Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Russian leaders have been intent on constraining a unilateral resort to force against Iranian nuclear targets by the United States (or Israel). To this end, Moscow has a strong interest in keeping the Iranian nuclear issue in the United Nations Security Council—where Russia, as a permanent member, has considerable influence—rather than having the United States deal with the issue primarily through an ad hoc “coalition of the willing” or “coalition of the like-minded” that would almost certainly not include Russia. For this reason, Moscow has never been prepared to use its veto to give Iran “blanket” protection from Security Council sanctions. Instead, on four occasions—most recently this month—Russia has supported resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, while also working diplomatically to water down the measures actually authorized and ensure that nothing in these resolutions could be plausibly construed by Washington as authorizing the use of force.
In this regard, it seems doubtful that Russia genuinely wants to see a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear issue, which would almost certainly go hand in hand with a substantial measure of U.S.-Iranian rapprochement. While Russia clearly opposes U.S. (or Israeli) military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets, Moscow has never pushed Washington to offer Tehran more fulsome security guarantees or other strategic incentives that could facilitate productive nuclear discussions—even though Russian diplomats believe that such offers are essential for diplomatic progress. As Russian diplomats have explained to us, Washington’s failure to pursue effective diplomacy with Tehran creates a “workable paradigm” for Russia: the United States may engage just enough to forestall a destabilizing military confrontation with Iran, but not enough to achieve real rapprochement—which could, among other things, undermine Moscow’s strategic value to Tehran and unleash Iranian gas to compete directly with Russian gas exports, in Europe and elsewhere.
To the extent that Moscow has proposed specific solutions to the nuclear issue since 2003, these solutions have emphasized Iranian participation in multilateral fuel-cycle centers—centers that would be based, conveniently enough, in Russia. Russia’s support for the October 2009 “Baradei” proposal regarding international arrangements to refuel the Tehran Research Reactor was similarly self-serving: the proposal would have given Russia an enhanced role in providing “value-added” nuclear products while simultaneously circumscribing the development of Iran’s indigenous fuel-cycle capabilities.
Re-evaluating Iran’s approach to Russia
Iranian policymakers and analysts are, of course, well aware of these dynamics. A number of recent developments in Russia’s Iran policy—e.g., Moscow’s willingness to move ahead with a fourth round of UN sanctions against Iran even after Brazil and Turkey had brokered a similar fuel-swap deal in Tehran, Russian officials’ vacillation on the prospective transfer of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, etc.—appear to be prompting a re-evaluation of the Islamic Republic’s posture toward Russia.
In this regard, we were struck by a recent interview on Iranian-Russian relations with Kayhan Barzegar, as reported in several Iranian news outlets; see here, here, and here. Kayhan is a brilliant scholar and foreign policy analyst who is currently on the faculty at Iran’s Islamic Azad University; he is also a senior research fellow at the Center for Strategic Research and the Center for Middle East Strategic Studies (both in Tehran) and maintains an affiliation with the Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. (We have previously highlighted some of Kayhan’s work on the nuclear issue, see here and on Iranian views of the regional balance of power in the Middle East and Persian Gulf, see here on www.TheRaceForIran.com.) Kayhan’s observations about Iranian-Russian relations are certainly worthy of consideration on their own merits, but they may also offer a window into current discussions and thinking about Russia in Iranian foreign policy circles.
Kayhan focuses on the different perspectives of President Medvedev and his advisers, on the one hand, and elements in Russia’s national security apparatus (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Defense, the National Security Council) and Putin, on the other, regarding relations with Iran. In his view, Medvedev and elites around him believe that an essential condition for maintaining power is the success of Russia’s economy. This requires closer relations with the United States and the West, which incentivizes Russian leaders to accept at least some of the demands that Washington and its allies have put to Moscow, including with regard to Iran’s nuclear program. By drawing closer to the West, these leaders can improve Russia’s “economic and strategic reach” to the world.
This line of analysis certainly seems plausible, particularly in the wake of the global financial crisis. Just this week, Igor Sechin—Putin’s former right-hand man at the Kremlin, chairman of Rosneft, and a leading figure among the siloviki (former Soviet intelligence officers who assumed a dominant role in the reassertion of state influence over Russia’s economy during Putin’s presidency) told The Financial Times that “the [global financial] crisis exposed the vulnerabilities of the Russian economy in its dependence on certain types of raw materials. This cannot help but concern us”.
Last month, we met with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov—a close Putin ally—during his visit to Washington; among other things, Ivanov was clearly pleased by the Obama Administration’s decision to revive the “123” nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia, which could set up Russia for significant new international business opportunities in the civil nuclear arena. (This agreement had been concluded while George W. Bush was in the White House, but then mothballed after Russia sent troops into Georgia.)
In a special supplement to The Washington Post prepared by Rossiyskaya Gazeta and published today, the strategic context for Medvedev’s trip to the United States this week is described very candidly:
“It is unusual for Medvedev to make the nation’s capital his second stop on a trip. His first stop this week is San Francisco, and more precisely, Silicon Valley. Medvedev is to meet with leading American entrepreneurs interested in opening or expanding business with Russia. And for the first time in this relationship, we may see a focus on technological cooperation rather than investment in oil and gas. His travel plans reflect the essence of his main agenda, namely innovative and technological breakthroughs for the Russian economy and reduced dependence on fossil fuel, in order to catch up with the developed world.
There are no significant obstacles for such an agenda. First, the current U.S. administration declares a “pragmatic” approach in world affairs. This means it is no longer a priority to irritate Moscow over sensitive issues, such as human rights or democratic values, which were among the favorite topics of the previous administration. Second, Obama’s administration pays less attention to the post-Soviet neighbors…A change in focus on these issues has helped the United States create a more workable relationship with Russia and eliminate the excessive passion that characterized the previous decade…the greatest evidence for this approach was demonstrated very recently when the United Nations Security Council voted for a new resolution enacting tougher sanctions against Iran, which the United States had long discussed with China and Russia. Russia may now expect something in return and, considering Medvedev’s agenda, this might be an appeal for better economic cooperation, particularly in technologies.”
So, for the time being, Russia seems to need the United States more, and—given that “the Obama administration pays less attention to the post-Soviet neighbors”—to need Iran a little bit less. Of course, Russia retains a significant interest in preserving cooperative ties to Iran. Iranian diplomats have said that, after a public exchange of critical remarks by senior Russian and Iranian officials in May 2010, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, took a conciliatory tone in a telephone conversation with his Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki. Putin and other Russian officials have also publicly reaffirmed Russia’s commitment to bring the Bushehr nuclear power plant on line later this year.
Likewise, the Islamic Republic retains an interest in preserving the most productive relationship with Russia that it can. As Barzegar points out, there is still a “logic” of “mutual need” between the two countries. Russia remains an important strategic actor and a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power; moreover, Iran has a continued interest in cooperation with Russia on nuclear energy and access to advanced defensive weapons. In this regard, an Iranian parliamentarian who sits on the majlis’s national security committee said earlier this week that “Russia and China actually voted (for the sanctions) out of empathy…Foreign Ministry officials have talked with Russian officials and believe that these two countries voted (in this manner) to prevent more severe action against Iran”. (In the immediate aftermath of the sanctions vote, some parliamentarians had called for a reassessment of Iranian relations with Russia and China; it would seem that these calls are being decisively rebutted.)
But the structural limits of Russian willingness to cooperate strategically with Iran have been underscored. As Barzegar notes, the interest of much of the Russian elite in establishing a truly independent national strategy and global position for Russia is a “long-term” goal. Barzegar also notes that Russia—like the other veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council—felt “threatened” by the Joint Declaration which Brazil and Turkey negotiated with Iran last month. This is an extremely important observation, in our view.
Russia’s willingness to move ahead in the Security Council with sanctions reflected, at least in part, its interests in defending what Russian elites see as their country’s “great power” prerogatives. Russian officials were uncomfortable with the Iran-Turkey-Brazil deal not on substantive terms, but because the Joint Declaration represented a potential weakening of the political monopoly that the recognized nuclear weapons states—which also happen to be the five permanent members of the Security Council—exercise with regard to what are described in the United Nations Charter as matters of “international peace and security”.
The Russian position on the nuclear issue underscores a bigger reality: Moscow is fundamentally uneasy about the Islamic Republic’s emergence as a genuine regional power on the borders of the Russian Federation and other parts of what Russian officials still describe as the “post-Soviet space”. Gates’ claim that Putin, while still President of the Russian Federation, told him that Iran is the single biggest security threat facing Russia—even if accurately reported—surely reflects a deliberate exaggeration on Putin’s part. Nevertheless, both Putin and Medvedev seem to like having the Islamic Republic kept “in a box”.
Because of these constraints, Barzegar argues that Russia (and China) are, at best, “short term solutions” for Iran, because these countries accept the rules and order of the existing international system, which largely benefit American interests. (For a fuller statement of Barzegar’s views on China, see here.
While we believe that China is becoming, over time, a more substantial strategic option for the Islamic Republic (certainly more substantial than Russia), Kayhan’s argument reinforces an important theme in our analysis: a critical mass of Iranian political and policymaking elites, cutting across the Islamic Republic’s factional spectrum, continues to recognize that their country has basic national security and foreign policy needs which can only be met—or, only optimally met—through rapprochement with the United States.
To be sure, Iranian leaders (including the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei) evidence deep skepticism about U.S. intentions regarding the Islamic Republic—an understandable posture, given the history of U.S. policy toward Iran and Tehran’s frustrating experience with attempts at outreach to the United States. Political and policymaking elites in Washington who insist that it is incumbent on Iranian leaders to make, up front, substantial concessions addressing U.S. concerns in order to demonstrate their bona fides about engagement will not accomplish anything positive through such insistence. (Given the historical track record and the imbalance in military capabilities between Iran and the United States, Iranian leaders need to know, up front, that Washington is serious about a genuine realignment of U.S.-Iranian relations, and is prepared to treat the Islamic Republic with respect as a fully sovereign state.)
