Photo from Reuters
We are pleased to present this piece from our friend and colleague, Jean-François Seznec, whom we consistently find to be a uniquely insightful analyst of the intersection of politics, economics, and energy in the Middle East. Jean-François is currently Visiting Associate Professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, where his scholarship and teaching concentrate on the influence of political and social variables in the Gulf on financial and energy markets. He has 25 years’ experience in international banking and finance, 10 of which were spent in the Middle East, and is currently Senior Advisor to PFC Energy as well as a founding member and Managing Partner of the Lafayette Group, LLC, a U.S.-based private investment company. He holds a MIA from Columbia University and a MA and Ph.D. from Yale University.
by Jean-Francois Seznec, PhD
The momentous events in Bahrain are placing the Saudi government in a difficult position. On the one hand, the Saudis fear the potential “fall” of Bahrain to Iran, on the other, they know that a muscled intervention and interference could actually create it. Indeed, as the United States knows from experience, intervention and occupation do not win hearts and minds.
The most salient fact of Saudi policy at this time is that there is none. The country suffers from a major power vacuum. Any decision to invade and occupy Bahrain to put down a “Shi’ite” rebellion would have to come from the King himself after he has obtained consensus from the rest of the leadership of the country. The King is 87 years old. He has returned today from a three months absence in the US and Morocco due to illness and has not had the time and the energy to build a national consensus on a response to Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain or Libya. Prince Sultan, the crown prince, who was handling the Kingdom in the King’s absence, is often reported to be unable to fulfill his role because of age and illness and could not build any kind of response or policy. In any event, he could not have decided to intervene militarily or otherwise in Bahrain without the approval of the King himself or without full consensus from the leadership. No other Prince could make such decision. Not even the powerful Minister of Interior, Prince Nayef.
From five thousand miles away, the solution to the Bahrain crisis appears simple. The al-Khalifas in Bahrain should accept the fact that their 230 years of feudal management of the island has to come to an end. The King should accept to become a British-style monarch. The Bahrainis should be allowed to have a true parliament and ultimately have a Prime Minister issued from a majority coalition of political forces in the island. Indeed, the Bahrainis, especially the younger ones, feel Bahraini first, not Iranian, Saudi, Sunni or Shi’a. A normal political contest would bring stability to the island, which would be good for the United States and for Saudi Arabia.
Unfortunately, this rosy scenario is under severe attack by an important side of the al-Khalifas who do not want to give up their right to control and plunder the island. They know that their time is coming to a close and have their back to the wall. They seek to create havoc and polarize the situation—i.e., make the uprising into a Sunni-Shi’i issue. Their game is to ensure that the United States and the Saudis maintain their support of the corrupt regime as a bastion against “evil Iran”. Undoubtedly the orders to shoot at the demonstrators came from this camp, to provoke and emphasize the sectarian split in the Island. It is this which has also given nationality to the foreign mercenaries in order to change the sectarian balance of the island, arrested and tortured Shi’a leaders, manipulated elections, seized the best pieces of land, demanded percentages in successful businesses, etc. This faction of the family is headed by the Prime Minister. For the past 35 years, the Prime Minister has been extremely clever in manipulating all the social groups. He managed to divide sectarian and social groups to his advantage. However, at this time, he is getting quite old and may not be able to limit the damage inflicted to the island by his rabidly anti-Shi’a entourage. The Prime Minister and his group have substantial support among many Salafi Sunni groups, which view him as perhaps corrupt but strong enough to defend the true faith against the Shi’a.
The more liberal side of the family, headed by the Crown Prince, has shown that it is more willing to accommodate a new system of competition for power. The Crown Prince does not seem to fear any Shi’a take over. He seems to be only interested in having the island become a modern country ruled by law, not by whim, where every citizen has equal rights. The Crown Prince has support among the more educated and liberal Sunnis and Shi’a. Primarily, he has support among the youth, both Sunni and Shi’a. The youth instigated the present demonstrations and have shown a great deal of disdain for the Shi’a-Sunni divide emphasized by the older generation. Their motto is no Sunni, no Shi’i, just Bahraini. The Crown Prince is also the commander in chief of the Army and, as such, has some influence against the more nefarious groups that his uncle commands, the secret police and the police forces, which are manned mainly by foreign mercenaries.
The struggle in Bahrain is between two visions of the Bahraini world. On the one side, the feudal system, which divides Bahrain into religious sects, with one seeking to maintain and impose its domination of the other. On the other side, a modern vision, which sees problems as social issues of economic disadvantages—have-nots versus the haves. At times, the haves and haves-nots divide meets the sectarian divide—but not always and, in fact, less and less as the older generations lose their grip.
The King may be the arbiter between the feudal and the modern factions within his family, but over the years he has increasingly appeared to be a very weak figure unable to stand up to the faction headed by his uncle, the Prime Minister, which seeks to preserve its feudal control over society.
Both sides of the family, however, have one point in common—they view themselves as Bahrainis first, not Sunnis or Tribal. In that sense, they also have something in common with the Bahraini demonstrators, even though they may not see it. The feudal faction will claim that the opposition is Shi’a and therefore controlled by Iran. The modern side will claim that the Salafis are under the thumb of the Saudis. However, this gives an opening to the Crown Prince to bring the “Bahrainis” on both sides together, against the extremists, be they Shi’a, al-Khalifas, Salafis, etc.
If we try to put the Saudi equation and the Bahraini one together, it would appear that a Saudi direct intervention is not likely at this time. The Saudi gerontocracy makes it difficult for the Saudi leadership to make any decision and any consensus will not be easy to achieve. Many Saudis know well that any muscled intervention would backfire. Even the most conservative elements in the Kingdom would shy away from being seen as invaders. Physical Saudi presence in Bahrain would open the Kingdom to major criticism from all its neighbors and from most Muslim countries, thereby losing costing the Saudis the mantle of Islamic leadership which they have woven for generations.
On the other side of the Saudi causeway, even the most feudal among the al-Khalifas would be wary of a physical Saudi intervention, as it could lead to the rule of the al-Khalifas coming to an end. The al-Khalifas would still nominally be left in charge by the al-Saud, but in practice they would have to give up their control and access to wealth to their neighbor. From their point of view, it would be better to have the al-Saud in charge rather than the Iranians, but not much better. Perhaps, some of the more feudal al-Khalifas do not see the danger of a foreign camel putting its nose into their tent. After all, they did provide nationality to many Baluchi, Yemeni and Syrian military types, thereby creating a new class of Mamluks. However, one can assume that the ultimate interest of the al-Khalifas is to remain in charge, and not sell out their inheritance to the al-Saud for a plate of lentil–like security.
Of course, Saudi intervention does not have to be just a military operation. The Saudis could provide funds and intelligence support, which they probably do already. They may provide support to the Salafi elements among Bahraini Sunnis in the form of money and organizational help. The tribes that have dual Bahraini and Saudi citizenship will perhaps move more into Bahrain than they have before and provide muscled civilian support if need be. They may try to undermine the Crown Prince’s efforts for a national dialogue, by creating incidents between the Salafis and the Shi’a. These efforts could be very effective in maintaining havoc and instability. However, many in the Saudi leadership must realize that havoc and instability may stop a Shi’a takeover, but would make the island much more susceptible to Iranian meddling.
Should there be a transition of power in Saudi Arabia to a younger successor, the Saudi leadership may see that the youth movement of Bahrain, Sunni and Shi’a, is actually strongly opposed to Iran. A Bahrain led by the Crown Prince with a freely elected government representative of the various segments of society would in fact promote Bahraini stability and independence from both Iran and Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, stability and a royal democracy is more favorable to Saudi interests than the present regime, which stands to create violent reactions and end up, unwittingly, doing Iran’s bidding.
Lucas: ““Given the recent developments in the region, we need unity among the Muslim countries and Iran can play an important role in this regard,” Halbavi said on Sunday, addressing a conference in Tehran dubbed ‘Islamic Awakening in Arab World’.”
What part of the MB being at a conference called “ISLAMIC AWAKENING in Arab World” don’t you get? This is precisely what you were complaining about. There is no “distancing” of the MB from Iran here or from Islam – which is all that Khamenei ever said.
You’re just spinning.
A pretty garbage article. It’s clear to those of us who know Bahrainis that the Majority Shia hate the whole corrupt royal family and that they love Iran.
Scott,
LOL. Because a report on Kaleme.com claims that Mousavi is in jail, I should believe it?
Nothing this “Green movement” proclaims has any credibility. If they can deny the votes of 40 million Iranians and claim that their candidate won, in spite of the colossal evidence against this conspiracy theory, they are capable of any lie.
You sound increasingly desperate and excited.
Scott, as Supreme Leader is part of the government, a letter addressed to the government can include the Supreme Leader. There is no reason to use regime.
Saudi Arabia sending tanks to Bahrain.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/167565.html
Reza’s line is exactly the one taken by Fars on the Mousavi-Rahnavard-Karroubi arrests. The shallowness of the denial is revealed by Fars’ claim, from the judiciary official, that BBC Persian and VoA were pushing this rumour to incite unrest — neither BBC Persian nor VoA broke the story.
RSH,
The piece on the Muslim Brotherhood’s al-Hilbawi is a simple re-statement of the Iranian line — al-Hilbawi once again is careful to give praise to Iranian leaders but to avoid linking the Egyptian Revolution to the Islamic Revolution. His statements are those of an MB envoy, not a declaration of the MB’s public position, which continue to be a clear separation from the Islamic Republic.
S.
Matt,
“Would saying ‘an open letter to the government’ been inaccurate or insufficient?”
Yes, it would have been insufficient. The letter from the children of Mousavi and Rahnavard did not address just the Executive Branch or the Iranian Government but also the Supreme Leader. “An open letter to the system” would have been the alternative here….
S.
There is no doubt that a vote for Mousavi in particular was a vote against Ahmadinejad. Mousavi was never a leader, he ran a very poor campaign, and failed to even lead the Green movement that had fallen to his lap. Once he failed to win the election, he contested the results despite failing to provide any evidence as to where the count of his 42000 monitors differed to the official count. His actions could only be described as a power grab backed by entrenched financial interests represented by Rafsanjani. Once Rafsanjani was forced to throw the two so called leaders under the truck by denouncing them this past week, the outcome has become clear. Karoubi and Mousavi are simply two victims of the inner fightings of the powers that be. Once those powers reached an understanding, knowing the Greens were never a significant movement and that Mousavi was nothing but a opportunist, they were thrown under the bus.
The protests however are not over, and will continue for some time as the State has not addressed the broader issues of a more transparent process. As Iran’s economy continues to grow (despite all the lies by foreign media), it is also possible that the public will forget about the two so-called leaders, as they tolerated Montazeri’s 20 year house arrest. But then again, this time they may not-no one can be certain.
I would also add that Mousavi has a relatively strong “personality” but very weak “character”.
Arnold Evans says:
February 28, 2011 at 11:25 pm
forgot to say this. I am the opposite as you. I trust, in dealing with the west, Rafsanjani more than Mousavi!
Definitely, Rafsanjani cares about Iran’s interests more than an idiot like Mousavi.
Arnold Evans says:
February 28, 2011 at 11:25 pm
Mousavi is very naive, you are right. but more than that he is afraid of the judgment of history. he was fooled for the election results and understood it late when it was no longer possible to reverse without destroying himself or losing his base. he was unnecessarily stubborn and dilussional at that time. now, he doesn’t have any other choice than to continue this pass.
and I would say he is p**** wh*****! this is what even his own followers say!
nobody can call Rafsanjani naive. however, he has gone into the inevitable trap of history somehow due to his godfather style of leadership. surely, he has personal interests in any deal with the west, but to be fair, I can’t say he is that much ignorant of Iran’s interests; except in the past few years perhaps. and he is too much affected by his kids. they are the only ones controlling him, and they have different motivations. typical upper middle class mentality. they look down at people and this is obviously known. to some extent, his kids destroyed him.
I can’t figure out Mousavi’s motivation. I don’t think he believes he has evidence that the election was fraudulent. I also don’t believe he thinks most Iranians support his vision for Iran.
I think he may really believe that he and his movement can lower tensions with the United States and he may well really believe that lowing tensions with the United States is critical for Iran’s future.
I don’t think he’s corrupt and motivated by promises of money.
I don’t think he believes he is enhancing his future as an actor in Iranian politics or his legacy.