As President Medvedev arrives in Washington, it would be a waste for the Obama Administration to view the difficulties in Iranian-Russian relations primarily as an opening to bargain for a few more tactical concessions from Moscow on Iran-related issues. Instead, President Obama and his senior advisers should view these difficulties as further confirmation of the real strategic opportunity that rapprochement with the Islamic Republic would represent for the United States.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Medvedev is worried by what the head of the CIA has said regarding Iran..!
Well now that 10 of his spies have been caught in America, lets see what he comes out with now…..I imagine, he will be talking about the importance of the SCO, Russia’s relations with BRIC coutnries, how important Russias relations is with Iran etc.
These guys are really pathetic to say the least….
Paul,
Didn’t the G-8 issue a statement underlining the desire to achieve a diplomtic resolution of the dispute regarding Iran’s nuclear programme? The statement said that obtaining sufficient transparency was the essential element. (Or words to this effect.)
to help the UK disable exocets, not US
G-8 comments about Iran underline that Iran has well and truly been thrown under the bus by Russia and China, and can expect to be attacked soon. Iran needs to recognize that its Chinese sunburn missiles will be useless when the war starts, as China will have given Obama kill signals for those missiles, much as France did to help the US disable Argentinian exocets.
There is going to be an absolute slaughter in Iran, and that is something every human being on earth will have to bear in our consciences the rest of our lives. Nearly all of us stood by and let this evil happen. A country was crushed for no reason other than that it suited the narcissism of the ‘Great Powers’, led by the Hegemon.
i don’t know how the leveretts find out that the green movement isn’t the future in iran?they are not here in iran and they don’t know the situation.where do they receive their information?from where?they are wrong.maybe the government could handle the protests for a short time,but people are tired from this dictatorship.you should reconsider your opinions about iran and especially the people of iran.i think you dont know them.
irshad,
I of course agree with you that Iran and the US are natural allies, and that the impediment is mostly due to Israel.
Russia could not prevent the bombing of Serbia, realistically. The Russian punishment of Georgian, and its preventing a Georgian military resolution of the separatist problem in South Ossetia, owed a good deal to Russian resentment of the “west’s” prevention of a Serbian military resolution (or attemted resolution) of the separatist problem in its Muslim south.
Iran and the USA are natural allies and friends. As far as I can see, Irans real historical grievances lay with Britain and Russia. With the USA, if only both sides can sit down and talk, they can find a solution.
The only stumbling block I see to this is, Israel. Obama and co. must understand that to Iranian leaders, Israel, apart from occupying Arab lands and killing Palestinians, was a major supporter of the Shah and also trained SAVAK. These SAVAK agents in turned tortured current members of the Iranian leadership and killed others who supported Khomeini. This is a very important aspect that the US must understand and realise that its emotionally attached to the psyche of these leaders and families.
America must take a more critical look at the role of Israel, from its support of te Shah and the Savak, to its treatment of the Palestinians, its relationship with aparthies Africa, its stealing of nuclear materials and subsequent production and storage of nuclear weapons.
In regards to Russia – they entertain Nato and US when the they both are meeting eye to eye on issues, but when US or Nato do something that Russia deems a antional security issue, they revert back to entertaining the Shaghai Cooperation Organisation – SCO, the CSTO countries, make noises with Iran and Syria, etc. Russia is not an reliable ally – they allowed Serbia to get bombed – which was a fellow Slavic, Orthodox Christian country – so lets forget about Iran.
Russia has a contradictory approach about Iran and USA. Basically Russia gets its power as the result of these equivocal policies about West and East. This is a fact that Russia pursues its interests and always shows a pragmatic approach in its foreign policy. Furthermore relations between Iran and Russia give rise to diminishing Iran’s relations with USA and west.
As Dr. Kayhan Barzegar said in his recent articles, China and Russia are short-term solutions for Iran. Iran and USA must negotiate directly, and use Russia as the means for advancing their relations, but they don’t let it orient this process.
DWZ,
Iran’s policy is not to have foreign military bases on Iranian soil.
The chances of Nato taking Ukraine and Georgia into its membership in the next few years is zero.
DON’T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO RUSSIAN LIES. All IRANISNS KNOW HOW RUSSIANS PLAY THEIR GAVE AND THEY DON’T GIVE A DAMN TO WHAT RUSSIA SAYS.
RUSSIA IS STAUNCH ENEMY OF IRAN AND MUST BE TREATED AS SUCH BY THE IRANIAN. WE ARE WAITING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT THE KNIFE ON RUSSIA’S BACK AS THEY DID TO US. WE NEVER FORGET, EVER FORGIVE OUR ENEMIES.
Russia has robbed Iran but has not delivered yet and is going to continue to play game with Iran and will not going to deliver Bushehr reactor where should have completed 11 years ago. Russia has no credibility among Iranians. They have their fucking eyes on Iran’s integrity, like the United States, to establish bases in Iran.
Radzhab Safarov exposed Russian’s intention clearly when he wrote:
{New allied relations may result in the deployment of at least two military bases in strategic regions of Iran. One military base could be deployed in the north of the country in the Iranian province of Eastern Azerbaijan and the other one in the south, on the Island of Qeshm in the Persian Gulf. Due to the base in Iran’s Eastern Azerbaijan Russia would be able to monitor military activities in the Republic of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey and share this information with Iran.}
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10032
We tell Russians go to hell. Dr. Ahmadinejad must throw Russians out of Iran NOW not later.
The Russian ambassador to the EU today said that the additional US sanctions against Iran, going beyond what was approved at the UN, are foolish and counter-productive. Or words to that effect.
Sorry: I meant Eric A. Brill
Eric A. Brick:
The reason we laugh at Debak disinformation because Osama Bin Laden IS DEAD. I have provided the proof, Bhotto video, that OSAMA WAS KILLED BY SHAYKH OMAR in 2001.
Bin Laden is not alive to be in Iran or any other places except, I’m sure, in the freezer to be displayed at the right time to fool more people that Osama finally was put to rest in an *shooting* circus to serve ‘justice’, American style.
Furthermore, Al Qaeda (the base) does not exist because is CIA construct and lives only in their mind to cover CIA terrorist activities and make phony ‘Al Qaeda’ responsible for it.
Many people including Robin Cook exposed this open secret. He said:
{The truth is there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qa
eda. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But, there is propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US….} Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook.
The historians have the same view.
R.T. Naylor said:
There really is no relationship between Al Queda and the Afghan opium trade. That is because Al Queda itself does not exist, except in the fevered imaginations of neo-cons and Likudniks, some of whom, I suspect, also know it is a myth, but find it extremely useful as a bogeyman to spook the public and the politicians to acquiesce in otherwise unacceptable policy initiatives at home and abroad.
http://www.counterpunch.org/schaefer06212003.html
I stand corrected on the second DEBKA story I mentioned above (the US Navy having confirmed that the USS Harry Truman indeed passed through the Suez Canal). Apparently the huge ship hangs over the sides of the Canal at its narrow points.
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=54194
Though this adds no credibility to the Bin Laden sighting story, it’s fair to point out that DEBKA got this one right (though its claim to “exclusivity” remains false: the information traces back to the same source as others who reported the news – an earlier Al Quds Al Arabi newspaper story).
James Canning:
I do agree with you 100 percent. Thank you
Richard Steven Hack:
{I have seen ZERO evidence that they have any desire to harm Iran or Iran’s people.}
Did I say that Leverett want to harm Iran? Of course not.
My point is to those Iranians who might view Leveretts ‘analysis is free of bias. When Leveretts look at political development from US interest only, then it must be viewed bias from Iranians interest. Don’t forget that US policy is hegemonic and from imperialistic.
For example, posting the article of Mark Fitzpatrick, invitation of Shireen Hunter, a racist who thinks as Iran’s ally is a liability but Iran as a Zionist puppet is an asset. She also considers herself as a ‘realist’. This way of thinking has no place within Iranian society today. Shireen Hunter’s point of view will be taken well by Michael Ledeen.
{In every scenario, he ends up having either to start a war with Iran or fobbing off the matter to his successor. There is no third option that he’s likely to take to defuse the crisis. So giving him a pass on the matter of Iran, as virtually everybody seems to want to do, is nothing to the purpose.}
I can’t agree more. That’s why no one is going to be fooled by Obama’s rhetoric except ignorants
Now don’t get me started on “entertaining” DEBKA stories – but I can’t resist passing on one more:
“Eleven US warships, one Israeli vessel transit Suez Canal to Persian Gulf”
http://www.debka.com/article/8862/
Lest anyone think the US is not in serious attack mode here, the story includes a photo of the American aircraft carrier USS Truman – which must have found the Suez Canal a very tight squeeze indeed, since it is more than 50 feet wider than the Canal’s narrowest point.
Do not underestimate the entertainment value of DEBKA stories, but don’t overestimate them by taking them seriously.
Fiorangela, DWZ and others:
“[DEBKA] is slightly different from the sensationalist tabloid that Eric compares it to.”
Only if you take DEBKA seriously. Otherwise not. I read National Enquirer only while waiting in supermarket checkout lines, and devote equally little time to DEBKA. I read both for the same reason: entertainment. I don’t take either one seriously.