My best guess, and this has been my guess since June 2009, is that he believes he is making a long-shot attempt to change the direction of Iranian politics – into a direction he believes is right even if it is not popular – and he is willing to sacrifice at least his career and maybe his life to do so.
I do guess his belief that his movement is the last hope for Iran is shaped to at least some degree by Western parties that are ultimately hostile to Iran and I do think he is being naive in this.
He honestly doesn’t strike me as a particularly bright or intelligent person. More the type of person who can easily be maneuvered to act against his own interests and the interests of Iran even though he actually cares about Iran.
Rafsanjani on the other hand is interesting in that whenever I see his name mentioned by Western sources, it is in the context of how much the West would prefer to negotiate with him than with Iran’s current leadership.
In 2005, the EU3 wanted to hold up their final offer regarding Iran’s nuclear program in hopes that they could release it after the election results that they hoped and expected Rafsanjani would win. After Iranian official protests, they released it earlier, and may have made it even more insulting but for some reason they expected Rafsanjani would accept an offer that Khatami’s administration, to say nothing of Ahmadinejad’s would reject.
Rafsanjani might have an understanding that he would benefit personally from a deal with the West. It is more difficult for me to see him as naive. According to the most recent poll, I disagree with most Iranians on this, but I trust Rafsanjani less than I trust Mousavi.
So with apologies, this is the impression I’ve gotten of these personalities. I wonder what the other commenters here theorize about the motivations of Mousavi and Rafsanjani.
Reza
“How do the Saudis manage to keep a lid on all the bad stuff that goes on in that country? They seem to have control over what the media in the West reports.”
Simple, they pay SB’s like our own troll in chief to put a lid on it,
Rehmat,
How do the Saudis manage to keep a lid on all the bad stuff that goes on in that country? They seem to have control over what the media in the West reports.
Reza
James Canning says: February 28, 2011 at 5:55 pm
You might be right but I am afraid we will never be able to find out since now we are at the stage that only war will end the occupation. There is no longer any other way (if there ever was one).
To understand Saudi Arabia’s international position – one has to learn why the British colonial office put Saudi ‘royal’ in charge of the center of Islam. After all, Turkish Sharif Makkah was a traitor and pro-western. The reality is, Sharif Makkah, though a Sunni Sufi, was not much of a Shia-hater, but Wahhabi Saudi family was and is. The family which has Iraqi Jewish roots – had more credit to it to create and maintain religious sectarianism within Muslims and keep the Ummah divided so it cannot challenge the western colonial powers.
Therefore, Saudi Arabia is more vital to US-Israeli interests than Egypt, Iraq and Jordan put together. However, to maintain Saudi ‘royals’ domination within Muslim world – it has to be surrounded by anti-Shia regimes. To US’s bad luck, it has already lost Lebanon to Iran and once the US loosen its occupation of Iraq – it too will go under Iranian influence.
Behrain and Yemen, once have democratic system with no western strings attached – will tilt towards Islamic Iran. An open democracy in Saudi Arabia itself will give rise to Shia political voice.
Not else have understood these scenario than Senator Joe Lieberman, who have long been pushing for US invasion of Yemen.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/lieberman-yemen-will-be-tomorrows-war/
Matt,
Thanks for this.
I suspect this arrest story was put out to try and get people to come out onto the streets tomorrow – the excuse being to demand that both men be released.
No doubt Scott Lucas is doing his best to see that this does in fact happen.
Scott Lucas,
You and your “well informed” CNN friend have been exposed again:
http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/151073/bbc-باز-هم-دروغ-گفت؛-بازداشت-موسوي-و-كروبي-صحت-ندارد
Press TV: “Iran says Mousavi, Karroubi not arrested”
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/167554.html
fyi,
Bashar al-Assad has made it clear he will sign a peace treaty, in exchange for the Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. But Syria will not be friendly with Israel unless the other issues are resolved. I think this is a sensible way forward for Syria, and I also think Israel blundered by not accepting the deal (Turkey was helping things along, when Israel attacked Gaza in late 2008).
Ahmed,
Putin is quite right to point out the hypocrisy by which the US encouraged elections in occupied Palestine, then, after Hamas won, the US conspired with Israel to try to keep Hamas out of power. The US and Israel would not even accept the Fatah/Hamas unity government.
Sources? Are you joking? Scott Lucas creates sources and lies because he must. Otherwise, he loses his funding.
Lucas is really going to be upset by this report, since he was pushing the line that the Muslim Brotherhood was “rejecting” Iran.
Muslim Brotherhood Hails Iran’s Role in Reinvigorating Muslim Unity
:http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/11320
Quote:
A senior member of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, Kamal al-Halbavi, praised Iran’s role in consolidating unity and solidarity among the Muslim countries throughout the world.
“Given the recent developments in the region, we need unity among the Muslim countries and Iran can play an important role in this regard,” Halbavi said on Sunday, addressing a conference in Tehran dubbed ‘Islamic Awakening in Arab World’.
He also called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad his favorite leaders in the world, and said, “He is the bravest man in the Muslim world and we (in Egypt) need innocent, honest and brave leaders like him.”
Halbavi reiterated that the West is opposed to the progress of the Muslim countries and that’s why the world powers are against Iran’s progress in scientific and technological fields.
End Quote
“If there was no significant challenge in the 25,000 on 14 February, we would not have see the harsh response by authorities — overruling the judiciary — since then.”
There is still seems to be a confusion regarding the scale of a threat in taking action. If 10 people go in the streets and be disruptive, and are arrested or sent home, does this mean the government is considering them a significant challenge?
“No, I acknowledge that others in the media have been selective in their use of regime and, through that selectively, have not applied it in the objective meaning that you note.”
Then following that, one would hope that responsible members of the media do not re-enforce that.
Here is an interesting quotation from Orwell,
“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. � Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. � Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. � But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.”
Note the final sentence.
“EA does not apply regime selectively — it uses the term where Government, Administration, Executive Branch is not sufficient or accurate. If we ever have the opportunity to carry a story on Norway which is not about the Government but about the system — including the monarchy — then regime would be appropriate.”
Your below post had this sentence, “The children of Mir Hossein Mousavi and Zahra Rahnavard and of Mehdi and Fatemeh Karroubi have written an open letter to the regime challenging the detention of their parents”
Would saying “an open letter to the government” been inaccurate or insufficient?
scott: Well thats your problem, you push sources just because they sound good to you – for example we saw how you rejected poll after poll earlier just bc they didnt portray the result you wanted to see, also – you dont take your time looking up the primary sources or if the source is correct to begin with. Its like me saying something and you use that on your site.