Consider this DEBKA story cited by Fiorangela (http://www.debka.com/article/8841/). By the end of the first sentence, we already have two different spellings for Osama’s “secret hideout” town. In the next sentence, we learn that the sneaky Arab has been hanging out in this 250,000-resident Iranian city for five years, along with all of his top Arab cronies, and in the sentence after that, we learn that Turkish PM Erdogan knows this but has not seen fit to tell the US. As if this isn’t shocking enough, we soon learn that this city is “connected by road to Tehran and Mashhad.” This can only mean one thing, of course: Osama motors into Tehran for weekend barbecues with Ahmadinejad and Khamenei – probably with Erdogan, maybe even Lula and the other boys from Brazil. Finally, we learn that “senior al Qaeda operatives living in Iran had been allowed to leave the country through Syria to orchestrate terrorist attacks on American targets.” As is also typical in stories describing the shipment of Iranian arms to Hezbollah terrorists in Syria and Lebanon, the writer neglects to mention that Iran does not border Syria, and thus does not explain whether these senior operatives get to Syria by way of Turkey or Iraq, nor what mode of transport they use for this exceedingly perilous journey. (Maybe they ride along in Erdogan’s limo, but this is only a guess.)
How can you possibly take this seriously? Clumsy fabrications from obviously biased sources are entertaining, plain and simple. I recognize you might be concerned that other readers take such drivel seriously, and undoubtedly you’re right. But your much bigger worry on that score should be stories put out by “respectable” publications that are far more widely read, less obviously fabricated, and therefore accepted as true by a much larger group of intelligent readers.
DEBKA is just for laughs.
paul,
The stupidity of the US Congress, in its approach toward relations with Iran, tends to entrench the current government. “Regime change” is utter fantasy.
DWZ,
One needs to bear in mind that the US Congress is packed with hundreds of stooges of the Israel lobby. And that more than half of campaign finance, for Democrats, comes from Jews.
Back in the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson refused to back the British effort to get Israel out of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Sinai, because Jewish financiers threatened to derail his idiotic military adventure in Southeast Asia.
DWZ,
I completely agree with you that Obama has done nothing to advance the agenda of a Middle East free of nukes, and I was taking pains to point out that at least he did not block that movement in the UN.
I think Dennis Ross is far more dangerous to the peace of the Middle East, than Joe Biden. Ross is a fanatical “supporter” of Israel, ready to deceive the American public for that purpose. I think Biden actually has the best interests of the American people at heart.
“No one for a second should think Levereretts are protecting Iran’s interest. They see and analysis the political development based on US INTEREST, period.”
This is called “realist foreign policy”. Of course they do not have Iran’s interests primarily at heart. However, I have seen ZERO evidence that they have any desire to harm Iran or Iran’s people. So your criticism is misplaced.
As for Obama supporting a nuke free zone in the ME, please. This was a slight jab at the Israelis as a suggestion to tone down the anti-flotilla lies, nothing more. Obama may want a nuke free zone, but he would never dare to bring up the Israeli nuclear arsenal himself, even if he thought he should, which I doubt. He’d be crucified in the Congress and the press.
It’s difficult to tell whether Obama is just clueless about foreign policy and military matters, or whether he has been brainwashed by the pro-Zionist/pro-war advisers he has surrounding him (Clinton, Biden, Emmanuel, Ross), or whether he really believes what he’s doing. It doesn’t matter. In every scenario, he ends up having either to start a war with Iran or fobbing off the matter to his successor. There is no third option that he’s likely to take to defuse the crisis. So giving him a pass on the matter of Iran, as virtually everybody seems to want to do, is nothing to the purpose. He was either stupid enough or railroaded enough to double down on a failed strategy in Afghanistan, and he’s stupid enough to continue pursuing Iran despite the UTTER lack of evidence of ANY Iranian nuclear weapons program, so we HAVE to assume he’s stupid enough or railroaded enough to start a war with Iran if his ridiculous “diplomatic initiatives” fail, as they certainly will.
the earlier comment is for Paul
{In general, the observations expressed here about Russia are reasonable so far as they go, but appear intentionally or unintentionally naive.}
Don’t forget that Leveretts have close ties with US security and intelligent services and are close to state department people. No one for a second should think Levereretts are protecting Iran’s interest. They see and analysis the political development based on US INTEREST, period. Thus, you notice so many flaws in their analysis of Russian policy against Iran because while they are writing about this issue they inject US INTEREST, therefore, they can justify all Russian opportunist and petty actions against Iran since they are good for US interest. They deliberately forget to tell you that this policy was designed by Tel Aviv and sold to US through Zionist advisor to a Jewish president, Obama according to James Petras They have hard time to accept that American policy is directed by Jewish Lobby which is headed toward a war, like Iraq. Thus Iranian and people of the region must be united to destroy the enemy of region, including staunch enemy of Iran, Russia.
{No one bothers to notice that the US and Russia together have blocked Iran’s attempts to bring civilian nuclear power online, creating the ‘problem’ that they then purport to solve via sanctions and threats.}
Please keep in mind that everyone with more than two brain cell knows that Zionist policy brought US/Russia on board against Iran. What should be remember, however, is that Russia has obtain so many concessions for something that wants, a weak Iran, and the traitors in Washington have given it to Russia without anything in return except to destroy their own natural ally, Iran, in the region. This stupid policy makes Iranians STRONGER not to trust anyone including Russians and agents from the state department. The United States under Zionist policy is going down the tube, the sooner the better. People of the world are fed up and can’t wait for demise of Zionism worse than FASCISM.
US Tactics Toward Russia is very Intelligent but this will be the short term , because not seem to be without effect in Russia
I think after what happened over the last few days, the more thoughtful people in Washington should start thinking about how to find a realistic solution for Afghanistan. Obama needs Iran to help save him from a humiliating defeat in Afghanistan, which will lead to the unprecedented rise of the Saudi funded Taleban ideology in both Afhanistan and Pakistan and, subsequently, real global terror (no one will ever be able to searate the Taleban from al-Qaida). The Islamic Republic of Iran is strong, stable, and popular at home (whether the US likes it or not), and in order to find a face saving solution for Afghanistan, this should be good new for Washington.
Obama’s relentless escalation of rhetoric against Iran, and his recent UN sanctions, followed by far more extreme US sanctions and extreme sanctions by US allies, virtually guarantees ‘regime change’ in Iran, possibly via the (almost certainly US-manipulated) Green Coup, more likely through war, or both. In particular, the UN sanctions’ proviso for the stopping of Iranian shipping is a trigger for war. How fascinating it is to watch as the entire world of US intellectual political ‘elites’, including ESPECIALLY the merry little band of ‘alternapundits’, endlessly finds ways to depict Obama’s blatant war policy as ’secret peacemaking’. Here Canning purports to find in Obama’s monthlong diplomacy offensive against Iran, disguised as a general anti-proliferation campaign (but fooling no one except the ‘alternapundits’), a ray of peacemaking light, in that Obama at least ‘allowed’ Israel’s nukes to be put on the table. But, of course, he could not have stopped that without completely blowing Arab support for his Iran war policy, and in any case, he issued a statement IMMEDIATELY that effectively took Israel’s nukes back off the table.
No, clever alternapundits. Obama’s Iran policy is a WAR policy. His UN sanctions are NOT an alternative to war, but a form of war, and a stepping stone to war, AND a trigger for war, and BOTH China and Russia know all this. When Obama attacks Iran, they will stand aside, saying “tut, tut” and “you really shouldn’t do that” , just as they did when Bush attacked Iraq. The arguments that justify sanctions are the same arguments that justify war, as one might expect, since sanctions that have any power at all ARE a form of war. For example, when you stop a country’s shipping, that indeed is a form of war.
In general, the observations expressed here about Russia are reasonable so far as they go, but appear intentionally or unintentionally naive. IF Russia does in fact bring Bushehr on line, that MIGHT be significant, as it would instantly put a huge hole in the argument for sanctions and war against Iran, demonstrating openly that Iran is indeed serious about using uranium for civilian power, even if the fuel used at Bushehr is not Iranian fuel. But it is unlikely that Russia ever intents to bring Bushehr online. They have delayed this plant again and again. Always there is a reason, but the parallel between these delays and the S-300 delays are too obvious to mistake, as is the blazing hypocrisy of Russia going along with ‘questions’ about the intent of Iran’s nuclear program which Russia is well aware are largely founded in Russia’s failures to bring the intitial stage of Iran’s civilian nuclear energy program online.
The point here is not that point by point the ‘questions’ about Iran’s programs are based on the failure to bring Bushehr on line. Of course not. No, as we all know, there are various dubious questions based on dubious ‘intelligence’, much as we saw with Iraq, questions that no inspection regime could satisfy, most likely, even if a country was willing to compromise its sovereignty to the point that Iraq’s sovereignty was compromised after the first Gulf War. No, the point here is that, in the public eye, the main argument for ‘questions’ about Iran’s intentions is that Iran continues to not have an active civilian nuclear power program, yet it stockpiles uranium. For most people, THIS is what basically justifies suspicions about Iran. No one bothers to notice that the US and Russia together have blocked Iran’s attempts to bring civilian nuclear power online, creating the ‘problem’ that they then purport to solve via sanctions and threats.
The August date for the Bushehr startup is itself interesting, as Russia must be aware that there is a very good chance that the Iran War will have started by then. If the Bushehr plant still exists in august, Russia MAY bring it online, but if Iran believes that, they may as well purchase the third floor swimming pool in my old two-floor high school.