You dont have to lie to me on the agenda thing, you represent the mainstream view about Iran, so sorry..but your information is available en masse on foxnews, cnn you name it etc. Your personal agenda would be to push for this propaganda even more, cui bono?
M. Ali,
“Your refusal to even acknowledge this show how little you are willing to change on your perspective on even the simplest points.”
No, I acknowledge that others in the media have been selective in their use of regime and, through that selectively, have not applied it in the objective meaning that you note.
EA does not apply regime selectively — it uses the term where Government, Administration, Executive Branch is not sufficient or accurate. If we ever have the opportunity to carry a story on Norway which is not about the Government but about the system — including the monarchy — then regime would be appropriate.
S.
haha now scott even dodge the “regime” discussion. Good job M.Ali.
Ahmed,
1. Sources are identified on each story on the EA website. If you do not wish to check the site, give me a specific point I have made and I will provide a source.
2. Agenda — first and foremost, to provide news coverage in a situation where other media have chosen not to cover the story or have been prevented from doing so.
S.
M. Ali,
Again, you miss the point. You are trying to treat this month’s marches — in artificial comparisons — in isolation from the political context.
One could just as easily make the point of comparison that the opposition had not been able to put out any significant demonstration from February 2010, so a comparison between the tens of thousands on 14 and 20 February 2011 and, say, June 2010 gives a more positive reading for the opposition.
Certainly that is the way it is being taken by activists inside Iran. This does not mean, of course, that they pose an immediate challenge to the regime/system/Government — the point is more that they are still present and live to fight another day. Which is, of course, why they are attempting a series of marches.
And certainly this is the way it is being read by the regime/system/Government. If there was no significant challenge in the 25,000 on 14 February, we would not have see the harsh response by authorities — overruling the judiciary — since then.
Best,
S.
Scott: What is your sources and what is your agenda?
“I do not use the term regime in a pejorative sense and have used it for a number of political systems.”
Let me discuss this first as it is the most cut and dry.
Scott, I have given examples in this thread and others have mentioned other examples in previous thread on why regime has negative connotations and is used exclusively by the media and politicians. It does not matter that it might be linguistically accurate, it has negative connotations to it, and you are playing in the hands of those that use words to change a person’s perspective on something.
Your refusal to even acknowledge this show how little you are willing to change on your perspective on even the simplest points.
Ahmed,
No dodging here. Ask again if an answer is not clear.
S.
“The number-crunching by BiBiJon and M. Ali is a bit off. The assumption is that each pocket was only 100 people — in fact, “100s” can mean several hundred people who were marching (often silently). So only 12 groups of 400-500 people would give the estimate of 5000-6000 marchers around Enghelab. And in other locations, like Sadeghieh Square, the estimate was 2000 people.”
My point still stands that in comparison with Manama, the total would be 275 people. Divide that with how many pockets you want (instead of saying 200-300 pockets, lets say 20-30), that would still bring a very insignificant number.
“M. Ali’s logic is also a bit off the mark. Certainly, if this march took place at the start of the post-election protest and was unimpeded by security forces, unhindered by detentions, unrestricted by cut-off of communications, then he might establish his point of an insignificant 25,000.
But that is not the case, of course. It might be better, if a comparison was attempted, to look at the crowd size of 15 June 2009.”
Why do supporters of the movement get so frustrated that their numbers got reduced because of government restrictions? In all moments of history and in all nations, protesters are met with restrictions. The strength of a movement is to see if it can increase when faced with such restrictions. Does Scott and his comrades expected the government to lay a red carpet for Mousavi and Karoubi and welcome the protesters that are trying to nallufy an election with open-arms?
We are using today’s estimate and not 2009′s estimate, because we are talking about the movement’s current significant and strength. So, if in 5 years, the Green movement brings about 40 people in the streets, would you say that we shouldnt look at that number and instead looking at early 2009′s number? By this logic, no matter what happens in the future, we should always judge the strength of the movement based on one moment in history. Meaning, by this weird logic, 2000 years from now, the Green Movement will still be alive, because in 15 July 2009 they were in the streets.
Scott,
Have you ever considered covering events inside America on EA for a change? You barely mention the trouble in Wisconsin. How about giving us an update on when and if Vikram Buddhi is going to be released from jail this year for cussing off George Bush on his blog?
You are positively obsessed with Mousavi and Karroubi. Maybe you would like to share a prison cell with them and you can find out all about their plans? This can be arranged.
M. Ali,
Your post on threat, while well-intentioned, did not really address the specific question of the regime/system’s calculations in this case, not only making the arrests and the midnight transfers to a military prison but also denying that this has occurred.
This was not a legal process or even — as your post considered — a security calculation. It was a political decision. While the motives are not clear, I think Reza’s “cut the head off the snake” approach might fit. But that would point to a regime/system concern that the snake had not been killed in the previous 20 months.
(I do not use the term regime in a pejorative sense and have used it for a number of political systems.)
S.
S.
Scott: For Gods sake, stop dodging questions.
Regarding my regime point,
A search for Norway has 342,000,000 results.
A search for Iran has 198,000,000 results. Almost, half of that.
A search for “Norwegian regime” is 1680 results. Based on the above, one would expect the “Iranian regime” to be half of that to be fair. That is, 840 results. But instead it is 2,230,000 results.
Furthermore, if you do the same search in Google News, you have NO RESULTS for Norwegian regime, meaning NO MEDIA uses that term when discussing Norway. But Iran has 1310 results with its term.
Reza,
“You’re the person who was reportingg that 3 killed on the 1st of Esfand, right?”
No.
S.
M.Ali says:
February 28, 2011 at 3:54 pm
“Threat is not an on/off switch”
For the US-EU axis it was , when they brutally attacked Afghanistan and Iraq ( Bin Laden/WMD crap ) and killed and diplaced millions , as an preemptive ‘threat’ measure of course.
The number-crunching by BiBiJon and M. Ali is a bit off. The assumption is that each pocket was only 100 people — in fact, “100s” can mean several hundred people who were marching (often silently). So only 12 groups of 400-500 people would give the estimate of 5000-6000 marchers around Enghelab. And in other locations, like Sadeghieh Square, the estimate was 2000 people.