What we need to recognize about Russia is that it hasn’t just sort of benignly vacillated in relation to Iran. It has actively cultivated a bilateral and multilateral security relationship with Iran (eg s-300 sales, Caspian sea security agreements,…), only to turn around and betray that relationship, based on ‘questions’ re. Iran’s nuclear program that Russia itself has helped arrange. Russia betrays itself once again here as an astonishingly ruthless and undependable ally, this will likely be its undoing. Russia is being way too clever. The many economic flowers being laid in its basket today by the US, France, Germany, India, Saudi Arabia, etc., in exchange for its willingness to push Iran under the bus, can melt away tomorrow, when perhaps Russia’s acquiescence against Iran is no longer needed. This may point to Putin’s deeper game. Perhaps Putin is happy to push Medvedev forward during the US-Russia ‘reset’, so that – when things begin to sour – he can step back in as the strong leader who never really wanted to kneel at the feet of the US Hegemon. But nations like Venezuela, watching as Russia betrays its commitments to Iran, and actively helping set Iran up for destruction, must be questioning their own deals with Russia. A Russia that has sacrificed its position as a counterweight to the US globally may have very little leverage in dealings with the US. Smiles may turn to frowns, quite quickly. Medvedev would be well advised to fully enjoy is his glory days. They may not last.
In the space of two years, Russia has turned from the brink of war with the US to being Obama’s ‘best buddy’. Perhaps Obama has looked into Medvedev’s soul, much as Bush looked into Putin’s soul. The Great Powers seem to become positively giddy, don’t they, when they are dancing on the prostrate, crushed and broken corpses of ‘lesser’ powers? They come together then, in soulful embrace, smiling joyfully, like Prom King and Prom Queen. Obama strikes a pose of nobility, while Medvedev blushes bashfully. Love is truly a beautiful thing, as long as no one is notices the carnage underfoot.
Because, in the end, Russia’s thinking does seem to come down to this: it’s better to suck up to the US as a member of the Gold Club of Global Powers, than to lead the rest of the world as an alternative to US hegemony.
In the end, Iran seems to have decided, once again, to avoid an open break with Russia. But I’m sure that, at this point, certainly, Iran knows better than to trust any secret communications of solidarity it receives from Russia. In the end, Iran must continue to pursue a global diplomacy that de-emphasizes the major powers, without ignoring them. In the end, if rapprochement with the US is to ocurr, it will only happen if Iran can claim to be part of a resurgent global non-aligned movement. Here again, it must rely on no single country. Any single country can be persuaded by US economic and military power, as Russia was. We see this right now with Brazil, which has publicly backed away from its support for Iran and has now joined the ranks of those claiming that Iran must prove the unproveable, that Iran must ‘answer questions’ about its nuclear program, much as Iraq was forced to prove the unproveable about its supposed nuclear program – put bluntly, Brazil now supports war against Iran. Any nation can be made to vacillate or even stab in the back, but IF there truly is a global need for a non-aligned movement that claims real relevance, then there is a source of relevance and power that Iran can and must tap into. The confrontation between Iran and the US turns on the same thing it has always turned on: is the Hegemon the de facto ruler of the world, able to crush any resistance to its sway? Or can the ‘lesser powers’ find enough solidarity to propose and sustain an alternative?
Pirouz, Eric,
“Isn’t Debka put out by Israeli intelligence as a means of disseminating misinformation?”
Yes, I think so.
Slightly different from the sensationalist tabloid that Eric compares it to.
Because it’s understood to be a disinformation media, it’s useful to know what Israel wants others to think — in which direction Israel is trying to sway the herd.
Israel has so many organs of disinformation, however, that very little that is published in Israel should be taken at face value. US is not far behind; Christian Science Monitor is the least biased major newspaper that I’m aware of.
Isn’t Debka put out by Israeli intelligence as a means of disseminating misinformation?
Eric A. Brill
Did you watch the video I posted earlier, is given below. Bhotto said: Osama Bin Laden was killed by Shaykh Omar at 2:16 min.
So this information is 100% a lie. Osama was killed in 2001 by Oma, most likely CIA agent. This tells you that all the video and audio appeared on the net were FAKE and was made by CIA and Mossad to fool the idiot. Who benefited from these kind of propaganda?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg&feature=related
Eric A. Brill
{for example, is well worth the minute or so it takes to read.}
Why it is well worth to read propaganda based on lies?
You may view Debka as tabloid newspaper, but some sites, like globalresearch or even antiwar, have used the information that Debka posted. I remember few sites used Debka’s information on Georgian military ties with Mossad as advisors during the war between Georgian and Russia.
Debak, is suggested, has close ties to Mossad.
DWZ,
“The DEBKA, a zionist outlet, that spreads lies around should not be taken seriously.”
I don’t know who puts out Debka, but I doubt that anyone who’s serious takes it seriously. It’s a bit like a tabloid newspaper we have here in the US, the National Enquirer. Just entertainment. Debka’s article on Osama bin Laden hiding out in Iran, for example, is well worth the minute or so it takes to read.
Pak
“I enjoy engaging with kooshy.”
Pak Aziz-e-Del- we go a long way, at least since the Paneer days isn’t.
cheers
Canning:
{That said, Obama did not block the effort to move forward in the UN on a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. This is a commendable object the US should support strongly. And, of course, Iran.}
You have to look at Obama’s action and not his rhetoric. Anyone can say that. You have to ask yourself: Has Obama done a damn thing to be taken seriously in this regard?
The answer, unfortunately, is NO.
We know Dennis Ross, Israel’s agent, has directed Obama to present different style but follow the Bush’s policy. Therefore, Obama’s rhetoric preaches “diplomacy” but his action, Zionist agent leads us toward sanction and war, copied from Iraq script.
Obama in his speeches goes after t Muslim public opinion and uses a few cheap slogans to have them on board to implement Israel’s policy which is against Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims and Iranians. No one trusts Obama and his Zionist team in the Middle East. His popularity has gone down the tube and stayed there for long time to come unless he stops his cheap and insulting rhetoric. He treats Muslims with arrogance and insult through his speeches where everyone by now knows is nothing but lies.
If Obama is seeking a Middle East free of nuclear weapon, then why does he leave Israel, the only country with nuclear weapon untouched and and goes after Iranian LEGAL ENRICHMENT PROGRAM?
If Obama means what he has preached, then why he does not do a damn thing about settlement buildings? Why is he silent on Gaza blockade where the entire world is determined to bring it down? Why he is silent against war crimes committed by Israel against Gaza in 2008 – 2009, according to Goldstone report, a Zionist himself? Why is he abandoned Israel and Indian’s nuclear weapon program, but goes after Iran LEGAL ENRICHMENT PROGRAM UNDER NPT? Israel and India refuse to sign the NPT where Obama wants every country to sign. This is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Obama has reduced himself to nothing but a liar among Muslims.
India and Israel refuse to sign NPT but since Indian racist government listens to Israel to vote along with Israel and the US, against IRAN LEGAL ENRICHMENT PROGRAM then Idian is bribed with economic and technical assistance and its illegal nuclear weapons does not go under sanctions, then India can affort to say NO, like Israel, to NPT and the petty agent of AIEA has no problem with that.
How anyone can survive under such a stupid and double standard system runs by the West with the leadership of imperialism/Zionism worse than fascism.
THIS IS NOTHING BUT AN IRAN CAGE, according to “1984”.
Obam’s ignorance and lack of leadership painted him as an arrogant person. According to David Rhodes from NYT who was a captive for many months in Afghanistan, in an interview with Charlie Rose said: Afghanis are so angry with Obama that they spit at his picture whenever they see one.
http://www.zcommunications.org/hypocrisy-and-history-what-does-iran-have-to-do-by-ted-snider
Dear Persian Gulf,
I am sad to hear that you will not be responding to my arguments, in spite of calling them “false”. Not very convincing, but hey ho, you are a busy man. Did you manage to meet up with Pirouz_2 in the end? You two make a cute couple.
“couldn’t read the comments to see if other commentators have covered those points or not. it’s ironic that the opponents of IR, who condemn it to be locked in its ideological vortex, are themselves highly ideologically motivated. “
I do not see why one has to be ideologically motivated to have a friendly relationship with the West, but I will not ask you why you think this, because you are a busy man.
“in any case, don’t wait for my response as the time is not ripe definitely. I have talked about your age, and did not expect you get back to me. even if the age you claimed is right, I wouldn’t be able to continue this discussion with you as I have to confess that I am not that experienced, as the one who was born in 1980, to understand what you say! I don’t really mind to say I can’t get what you say, or about which country’s history you are talking about.”
OK, I have to confess that I have no idea what you are trying to say. Why are you talking about my age anyway? I only mentioned it once as a passing comment. Does it somehow upset you? I apologise if that is the case! I wish I was older and more ideologically driven like my compatriot, and your best buddy, Pirouz_2.
“I also thought kooshy has partly answered you. I might not endorse all of what he said to you, but his main arguments are right, I think. I can’t really argue with someone who thinks secularism was natural in society that was (is) deeply engulfed in the religion.”
I enjoy engaging with kooshy. In fact I learnt a thing or two from him, especially regarding pan-Iranianism. Anyway, If you treat secularism as an absolute, then I understand why you oppose what I said. But, as you are a busy man, you did not read the rest of my point, which was that secularism is not absolute but dynamic. Another commenter on this blog also tackles the absolute definition of secularism, which so clearly haunts you, and discusses the false dichotomy of secularism vs religiosity.
Oh, I forgot, my arguments are “false”. Yours are “true”. No wonder we have a “supreme” leader in Iran.
Dear Pak:
To answer your question, no. I finished that paper, and started another one. besides, I have other commitments too. so, couldn’t even fallow the Leveretts’ posts, and comments. this is not my job, I hope you understand that. Just listened to Hunter’s talk, and found it, despite small portion of righteousness, deeply flawed and misleading in overall. couldn’t read the comments to see if other commentators have covered those points or not. it’s ironic that the opponents of IR, who condemn it to be locked in its ideological vortex, are themselves highly ideologically motivated. they seem not to realize it. living in the U.S for too long, and needing to raise fund, makes ideas distorted obviously. I am glad these fools are no longer responsible for Iran’s foreign policies even though I might not be fully happy with what is going on currently, anyhow.
in any case, don’t wait for my response as the time is not ripe definitely. I have talked about your age, and did not expect you get back to me. even if the age you claimed is right, I wouldn’t be able to continue this discussion with you as I have to confess that I am not that experienced, as the one who was born in 1980, to understand what you say! I don’t really mind to say I can’t get what you say, or about which country’s history you are talking about.