M. Ali’s logic is also a bit off the mark. Certainly, if this march took place at the start of the post-election protest and was unimpeded by security forces, unhindered by detentions, unrestricted by cut-off of communications, then he might establish his point of an insignificant 25,000.
But that is not the case, of course. It might be better, if a comparison was attempted, to look at the crowd size of 15 June 2009.
S.
M.Ali> Good point but scott isnt objective.
scott lucas: Tu non sai quello che dici! ciao
Final point for now. Scott, this was mentioned before, but if you insist on being non-partisan and objective, would it not be better not to use “regime” to describe the Iranian system? Linguistically, it is an accurate description, but we know in today’s manipulative PR word-play, “regime” has negotive connotations. The media calls it Saddam’s regime, Ghaddafi’s regime, Syrian regime but not Stephen Harper’s regime and the Norwegian regime. So, please do not refer to Iran as a regime.
I would also like to make a point about them being a threat or not, and if not, why be arrested. This argument has been made several times during the two years, and I would like to address it.
1) Threat is not an on/off switch. A person can be a threat no matter how small that threat is. A person that goes in someone’s house and steals a TV is a threat to that neighborhood’s security. Just because the police arrest him, does not mean they consider him a threat to the full collapse of the system.
2) Not all arrests are done based on whether something is a threat or not.
3) Why arrest them now and not before? Many people who are against Mousavi/Karoubi ask the same question, but it seems the government made a calculated move that they assumed as in the best interest of the stability in the nation. They might have felt that there were legal cases for arresting the duo, but felt their arrests could cause further instability in a moment of high emotions. As it seems that emotions have calmed down and the duo have lost majority of their support, they might feel that they can know pursue cases against them. I feel they have take the most responsible route.
Bibijon’s source point was interesting. If there were pockets of 200-300 groups, thats 200-300 trustworthy, no-agenda, unbiased sources, and I am sure we can all agree that it is doubtful Scott has that.
But I would like to not be so cynical towards him and take his estimate of 20,000-30,000. Lets take the midpoint of his estimate and use the number 25,000. In Tehran’s estimated population of 14million, thats only 0.17 percentage of Tehran population. To put in perspective, Manama (Bahrain) population is 162,000. 0.17% of that is 275 people. And lets divide that in 200-300 pockets. Which basically means a single person walking around. I wonder how significant Bahrain’s opposition movement would seem if it consisted of 200 individual protesters walking by themselves in Manama…
Ahmed,
I was offering a conservative estimate of the numbers expected tomorrow. No doubt we will see crowds in the hundreds of millions.
Scott,
You’re the person who was reportingg that 3 killed on the 1st of Esfand, right? Thanks to you, many people still believe this to have been the case.
Couldn’t you just wait until the picture becomes clearer. This whole thing could just be a ploy to create more unrest tomorrow. You are ranting and raving like some pre-pubescent brat who has had his Play Station confiscated by his mommy.
scott: where does these sources come from MEK? AIPAC? Fox? You are getting awkward. Whats your agenda?
Latest situation….
2010 GMT: The children of Mir Hossein Mousavi and Zahra Rahnavard and of Mehdi and Fatemeh Karroubi have written an open letter to the regime challenging the detention of their parents: “We believe that our parents did not commit a crime but only applied the divine language in their statement. Are you are so afraid of the facts stated in public view that you must imprison them?”
2000 GMT: Saham News had responded quickly to the denial by Fars of the arrests, posting more details of the detentions, but it has been knocked off-line.
1855 GMT: The location of Heshmatiyeh Prison in Tehran, where Mir Hossein Mousavi, Zahra Rahnavard, and Mehdi and Fatemeh Karroubi were taken today.
1845 GMT: Fars News has given the first reaction from Iranian media to the detention of Mir Hossein Mousavi, Zahra Rahnavard, and Mehdi and Fatemeh Karroubi, claiming the story is untrue.
Quoting an unnamed judiciary official, Fars said Mousavi and Karroubi were still under house arrest and claimed that foreign media such as BBC Persian and the Voice of America were spreading the rumour to cause unrest.
1840 GMT: Opposition advisor Ardeshir Amir Arjomand has made a drawn on current events to compare the arrests of Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi with the kidnapping of Musa al-Sadr.
Al-Sadr is an Iranian-born Lebanese philosopher and Shī‘a religious leader who disappeared in Libya in August 1978. Many believe he was executed by the Qaddafi regime, but there have been reports this week that he could be alive in a Libyan prison.
1830 GMT: The reformist Association of Combatant Clerics has called for the release of Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi at earliest possible time.
http://enduringamerica.com/home/2011/2/27/iran-special-latest-on-the-regimes-detention-of-opposition-f.html
Reza,
The judiciary was opposed to the arrest of Mousavi and Karroubi. Your line is similar to that taken by advisors to Ahmadinejad, the Ministry of Intelligence, and the military.
But there is still no satisfactory answer from the regime — if the worst of the situation had been passed — why these arrests were made in 2011 rather than 2009.
S.
Reza: Knock it off, we are talking about billions.
Scott says:
The opposition march is called for late tomorrow afternoon.
And no doubt yourself and the folks at EA will be doing their best to make sure it happens. I am sure *millions* will attend.
Scott,
Let’s wait and see what has actually happened. You seem to believe 100% in everything you read on the GM’s websites just like you bought into the “stolen election” wholesale. I have heard they were transferred to a safe house and not to a prison.
Anyway, if the judiciary and intelligence service got their wish to try the pair granted, then this would be a necessary first step in the process.
I hope the government realizes that the pair are a festering boil that won’t go away unless it is tackled head on. Both men want to create as much mischief as they can.
Cut the head off the beast and the tail stops wagging. That is my recommendation.
fyi,
RE: “In fact, Industrial civilization could be the best friend of the environment.”
Yes (I’m assuming, from the context of your post, I understand what you mean by industrial civilization). Regrettably, disproportionate amount of money and and power has been applied to decouple all technological advances from ethics and justice (something that should be the backbone of technology).
RE: “Greed & stupidity was never confined to a specific time & place.”
Indeed.
One disturbing and alarming difference between the past couple of centuries and the very good examples you provided is that massive amounts of toxic and radioactive material are synthetically produced with almost zero effort invested in the remediation techniques. For most, the only “solution” they’ve come up with is incineration and “capping” (just bundling them up and burring them underground in poor communities.