I also thought kooshy has partly answered you. I might not endorse all of what he said to you, but his main arguments are right, I think. I can’t really argue with someone who thinks secularism was natural in society that was (is) deeply engulfed in the religion. moreover, As Ms.Hunter rightly said for this case, Mossadegh, as a full fledged ideologue in my view, is being extraordinary and unnecessarily symbolized in Iranian society. I accept her arguments about Mossadegh.
DWZ,
Please keep in mind that I regard Aipac as an entity that threatens the national security of the US. And that I am keenly aware that Obama’s chief of staff received more money from Aipac, during his career in the US Congress, than any other member of the US Congress.
That said, Obama did not block the effort to move forward in the UN on a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. This is a commendable object the US should support strongly. And, of course, Iran.
DWZ,
I is my understanding that the US helped Iraq to target Iranian troop formations for poison gas attacks during the insane eight-year war that you are quite right to believe was set up to some degree by foolish American leaders who wanted to slow the forces of Islamic revolution they thought they saw coming.
The issue is senstive, and US military sources do not want to confirm the cooperation they provided to Iraq during the war.
On the other hand, as King Hussein liked to point out, the Americans came to him with the message it was essential to cut off the flow of arms to Iran – - just days before it emerged the US was itself providing arms to Iran, and Israel had been doing so for years.
Fiorangela,
I am keenly aware of the relentless propaganda machine run by organised Jewry in the US, day in and day out, year in and year out. Any newspaper in the US carrying a story favorable to the Palestinians, is sure to get hit with numerous letters and threats. Ditto as to stories favorable to Iran.
{Osama bin Laden’s hiding place was pinned down for the first time Monday, June 7, by the Kuwaiti Al-Siyassa Monday, June 7, as the mountainous town of Savzevar in the northeastern Iranian province of Khorasan, 220 km west of Mashhad. He is said to have lived there under Tehran’s protection for the last five years, along with Ayman Al-Zawahiri and five other high-ranking al Qaeda leaders.}
The DEBKA, a zionist outlet, that spreads lies around should not be taken seriously. However, this is the way Zionism/imperialism impliment function.
Everyone knows that OSAMA BIN LADEN WAS KILLED IN 2001, THUS, ALL THE VIDEO AND AUDIO TAPES THAT CIA PUT FORWARD AND THE THE MEDIA REPORTED ON THEM, MUST BE FAKE TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC. THESE TAPES INTEND TO SHAPE PUBLIC OPINION FOR THEIR WAR CRIMES ACTIVITIES AGAINST MUSLIMS.
Watch the following video where Binazir Bhutto at 1:15 min revealed that OSAMA WAS KILLED BY SHAYKH OMAR, most likely one of the CIA agents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg&feature=related
{Iran should promote a belief in the American public that Iran seeks stability and peace in the Middle East, in the context of justice for the Palestinians.}
Canning:
I am very disappointed with you. This statement is very ignorant statement.
It means you are not aware that Iran is doing the same thing you suggest for the past 20 years. Iran after the revolution was invaded by US puppet, Saddam, who was showered by American and Western’s WMD and satellite information to bomb Iran funded by the Arab reactionary head of states who are stooges of Zionism and US imperialism. Don’t you remember that Obama after the election bowed in front of the Saudi King, the most hated Arab among the population of Arabs?
It was Iran that put the idea of the MIDDLE EAST FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS for many years now. No Zionist stooges in Washington have pushed for this idea but insist Iran should stop the enrichment. We say go to hell. You are not a leader, you are a petty servant.
Iran has been working for stability and a Middle East free of nuclear weapon but fought for nuclear clean energy. Iranian leaders have been supporter of Palestinian struggle long before they came to power and spent time in prison for their belief during the Shah, the Zionist/US puppet. Iranian leaders including Khamenaie and others never abandoned a JUST PEACE FOR Palestinians and Iran has paid a high price for it. I hope Turkey is following the footsteps of Iran to support a just peace and stability in the region and cooperate with others to end the occupation of our region by foreign forces. The US and Israel are the only countries are DEPENDENT on INSTABILITY and WAR to dominate the region.
People of the region regardless of religion and ethnic divide must be united against the war criminals and form a united front to ask these war criminals leave the region immediately.
debka file is reputed to be a psyops leak venue for mossad.
latest from debka:
Osama bin Laden is hiding in Iran, west of Mashad http://www.debka.com/article/8841/
US-led armada secretly drilled bombing Iranian targets, missile defense with Israel http www ditzydots debka dot com/article/8866/
Israel is fast becoming a plague on humanity. with nukes.
James Canning, dear friend, I fear you are naive. US will do what Israel demands of it. Setting US natives to howl, “poor Israel” has been accomplished by zionist influenced US media. Zionist operatives (sayanim) are everywhere, every large city, every small town, every newspaper is subject to pilpul attack by zionists. Attempts to educate Americans with facts and anything other than warmongering is approaching impossible. Iran has a target on its back and the zionists will not be stopped, short of US military takeover of Israel.
Rehmat,
My own feeling is that JFK was taken out because he was planning to end the US military adventure in Vietnam.
Obama sent the director of the CIA to Israel more than a year ago, to tell the Israelis not to attack Iran. As you will recall, a number of Jewish (and other) American politicians then hurried to Israel to say that the American public would understand an Israeli attack on Iran.
I don’t think Gates is a warmonger. I have deep concern Hillary Clinton’s approach to dealing with Iran owes more to her calculations of political self-inerest of herself, and the Democrats, in the US, than it does with what is actually in the best interests of the American people.
Richard Steven Hack,
I think you are aware that Obama does not have the political strength to cut off aid to Israel even if he wished to do so. Obama did allow the movement toward a Middle East free of nukes, to go forward in the UN.
Iran should promote a belief in the American public that Iran seeks stability and peace in the Middle East, in the context of justice for the Palestinians.
James Canning – I wish I could live in the fancy that Ben Obama have the gutts to stand up to Israel Lobby as did John F. Kennedy in the matter of Israel’s nuclear program without meeting the end result.
War hawks like Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates are preparing the ground for the radical Jews’ replay of their Nazi deception of “poor oppressed Jews are being slaughtered in millions by the Islamofacist Iranian” as result of Iran’s military response to Israel’s bombing of Iranian cities to kill as many civilians as possible as Israeli did during 34-day attack on Lebanon in 2006. At that point the Jewish Lobby will call upon Barack Obama to fulfill his biblical promise to help save poor Israel. Zionist Jews have successfully played such deception in the past to push the US into WW II (1941), which resulted in the death of 292,000 Amercan soldiers. Ironically, the Nazi Army they coned the US Army to fight – had 150,000 German Jew soldiers.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/lieberman-whos-the-enemy-in-the-war-on-terror/
Iran’s leaders will only know Washington is serious about treating Iran with respect when Washington moves against Israel in the UN Security Council, demanding an end to the Israeli nuclear weapons program, Israeli disarmament of its nuclear arsenal, and threatens Israel with a cutoff of foreign aid if Israel does not move forward in the peace process.
Since none of this is going to happen, because Obama fundamentally is in league with the military-industrial complex and is afraid of the influence of American Zionists, Iran’s leaders would be wise not to hold their breath.
{Just as Bush/Cheney and their criminal neocon government deceived the world that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” that threatened white people everywhere, Obama has conflated the Taliban with al Qaeda.}
NO ONE DECEIVED US, EXCEPT illiterate AMERICANS, who bought the hoax that Saddam, has WMD; majority of the population on planet knew US WAS LYING. Now, they know that US is lying about Iran and is following Iraq script directed by the Zionist lobby.
Furthermore, WE KNOW THERE IS NO AL QAEDA. This name was created by the CIA to fool American illiterate to implement their war crimes against humanity in the Islamic countries and kill Muslims as many as they can to bring the whole region under the control of war criminals, black and white.
But they will be kicked out from the region, like British criminals, and the only thing remains will be hatred of the United States for generation to come. Moguls are replaced by the Americans.
Just as Bush/Cheney and their criminal neocon government deceived the world that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” that threatened white people everywhere, Obama has conflated the Taliban with al Qaeda. Obama has sold the tale to white countries that unless the US determines how Afghanistan is ruled and by whom, white people are in danger of being exterminated by al Qaeda Taliban terrorists.
The most telling aspect of the McChrystal-Obama contretemps is that it has caused no one in the US government, or media, to ask why the US is still killing women and children in Afghanistan after 9 years. The US government is prepared for everyone except itself to be tried at the War Crimes Tribunal.
People elected Obama, because they were tired of Bush’s wars based on lies. So Obama gave us a new war in Pakistan and reignited the Afghan war. No one knows what these wars are about or why the bankrupt US government is wasting vast sums of money, which it has to borrow from foreigners, in order to murder the citizenry in two countries that have never done anything to us.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25808.htm
DWZ,
Many Israelis think Israel needs to get out of the West Bank and end the occupation. Somewhat fewer support a deal with Syria and getting out of the Golan Heights.
{Hamid Dabashi knows very little about Iran and he is blinded by his hatred towards the Islamic Republic.}
This is true.
HAMID DABASHI IS A CLAOWN. NO ONE PAYS ANY ATTENTION TO HIM.
He knows it too, therefore, he has chosen to become an INTERPRETER for Akbar Ganji who received , “Friedman Award” , $500,000 from the Cato Institute, which represents broken Neoliberal economic system responsible for rise of few billionaires, almost all are located in the US, at the expense of the rest of the population on earth, for HIS SERVECS TO THE WEST.