Fiorangela,
RE: “However, no one really knows the extent of the environmental damage consequent to the fracking process”
A lot of research as been conducted both in terms of the scope of the pollution, fate and transport of the chemicals used, and environmental/bio-diversity impacts of fracking. However, none is being publicized through the MSM (should you be interested, I could provide a few references). You may note that MSM are compliant covering up a range of issues. The problem of fracking goes also beyond chemical contamination. Gas and oil in-between porous layer of earth act as “lubricant” and a way to “absorb” the pressure from constant movement of the geological layers. When you remove them (through oil and gas drilling), you basically end up taking away natural “safeguards” and shock absorbents which might lead to small, medium, and large-scale local and regional earthquakes (depending upon from which “plates” the oil and gas have been removed).
Re: Wind farms, unfortunately, trying to do it on the cheap, the industries that have gotten involved in producing electricity by harvesting wind farms, are using enormous amount of herbicides (approximately 5 applications a year depending on how green the area is) to stunt the growth of the grass around the wind towers. This has lead to massive contamination of the surface and ground water and estuaries around the wind farms. In the northeast area, the fish kills are quite alarming after only 3-4 years (for the fish, fishermen, local well waters, etc.). Again, should you be interested, I could provide you with some place to start.
So, what do all these tell us? I loop back to fyi’s comment that there is no “technological civilization”. We’ve just found more technologically “advanced” ways to kill one another and satisfy our greed to a degree that no living being will remain.
Bibi: This just proves how interested the US really are in democracy, they only pursue their own interest and supports whoever that support US role in the mideast.
Ahmed says:
February 28, 2011 at 2:42 pm
what goes around, come around …
Putin is repeating what Reagan told Gorbachev about USSR’s client states.
Reza,
Try to stay on point — this is not about EA but about a serious internal development.
“Mousavi and Karroubi’s actions are not a threat but a tiresome nuisance”….
Then why arrest them now?
S.
BiBiJon,
“Quite a lot of sources!”
Absolutely right.
S.
Mr Putin says something very valuable:
http://rt.com/news/ten-day-protest-lybia/
“Speaking after talks with the EU leadership, he said that previous efforts along those lines had led to victories for governments the West is now fighting to contain.
“Today, we say we’re concerned about things happening in Libya. But the North African cell of Al-Qaeda is also concerned about what is happening in Libya. Do you think this is a coincidence?” the Russian PM asked.
“I would like to go back in history a little bit. The former leader of the Iranian revolution – where did he live?! He lived in Paris and as a whole he was supported by the Western community. Now the entire Western community fights against the Iranian nuclear program,” Putin pointed out.
“I remember just recently our partners were very active in supporting democratic elections in the Palestinian autonomy. And Hamas won. And immediately they declared Hamas a terrorist organization and started fighting against it. We need to give people a chance to determine their future themselves. We need to give them an opportunity to take a natural way without any foreign interference to build their future,” he concluded.”
The US inteference in arab nations must END!
James Canning says: February 28, 2011 at 2:12 pm
I am not opposed to the return of the Golan.
I am merely stating that will not lead, in my opinion, to a separate Syria-Israel Peace treaty.
Only to a cease-fire; which is already there.
We do not know the best interest of the region beyond generalized peace.
Since US-EU Axis can only bring war and instability to the region, the elimination of the Axis role in the Middle East is the pre-requisite for the peaceful evolution of that part of the world.
The current uprising in North Africa, Persian Gulf, and Maghreb are going to expedite the reduction of Axis power in the Middle East.
fyi,
Yes, I am aware of the concerns voiced by Alawite religious leaders. As is Turkey, whcih still believes getting Israel out of the Golan Heights is in the best interests of the region.
BiBiJon says:
February 28, 2011 at 1:21 pm
BibiJon , thank you in deed for your useful and informative site , as also our esteemed UU had mentioned before.
I think , that you had posted the limk to your site in an earlier comment , but I had lost it , now it is saved to my favorites .
The decent hint to your site also shows your class and self – respect and confidence , unlike others , who are just here to penetrantly bait people to their dead and fake ‘ website ‘.
Scott – Karroubi and Mousavi lost. To quote the Leveretts, get over it.
The prosecutor-general, Mohsen Ejei, says that the government will now adopt a zero tolerance approach towards Mousavi and Karroubi and their supporters.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/167543.html
They have been declared counter-revolutionary mufsideen b’il arz. That means they are no different in status from the Mujahedeen e Khalq.
Scott,
Mousavi and Karroubi’s actions are not a threat but a tiresome nuisance… one which leads to instability and often violence. It is interesting that you are using *exactly* the same language to describe their situation as the State Department is – proving beyond all reasonable doubt your connection to the U.S. government.
EA is nothing but a front for the CIA, NED and the “Green movement”.
Liz says:
February 28, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Sorry to be math nerd. But, 20-30,000 divided into 100, comes to 200 to 300 sources who happened to be at the right time at the right place. Quite a lot of sources!
James Canning says: February 28, 2011 at 1:15 pm
2 years ago there was a meeting of the Allawaite religious leaders with Syrian government representatives.
The objective was to make certain that Syria will not sign a separate Peace treaty with Israel that excludes the Palestinian track and the Al Haram Al Sharif.
The Allawaite leaders are quite rightly concerned of being accused – by all Muslims, Shia or Sunni – of betraying Islam. They have to consider the longevity of the Allawaite sect over the coming centuries.
Scott Lucas,
“About 20,000-30,000 in Tehran — moving in pockets of 100s in most cases — on 25 Bahman; a bit smaller on 1 Esfand.”
Keep on dreaming…
Unknown Unknowns says:
February 28, 2011 at 12:38 pm
maa’m kuchik-e shoma hastim.
fyi,
Interesting comments you made regarding the Shah of Iran’s neglect of the Shia dimension of the culture of his country. Clearly the Shah was inspired by Persian empires of many centuries past.
Re: Syria, Bashar al-Assad makes clear Syrian peace with Israel would be much less than a friendly relationship if Palestinian issue etc remained unresolved. But I think he is quite right to focus on getting Israel out of the Golan Heights so the refugees can return to their homes etc.
Pirouz,
The opposition march is called for late tomorrow afternoon.