Since Obama came to the WH as Zionist agent, Dabashi has forgotten Palestinian cause and joined the green stooges to be ‘recognized’ by wider audience due to Iran’s political crisis where Washington spent millions of dollars on it.
He borrowed his mother’s green scarf and put it around his neck, like a chain, and told BBC reporter that ‘color revolution’ in Iran has created an opportunity for Obama to bring ‘a just peace’ between Israel and Palestine, thus, Obama should say thank you to Iranian youth responsible for such a development. Of course, he forgot to say, the youth from the rich part of Tehran, the North section of the city.
Is Dabashi serious? If he is, then Dabashi’s analysis of Iranian political development lacks credibility and cannot be trusted. His view on Israel/Palestine is not credible either because he has not understood yet that the Zionist’s policy in the occupied Palestine is NOT PEACE but WAR.
The Zionist’s project for Palestine is known to many including Iranian people. Israel IS NOT INTERESTED IN PEACE , instead, WANTS WAR THROUGH WHICH ISRAEL believe can expand her territory even further according to Oded Yinon strategy.
Dabashi is better to dissociate himselves from the green opportunists, like Mohajerani, who gave a talk at “The Washington Institute for Near East Policy,” Israeli think tank, instead, should join the rest of the Iranians to expose the war criminals’ policy, including Obama, who have showered states like Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many smaller states to have them on board for more sanction AGAINST IRANIAN CHILDREN and to strangulation of Iran economy for ‘regime change’ according to Zionist policy suggested by a Zionist agent, Dennis Ross, against Iran.
Rehmat,
It is going much too far to say “Washington wants a military strike on Iran”, even if there are many neocons, fellow travellers, other warmongers, etc etc who would welcome an attack on Iran.
I think Russia has genuinely pursued peace and stability in the Middle East, and tried to foster better relations between Iran and the US. I also think Russia sincerely wishes to achieve a diplomatic resolution of the dispute over the Iranian nuclear programme.
Kamran
“This may be true for now, but as more and more Iranians go to China and India (as well as other Asian countries) to study as well as to do business, things will change. This is especially true when you see less trade and less exchanges between Iran on the one hand and the US and EU on the other, ironically as a result of sanction.”
I agree. The hotels in Tehran are full of Chinese businessmen and a lot of people are going to China these days.
Fesenjoon
Get some sleep! Maybe you’ll see some more green fantasies!
I’m glad you at least mention China. I had a look at the article you reference by Kayhan Barzegar, and I wasn’t exactly bowled over by it. It is too US-centric for me. It does however mention the scope of China’s economic involvement with Iran, which is to me the most significant thing, since China’s geopolitique is trade-led to an extreme degree.
Hamid Dabashi knows very little about Iran and he is blinded by his hatred towards the Islamic Republic. While fesenjoon’s post is more or less an irrational rant, the essay he’s refering to discusses extensively elsewhere.
Mr. and Ms. Leverett, You Gotta Be Kiddin’ Me
Mr. and Ms. Leverett claim that “The Green Movement Is Not the Future of Iran” and the future of Iran will be in the hands of “younger generation of laymen who “came of age” not during the Iranian revolution but fighting in the Iran-Iraq war”, which probably refers to the members of Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRG). Basically the couple are telling their ‘Western’ audiences in a highly coded language to get over it because there was a military coup in Iran and the authorities have been successful in demolishing the opposition and in eliminating the reformists, so young IRG members will be the future of Iran’s politics.
Leverett(s) say: “On the Green movement’s intellectual coherence: Karroubi’s most recent statement, published on his website on June 20, extends his previous criticism of what he describes as the “vote scandal” and illegitimate outcome in last year’s presidential election, as well as abuses by the security forces and judiciary; the statement goes on to denounce what Karroubi characterizes as an extraordinary arrogation of power under the rubric of velayat-e-faqih (jurisprudential leadership). But there is very little that is “actionable” in his statement”.
Mr. and Ms. Leverett, what is the role of the state’s repression on there being “very little” actionable in Karoubi’s statement? By the way, did you forget to mention that protests for the anniversary of the June election were not permitted by the authorities? Why did you forget such an important issue, O former agent of “the CIA, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the National Security Council”? Let me guess the answer: that would not fit the line of your propaganda.
Yes Mr. and Ms. Leverett, people were not permitted to protest on the anniversary of the June election which means the consequences of another huge protest could be the killing, arrest, torture, or beating of the protesters. Many people throughout Iran protested anyway. Now do you want to consider the legitimate fear of getting killed and prison raped as a lack of enthusiasm for the Green Movement? I am just sorry for you Mr. and Ms. Leverett, as this shows your lack of honesty and morality, not just a shortcoming in analytical ability.
Do you want to know about the actions taking place in Iran by the people? Oh, I forgot that people are meaningless to you and only Mousavi-Karoubi’s statements count, O former agent of CIA. I suggest you read the letters of Majid tavakoli, Mohammad Nouri-zad, Farzad Kamangar,Mahdieh Golroo, etc. Read the words of the mothers of Sohrab Erabi, Neda Agha Soltan and Kianoush Asa and other Green Movement martyrs. Read what the wife and mother of Mansoor Osanloo has to say about the struggle of Mansoor. Read Ali Nejati’s letter. You can not honestly talk about the Green Movement unless you start including people into your equations; otherwise your shallow pieces (definitely lengthy but without evidence or consistent logic) will continue to be like the English translation of Hossein Shariatmadari’s articles, the official propaganda of the hardliners.
Leverett(s) say: “In their manifesto, though, the five expatriates articulate a set of “optimal demands” for the Green movement that go well beyond anything that Mousavi, Karroubi, and Khatami have actually proposed. These “optimal demands” include: Ahmadinejad’s resignation as President of the Islamic Republic and the holding of new presidential elections, abolition of the Guardian Council’s power to vet candidates for elective office, establishment of a new election commission including “representatives of the opposition and protestors,” barring the use of Friday prayers for the issuance of statements and “orders” by the government, and making all high offices elective and subject to term limits. In this regard, it is worth noting that at least one of the signatories of the expatriates’ manifesto (Ganji) is a long-time advocate of secular democracy in Iran; another (Kadivar) is a staunch critic of the idea and practice of velayat-e-faqih; yet another (Soroush) advocates a model of “religious democracy” which would effectively dismantle the Islamic Republic. While, in their statement, the five signatories stop short of an explicit call to replace the Islamic Republic with a secularized alternative, Soroush described the manifesto as a first stage; in the “next stage,” the movement “may demand a redrafting of the constitution.”
Contrary to what Mr. and Ms. Leverett suggest, the Iranian scholar Hamid Dabashi has comprehensively written about the fake dichotomy of secularism vs. religiosity of the state. He has explained that secularism in itself is a religion and in future Iran we should make sure that all the religions will enjoy equality and also religious repression should not be practiced (neither in the form of Islamic repression in Iran nor secularist repression like in France or Switzerland). The fact that Iranian people do not want to be discriminated and repressed by the state’s so called Islamic laws is not dismissible just because Ganji-Soroush-Bazargan-Kadivar-Mohajerani’s statement has not mentioned it. Were you sleeping all these years when the women’s rights movement was outspokenly against the state misogynistic “Islamic” rules? Were you busy in AIPAC and CIA when Iranians “Islamic” dress code and behavior have been imposed on Iranians from above with use of force for 30 years and the government still has problems as people are not following its “Islamic” cultural norms and orders? Do you see how shallow your arguments are, O former agent of CIA, now an apologist of Farzad Kamangar’s killer?
Leverett(s) say: “Here, in a nutshell, is the Green movement’s essential intellectual problem, as we described it in a January 5, 2010 article in the New York Times: “Beyond expressing inchoate discontent, what does the current ‘opposition’ want? It is no longer championing Mr. Mousavi’s presidential candidacy; Mr. Mousavi himself has now redefined his agenda as ‘national reconciliation.’ Some protestors seem to want expanded personal freedoms and interaction with the rest of the world, but have not comprehensive agenda. Others — who have received considerable Western press coverage — have taken to calling for the Islamic Republic’s replacement with an (ostensibly secular) ‘Iranian Republic’.”
I am sorry but you are completely lost. That statement of Mousavi was meant to put the ball in the field of the “enemy”. He gave a few trivial suggestions to the authorities in order to “resolve” the conflict. He showed that he (as the assumed leader of the Green Movement) is in favor of talking rather than brutal violence that has been the only means of the state to silence the uprising. Mousavi’s statement was issued at a time when people were receiving death sentences for holding stones while protesting. Not everyone is indifferent to the deaths of Iranian people like you are Mr. and Ms. Leverett. Sorry to break it to you. Mousavi and Karoubi feel responsible for children who have lost their moms or fathers, for women who have lost their husbands, and so on. That’s why they canceled the protest of the June election anniversary.
Leverett(s): “Mr. Mousavi’s latest utterance certainly does not resolve this fundamental tension between the Green movement’s “reformist” and “counter-revolutionary” currents. Mousavi’s June 15 statement is both longer and sharper in tone than his January 1 statement. In his most recent message, Mousavi goes beyond criticizing the current Iranian government and the conduct of the judiciary and security forces to highlight what he describes as the “corruption” of a “totalitarian” system — e.g., by asking “who dares to open investigations into the centers of power regarding the great ‘privatizations’ based on Article 44 of the Constitution to expose this great monopolization of our economy?”
I am sorry but could you please explain who the counter-revolutionaries are. Are you calling the radical protesters who sacrifice or endanger their lives for justice in their home country counter-revolutionary? Do you mean those critical of the state and in favor of fundamental change in their country are counter-revolutionary?