Spoke with another very good source at length today about 25 Bahman and 1 Esfand. He bore out, from people across Iran, my previous estimates. About 20,000-30,000 in Tehran — moving in pockets of 100s in most cases — on 25 Bahman; a bit smaller on 1 Esfand.
Scott
Reza,
We’ve analysed Rafsanjani’s moves closely. He’s positioning ahead of the Assembly of Experts election this week.
S.
The latest on the arrests of Mousavi, Rahnavard, and the Karroubis….
*Mir Hossein Mousavi’s Kalemeh claims that Mousavi, Zahra Rahnavard, and Mehdi and Fatemeh Karroubi have been moved to Heshmatiyeh Prison in Tehran.
Meanwhile, this appears to be as close as the regime has come to admitting the detentions. Iran Prosecutor General Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei has said that cut-off of communications and house arrest — not the move to a prison or house controlled by security forces, but restriction to their residences — is “only the first step”.
Mehdi Karroubi’s Saham News has accused the Supreme Leader’s office of ordering the seizure of Karroubi and his wife Fatemeh, Mir Hossein Mousavi, and Zahra Rahnavard.*
—-
So no charges have been announced. Indeed, the arrests have not been acknowledged by the regime.
Either Mousavi and Karroubi are not a threat — in which case, the house arrests, let alone the imprisonments, make no sense. Or the opposition is still a threat, in which case there has to be these dead-of-night arrests (with an escalation of security at key points in Tehran) have to be made, even though the judiciary has opposed the move.
Saham News also reports that authorities are trying to find Karroubi’s son Hossein, who gave details of the detentions last night, and arrest him. Security forces raided Hossein Karroubi’s residence two weeks ago, reportedly to detain him, but he was not at home.
S.
On that last point, I wish I can remember who said this but I remember it well: “Other countries may have ‘regimes’ but Iran has a ’system’.”
I can’t be certain, but I’m pretty sure it was Sarah Palin.
BiBiJon:
I just emailed the link to your website to my gf (who is in CA). What a great resource! It is truly a great service in the cause of truth. Thank you.
From http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2011/02/irannaders-comparison-of-regime-stability-in-iran-and-arab-countries.html
Irannaders: Comparison of regime stability in Iran and Arab countries
I recommend reading this post on the IranAnders blog entitled (in German) “Comparison of regime stability in Iran and Arab states.” *Better translation here
In Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen and Egypt, the demonstrations were seen as indigenous, Arab and “pure”, not influenced by direct western intervention. In Iran however, it appeared that the “Green Movement” was created and used for foreign interests. Radio Israel, Voice of America and BBC-Farsi helped the protests and demonstrators with slogans, guided demonstrations and recommended strategies.
Besides such mainstream media, there were several other television and radio stations (some professional, but also silly amateur stations), which broadcast into their calls for regime overthrow with their political reports. And of course, there is the one million U.S. dollars for the support of dissident media too. Probably no country has had to deal with so many opposition media sources from abroad via satellite, radio and Internet, as Iran…
The Iranian regime is stabilized not only by the “external threat” factor, which allows it to rally the people around itself, but also by its system and ideology. The major reason for stability in the Islamic Republic is that the constitution itself is not monolithic. It creates equal, competing centers of power in the executive, legislative and judicial branches, which are independent and separate. Above this are the non-partisan office of the Supreme Jurisprudent and some other power centers, including the Expediency Council. Thus, what the West sees as a “systematic failure,” “power struggle” or “cracks in the regime” is in fact one of the pillars of Iran’s stability.
On that last point, I wish I can remember who said this but I remember it well: “Other countries may have ‘regimes’ but Iran has a ‘system’.” And this is a source of significant error on those who compare Iran to personality-centered dictatorships of North Korea and Mubarak’s Egypt etc.
Here’s the same a$$hole who said Palestine was not populated because no one can object to someone “cleaning out the barn of a bunch of dogs”.
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill
Just goes to show he wasn’t all shit-for-brains.
Bullshit article. Dont try to act smart as if you know what is going on or what will go on.
The majority of Bahrain dont want Iran influence at all which is the true agenda of a group of protesters. The majority of protesters ONLY want a better standard of living which is fair enough and Bahrain should satisfy their needs, but there is no need of any sort of power shift.
Scott,
You might want to read the TT’s recent Persian Press Review (in English) on Hashemi Rafsanjani’s condemnation of the “counter-revolutionary” forces that were present on the streets during Feb 14th.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=236520
Enjoy.
Liz,
Reza Sayah is a liar with links to the monarchists in the United States.
Scott Lucas,
Your “reliable” CNN friend says they were taken to a safe house. Khatami sais they are under house arrest. If they are in their own house, then Reza Sayah lied about talking to “Iranian government sources”.
Scott Lucas,
Mousavi and Karrubi should be detained and put on trial. They are liars and because of their lies they have caused death and distruction.
“And what is the legal basis for this? In Pirouz’s example, detention without charge and habeas corpus was rationalised by civil war in the US in 1861. “–Scott
Rationalization includes cold war, soft war, economic war (sanctions), attempted color coup, incitement to riot… just to name a few.
Looked at from the perspective of a legitimate election (the public opinion polls all back this up as well as the Brill analysis), with these political agitators falsely contending fraud and deliberately inciting unrest, this move by Iranian authorities can almost be seen as belated.
Am I mistaken or were demonstrations called for on Monday? Did they not come off?
I wish people would stop talking about ‘the law of unintended consequences’. Just because a lot of people maybe never thought things through doesn’t mean that NO ONE thought things through, that no one figured out some way that they could benefit from some form of chaos.
James Canning says: February 27, 2011 at 1:44 pm
The Shah never, to my knowledge, publicly participated -even as an spectator- in the Mourning Ceremonies for Imam Hussien. He never attended Taziyah (Passion Play), as far as I know. The Qajar Shahs did that.
He changed the Iranian calendar from Solar Hijra to Solar Imperial, attempting to dilute the Shia character of state. Some mullahs actually were concerned that he would one day state that the official state religion is going to be Zorastrian; “..I had a vision of the Prophet Zoraster the night before and …”
His foreign policy, based on European models, neglected the religious dimension of Iranian interests in Shia communities of the Middle East. Given the trans-national nature of the Middle Eastern politics which consisted of pan-Arabism, Sunni pan-Islamism, trans-national Judaism of Partisans of Israel, Armenian diaspora in the Middle East and elesewhere, he was going against the grain of the Middle Eastern culture and civilization.