Leverett(s) say:”But Mousavi also spends far more words in the June 15 statement than in his January 1 statement defending his loyalty (and the loyalty of those in the Green movement) to the legacy of Imam Khomeini, the Iranian revolution, and the Islamic Republic. Just as the reform movement of earlier days tried to do, Mousavi seeks to depict the Green movement as the true heirs of Khomeini’s legacy — it is, in Mousavi’s presentation, those who oppose the Green movement who are departing from Khomeini’s principles. Furthermore, in his June 15 statement, Mousavi underscores to a much greater extent than his January 1 statement his commitment and that of the Green movement to Iran’s independence and the full exercise of its national sovereignty, without being subject to foreign influence. (It is a sign of how badly Mousavi is losing the “PR war” inside Iran that he now feels obliged to emphasize these things so strongly.)”
Maybe Mousavi has to emphasize “his commitment and that of the Green movement to Iran’s independence and the full exercise of its national sovereignty, without being subject to foreign influence”, as a result of the propaganda of the state and commentators like you, Mr. and Ms. Leverett. Why do you disregard the fact that the more the state feels that it has lost its legitimacy the more it spreads its propaganda that the Green Movement is orchestrated by the West and that’s why Mousavi has to over-emphasize the independence of the Green Movement? Let’s not forget that the whole national media is a stage for state’s propaganda so emphasis on the independence of the Green Movement is necessary.
The fact that Mousavi- Karoubi-Khatami or some other reformists mention that the Green Movement is for society to go back in line of Khomeini is very complex, beyond what Mr. and Ms. Leverett can ever offer in their Kayhan-newspaper style articles. If I want to shortly explain this I would say that it’s partly because many reformists probably genuinely believe in Khomeni’s ideas but this has been challenged by the people. Their dedication to Ayatolah Khomeini is gradually changing as Mousavi recently, in response to the letter of Ayatollah Montazer’s daughter (who asked Mousavi to denounce the mass murder of political prisoners during 80s), said that Ayatollah Khomeini was not an infallible person and thus it’s possible that Khomeini has made mistakes. Mousavi continued that he would rather not criticize Khomeini at the time as it would be used for propaganda by both the state and outside enemies (paraphrase). Two other reasons that some of the reformists refer to Khomeini are to criticize the current order of the state and to gaining legitimacy. Let’s not forget that after the election some of the hardliners like Larijani were comparing the reformists to MKO which would have meant much more prosecution of all the reformists than we are witnessing now, if it had been widely accepted. In fact, by referring to Khomeini they state that the current regime is not what it was supposed to be and is far from the ideals of the 1979 revolution and we reformists are closer to the ideals of the 1979 revolution and Khomeini than those in power currently. In other words, it’s their hurtful baton that they once in a while hit on the head of Khamenei by saying that they are in favor of going back to Khomeini’s era.
However, many people in the Green Movement, including myself, see this as a failure (or contradiction) of the reformists as they don’t offer a truthful uncensored narration of the post-revolution history. But we are hoping as time passes people force the reformists to criticize the events of the first two decades of post-revolution. Tajzadeh and Mohajerani are two examples of reformists who have already criticized themselves for not having taken a strong stance to criticize the events of post-revolution when those events took place.
Let’s not forget that reformism is not the only opposition in Iran and for that matter within the Green Movement. Thus the different forms of opposition in Iran go beyond the reformist vs. principalist dichotomy that Mr. and Ms. Leverett offer. For instance, socialist students have been considered reformists because it’s way more costly for them to announce their true political affiliation.
Leverett(s) say: “Neither in June 2010 nor in January 2010 does Mousavi make any statement that remotely suggests he wants to do away with the Islamic Republic — he remains a “reformist,” not a “counter-revolutionary.” Indeed, Mousavi argues that the Green movement is “an extension of the Iranian people’s quest for freedom, social justice and national sovereignty, which had been previously manifested in the Constitutional Revolution, the Oil Nationalization Movement and the Islamic Revolution.” Alongside a lot of rhetoric about the Green movement’s “identity,” “roots,” “values,” and “goals” (to be “a purifier and reformer of the course taken in the Islamic Republic after the Revolution” and to ensure “respect for the people’s votes and opinions”), the actual plan of action put forward in the June 15 statement is remarkably mild: [T]he goals of the Green Movement can only be realized by: strengthening civil society, expanding the space available for social dialogue, increasing awareness, [facilitating] the free of circulation of information, [encouraging] the active participation of [various] parties and associations, and generating a [liberal environment] for intellectuals as well as social and political activists who are loyal to national interests. The achievement of these goals requires an emphasis on common demands, which will facilitate collaboration and coordination among various members of the Green Movement who, despite their own unique identities, have accepted the inherent pluralism of the movement and have gathered side by side under its umbrella”.
Any of these mild demands, as Mr. and Ms. Leverett describe them, put in action by the state would drastically change the current form of the state. The reasons that the system has more or less sustained its post-June-election form, albeit at the (very high) cost of its legitimacy, are the barbaric Kahrizak detention center, prison rapes, widespread arrests of worker activists, journalists, students, etc., harsh sentences and rushed executions of political prisoners before of each scheduled protests in order to scare off the people of political actions. Offering mild demands, actually, in themselves are pretty revolutionary as they indicate that the very basic mild, as Mr. and Ms. Leverett describe them, rights of the people are denied and can raise the awareness of those undecided about the Green Movement that the Movement is not for having McDonald’s in Iran but to achieve the basic human rights of people.
However the basic point that Mr. and Ms. Leverett love to miss is that the Green Movement is the heroic actions and sacrifices of the people in the streets, universities, prisons of Iran or in their underground activism and is not restricted to what Mousavi, Karoubi or Khatami have to say.
Leverett(s) say: “But the reformist, “civil rights movement” agenda no longer defines the Green movement — if it ever really did. The movement’s “counter-revolutionary” current — which is the current that is so enthusiastically supported in the West — has trumped the “reformist” current, at least in popular perceptions inside Iran. That is one reason why the Green movement’s base of popular support has declined so sharply over the past year — because, as we wrote in our New York Times article, “polling after the [June 12, 2009 presidential] election and popular reaction to the Ashura protests [on December 27, 2009] suggest that most Iranians are unmoved, if not repelled, by calls for the Islamic Republic’s abolition.” Even Kadivar, in an interview after the five expatriates’ manifesto was published, acknowledged that “the majority of Iranians has no desire for a second revolution, thirty years after the last one.”
Each time that Mr. and Ms. Leverett call the heroic radical protesters of Iran counter-revolutionary makes me feel that I am listening to Khamenei, Falahian, Hoseinian, or Shariatmadari. They are revolutionary, Mr. and Ms. Levrett. Those who rape them, arrest them or kill them because of their uprising are in fact counter-revolutionary. You get it?
What’s your evidence for your hollow claim that the Green Movement has declined and Iranians are not in favor of abolition of the system when even Mousavi’s mild demands would result in abolition of the current from of the system? If the Green Movement has declined, then why still about thousands of people are in prisons? Why the state didn’t let the people to protest on the anniversary of the June election to show that the Green Movement has lost its popular support?
If your claims were true then the state that you are the apologist of its murder would let the people to protest on the anniversary of the June election to show to the whole world that the movement is gone with the wind. Don’t you think? Could you please explain for us that what was so scary about the presence of the people in the streets for the regime to not issue a permit for anniversary protest? What’s the reason for the heavy presence of the security forces in the streets and universities? What’s the reason that many innocent people are in prisons without having access to lawyers?
Leverett(s) say: “Confusion about the Green movement’s objectives — along with a series of strategic and tactical mistakes — has marginalized both Mousavi and Karroubi. In Iran today, it is not hard to find reformists/Mousavi supporters who complain that the Green movement was “hijacked” by elements with a more radical — and seemingly foreign-supported — agenda. As a result, reformist politicians who want a future in Iranian politics are distancing themselves from the movement”.
Could you please show us your source for the claim that the reformists have claimed that the movement is hijacked by a foreign-supported agenda? Who has distanced her or himself from the movement, O former CIA member?
If Iranians are in favor of overthrowing the system, it is their right, Mr. and Ms. Leverett. Reform is not the only legitimate form of opposition. What gives legitimacy to a form of opposition is not the safety of the ruling class but rather the objectives and methods of the opposition. If Iranian people are in favor of a referendum, which is what Ahmadinejad suggests for Palestinians, it is none of your or any other mouth piece of the regime’s business to dismiss or delegitimize that demand. Get it?
The situation in which reform is considered the only acceptable form of resistance, while all other forms are portrayed as illegitimate and “counter-revolutionary” by the state is a result of human restriction and a sick desire to respect the power, the ruling elite, legality, the laws of the state but not (as you use it) a fact, not at all.
Leverett(s) say: “Confusion about the Green movement’s objectives is abundantly reflected in analyses by pro-Green Western commentators. Robin Wright noted in January that, while the movement is not yet a full-fledged “counter-revolution,” it is “headed in that direction” — an assessment we contested at the time and which is now increasingly acknowledged as an unrealistic description of the movement’s actual political impact. On the other hand, Austrian scholar Walter Posch goes out of his way to stress the movement’s “Khomeinist” character. Green movement partisans do not like it when we point this out, but the movement’s intellectual incoherence is an important factor in its by-now undeniable decline”.
Mr. and Ms. Leverett, the Green Movement, as you mistakenly think, has not been happening in vaccum but in action and reaction to the reality of the outside world. The movement is alive and changes its methods and demands according to the reality of outside world. When the repression and violence of the state increases against all different sociopolitical layers of the society, and most reformists and former officials are deligitimized, the legitimacy of the state becomes a question and you can not expect the people to ask only for their votes and not more. The 1979 revolution belongs to the people of Iran, not the state; it’s the people’s history. Thus people who re-demand the ideals of 1979 revolution by sacrificing their lives and freedom can not be called counter-revolutionary and easily dismissed.
Leverett(s) say: “On generational politics: Publication of the Mousavi and Karroubi statements inadvertently highlights another important long-term reality about contemporary Iranian politics. Over the last decade, on the conservative side of the Islamic Republic’s political spectrum, there has been a deliberately engineered process of succession in the upper echelons of Iran’s principalist factions. This process of succession has effectively transferred leadership of these factions from an older generation of clerics to a younger generation of laymen who “came of age” not during the Iranian revolution but fighting in the Iran-Iraq war. The goal of this transition was to make conservative political forces more electorally competitive with reformists, who dominated the Islamic Republic’s presidential and parliamentary elections from the mid 1990s until the 2004 parliamentary election and the 2005 presidential election”.
Mr. and Ms. Leverett say: “This process of succession has effectively transferred leadership of these factions from an older generation of clerics to a younger generation of laymen who “came of age” not during the Iranian revolution but fighting in the Iran-Iraq war. ”
This is what Iranian people know as the militarization process of the establishment (or military coup) in Iran. But the analysis that Mr. and Ms. Leverett offer is too simplistic: “The goal of this transition was to make conservative political forces more electorally competitive with reformists”. The IRG grew into its current state as a military-economic-ideology-security-intelligence power because of many different factors, and was not quite engineered purely for the purpose of competing with the reformists, although in its latest June 2009 coup it tried to completely remove the reformists from power. To briefly name some of the main factors which made the IRG a main player in politics-economic-security-military-intelligence, I would list the Iran-Iraq war (which made the IRG a strong military and security force), the post-war reconstruction during Rafsanjani (which made the IRG an important economic player), the growth of dissatisfaction among different social classes of society and some uprising by the people in different areas of Iran (which caused the need for IRG to become a major player to save the establishment from the danger of the people), the reform movement and the relative freedom of the media (which caused Khamenei to rely on IRG to save his power and smash the media and restrict the new waves of sociopolitical activism), the danger of a US-Israel military invasion of Iran (which urged IRG to become stronger than ever to protect Iran’s sovereignty against a military invasion by US-Israel), the Bush administration’s harsh treatment of the reformists during Khatami in both nuclear energy and calling Iran the access of evil (which caused IRG to claim that its way of treating the US would serve Iran’s interests better), etc.
Note that Khomeini was against the interference of IRG or any military organization in politics. Thus one of the reasons that reformists mention Khomeini and his ways as their mentor or ideals is to denounce the militarization of politics in Iran.
Yes, Mr. and Ms. Leverett are right in claiming that this wave of newly rich younger generation, the generation of the Iran-Iraq war and not the 1979 revolution, is not necessarily in favor of clerics and currently is monopolizing the power. Mr. and Ms. Leverett seem to acknowledge that the 2009 presidential election was an IRG coup to monopolize power for some of its members. We can go back to the 2005 presidential election when IRG and Basij forces imposed their interests. Note that Ahmadinejad’s announced ministers were mostly IRG members. This group is usually against the clerics, claiming that the clerics and their children are economically corrupted. Also, IRG was highly responsible for smashing the opposition groups during the Iran-Iraq war inside and outside the country and many of their forces sacrificed their lives in that long war. Thus they claim to be the real owners of the post-1979 revolution regime. What Mr. and Ms. Levrett are belittling and disregarding though, is the power of the people in the Green Movement who empty-handedly stand up to a emptied regime in which only a military force remains. Sorry to disappoint you, Mr. and Ms. Leverett, the IRI has a hard time to silence people with guns, rapes, batons, prisons, and bullets when people are not having their bread, butter, and basic human rights.
Leverett(s) say: “A comparable process of generational succession has yet to take place in the upper echelons of the Islamic Republic’s reform movement. Since President Khatami left office in 2005, reformists have been in disarray, and ambivalence about the legacy of Khatami’s presidency continues to undermine their political prospects. Above all, the reformists’ political difficulties are reflected in the absence of an obvious successor to Khatami. Clearly, neither Mousavi nor Karroubi can fulfill this role.Thus, the ongoing political competition in the Islamic Republic between reformists and conservatives is more complicated than most Western analysts and commentators recognize. On the one hand, Iranian voters seem to like some parts of the reformist agenda. But reformists, at this point, lack an effective standard-bearer for that agenda. Reformists also suffer from perceptions that they are not deeply engaged with bread-and-butter issues of primary concern to many lower-class and even middle-class voters and that they did not really “deliver” on their agenda when in charge of both the presidency and the parliament”.
Young people in Iran are mostly unsatisfied with the lack of socio-political freedom, unemployment, sky-rocketing prices of food and housing, and more. None of these factors with which young people have issues is going to be resolved or even addressed by the principalists. Principalists are openly against socio-political freedom and economic disparities and the rate of privatization has become much bigger and faster after Ahmadinejad came to power.
It’s so funny because Mr. and Ms. Leverett explain here why people of Iran are disillusioned with the possibility and potential of meaningful reform from within the establishment. It’s disturbingly untruthful, however, when Mr. and Ms. Leverett pretend that those people disillusioned with the reformists are taking refuge in principalists. I have a hard time to believe that Mr. and Ms. Leverett’s mistake here is one of carelessness; rather, it seems to me an intentional distortion of the truth. Mr. and Ms. Leverett say: “Reformists also suffer from perceptions that they are not deeply engaged with bread-and-butter issues” How about the principalists? Aren’t principalists known for their passion of privatization (or as we call it in Persian Sepahization), import of cheap products, reduction of full-time workers to part-time ones, the spread of unpaid workers and imprisonment of worker activists, unionists, and teachers? Then which kind of logic do you use to conclude that the people who have little hope in reformists for achieving economic justice are instead in favor of principalists?
Mr. and Ms. Leverett say: “On the one hand, Iranian voters seem to like some parts of the reformist agenda” Oh really? Who are these ghosts then? Do people find those agendas (probably Mr. and Ms. Leverett mean sociopolitical freedom) in principalists? If not, then why do you suggest that disappointment in reformists is a reason for people to switch to principalists? I know the answer Mr. and Ms. Levrett: you are just mediocre propagandists and Iranian-haters who try to represent the people, but really just represent the oppressive state.
Leverett(s) say: “On the other hand, important parts of the conservative “platform” also appeal to Iranian voters. But, in contrast to their reformist opponents, the principalists have cultivated younger politicians who are effective representatives of their message. As we think about the future of Iranian politics, these realities leave the reformist camp at a real disadvantage. Western analysts and policy makers have yet to come to grips with this”.
Mr. and Ms. Leverett have taken the 2009 coup too seriously. They believe that those who seek to monopolize the econo-political power in Iran (and who use the most ruthless brutality towards achieving their goals) are going to be the future of Iran’s politics. Mr. and Ms. Leverett have no hope that the Green Movement will succeed because their mentality is oriented toward the ruling elite and is unfriendly to the ordinary people of Iran. Have we ever heard Mr. and Ms. Leverett talking about the issues of Iranian ordinary people? Have we ever seen people being included in their equations? Thus Mr. and Ms. Leverett state that the future power in Iran will be the IRG. We in the Green Movement will continue our struggle against the bullies inside and outside of Iran and stand next to Mansoor Osanloo and Sohrab Erabi’s mother instead of submitting to the brutal military forces as Mr. and Ms. Leverett ask us to do so.
I will end this piece with this question: what does it tell us about the current form of the establishment in Iran and the Green Movement that a former member of “the CIA, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the National Security Council” is so desperately against the Green Movement and is an apologist of the state’s oppression against Iranian people?
“a critical mass of Iranian political and policymaking elites, cutting across the Islamic Republic’s factional spectrum, continues to recognize that their country has basic national security and foreign policy needs which can only be met—or, only optimally met—through rapprochement with the United States.”
This may be true for now, but as more and more Iranians go to China and India (as well as other Asian countries) to study as well as to do business, things will change. This is especially true when you see less trade and less exchanges between Iran on the one hand and the US and EU on the other, ironically as a result of sanctions.
YES – Iran would be the ‘top issue’ at the G20 meeting – according to Ottawa.
“The consequence of Iran in the Middle East having nuclear capability is something that I don’t think any Canadian nor anybody in the world community wishes to see,” Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said in a press conference Tuesday.
Moscow is with Washington all the way when it comes to fear of an Islamist regime having a nuclear deterrent. Only their approach to kill the “threat to western civilization” is different. While Washington wants a military action against Islamic Republic (before Mossad strikes Ben Obama) – while Moscow wants to wait for the day when the ‘Reformists’ overtake the ‘Consrvatives’.
Kent: Attack on Israel is an attack on Canada
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/kent-attack-on-israel-is-an-attack-on-canada/
Leveretts, that “historical baggage” also includes Russian (and East German) piloted MiG-25 and Mig-25RB strikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran during the Imposed War. Basically, the Russians were using the opportunity of Saddam’s war to find ways of penetrating an air defense based upon the F-14A Tomcat. Hundreds of Iranians died as a result of the RB strikes (even though the IRIAF Tomcats fared reasonably well against the Foxbats).
But anyway, the Iranians recognize this American “domineering order” as they call it in Persian. Sanction passage was expected by many. Many analysts stated that the TRR swap deal was intended to be rejected and was not a sincere effort of diplomacy by the US. They were proven correct.
Arguing that the US should switch 180 degrees in its diplomacy with Iran, while admirable, is an effort at futility. Domestic politics and the Israel lobby won’t allow it. They successfully advocate the opposite. And the MSM further reinforces this anti-Iran narrative.