Others can elaborate this better than I.
In regards to Syria – future will show.
My opinion is that even if Israel removes herself from the West Bank, the Golan, and Sheba Farms there can be no Peace treaty until and unless she has surrendered Al Haram Al Sharif as well.
Without that, only cease-fire is possible.
Empty says: February 28, 2011 at 9:19 am
Not just over the last 200 years.
Nasser Khosrow related, in his Safarnameh, how they camped outisde of Shiraz for the night (I imagine one manzel away) and they were up all night because of monkeys kepy on trying to steal their gear.
Ibn Battutah descibes Khuzestan as lush.
And Lebanon’s famous cedars were cut for centuries.
Even now, if the poor people in the Zagros Mountains stop cutting the shrubs and trees there, the forest will be back within 60 years.
In fact, Industrial civilization could be the best friend of the environment.
Greed & stupidity was never confined to a specific time & place.
Empty, as usual, an unusual and wise application of critical thinking to an emotional endorsement of nuclear power as energy source.
In the US, a great deal of excitement is being expressed over the various shale deposits that can be “fracked” to release their abundant gas content. Landowners who have leased to the gas recovery companies are featured in advertising — “Now we’re rich, and the company even planted trees!! We bought a Ferrari with the royalties from just one year!!
However, no one really knows the extent of the environmental damage consequent to the fracking process; it’s not implausible that the chemicals used in fracking could destroy the watersheds and croplands of 1/3 of the United States. This morning’s news reported that the Pennsylvania legislature will vote on whether or not shale drilling will be permitted in the state’s forest lands. Pennsylvania, like almost every other state, faces a budget shortfall, and proceeds from drilling on state lands will be tempting. The only resistance will be raised by sportsmen — hunters and sport fishermen — who vacation in state forests and reserves, and by wacky environmentalists who really oughta be run outta da country.
On the other hand, it should be noted that Pennsylvania started investing in wind farms over 30 years ago. One major installation of windmills in Pennsylvania is within walking distance of the site where Flight 93 crashed on 9/11. (The opposite hillside is being strip mined for its coal, and just around the corner is one of the largest car junk yards that I have ever seen. There’s an unmined metaphor in that locale.)
If I could write a thriller novel or screenplay (that is, if I could figure out a way to profit from degradation of the environment), it would involve a ball of fire floating on a stream of polluted water coursing through the major waterways of the East Coast of the US.
An archetype often discussed in systems thinking is “fixes that fail.” Fixes that fail, or solutions that have intended and unintended adverse consequences are usually a consequence of linear and fragmented thinking. میاد ابرو رو درست کنه میزنه چشم رو کور می کنه (in her attempt to pluck and beautify the eyebrow, she pokes an eye out). To determine the soundness of any energy production method, one must include in one’s analysis all costs associated with that method. Where does the raw material come from? Who pays the cost? Who reaps the benefit? Who has the technology to even harvest the benefit? For what purpose and to what end? How is it produced? What are the short-, medium-, and long-term effects of them? To the people? To the environment? What types of waste does it produce? What happens to the waste? What are short-, medium-, and long-term impacts of the waste? On the people? On the environment?
Waste and pollution are often the most neglected part of alternative methods of energy production. Of all current discussions about alternative energy, nuclear energy is, by far, the most ecologically unsustainable method. Nuclear energy became politicized to a degree that even the framework for discussion (pros and cons) was hijacked by the proponents of the industry and they did not allow any space for challenging it. If you would like to know where the wars of the next 50 years will be fought, which communities and countries will be exploited, maimed, and mutilated, look to see where the “raw material” for the nuclear power comes from and which communities and countries are “earmarked” to be a receptacle for some of the most dangerous types of waste, nuclear waste. The utter stupidity of the so-called “solutions” to energy would baffle even the dumbest plant and animal beings on the planet.
Millions of years of geological processes created a planet suitable for life. Less than two hundred years of stupidity has turned the planet to one completely hostile to life.
قال اتستبدلون الذی هوادنی بالذی هو خیر اهبطوا مصرا فان لکم ماسالتم و ضربت علیهم الدله ولامسکنه و باء و بغضب من الله (Are you converting that which is beneficial to that which is inferior and harmful? Therefore, return to the city where you could do as you wish. Indeed it was determined for them to be struck by humiliation and poverty.) – Interpretation/translation from: Quran, Chapter 2, Verse 61.
M Ali: Yes? We had/have a discussion(?!)
Tom, my mistake, I thought we were having an actual discussion.
M Ali: I dont agree, aslong as these leaders agitate and could mobilize people en masse in the streets rioting and demonstrating…the road to regime change is near.
I think you might be exaggerating the threat. I don’t think the government considers them as a threat in terms of overthrowing the government, but they are causing disruptions in the general stability of the nation.
For example, (this is just an example, not related to actual reality) hundreds of people causing riots in the streets will not cause the collapse of the government, but it might be problematic enough for a government to want to address.
Scott,
Mousavi and Karroubi have little support for their own predicament. They are just an excuse for anti-government forces to take to the streets – as with Feb14th.
Now, their aides are trying to exploit the fire festival of Chaharshanbeh Soori as an opportunity to wage yet more street riots. Inevitably, flares, molotov cocktails and fire crackers will be used as they often are against the security forces.
It is time to put the pair on trial. They have already had charges filed against them.
M Ali: Well if these people have becomed detained, it would come as no surprise taking in regard what happend in Egypt and Tunis..Then, its no wonder the iranian state might percieve these detainees (if they are) as a threat.
Stephen Dunes: ‘Good for Egypt, Good for Israel’.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/secular-democracy-in-me-is-good-for-israel/
Tom, I’m not sure why they have been detained, or even IF they have been detained, or under what circumstances. Currently, the news seems to be very vague.
If detained, its possible the reason might be that they are, as you say, perceived to be a threat to the stability of the nation. You then seem to ask if I am blind, and I can answer no, and would clarify more, if I could know what you were pointing exactly at. What am I supposed to be blind too?
M.Ali: And why do you think they have been detained? Maybe because the state percieve those as a threat to the stability and the ruling system? Are you blind?!
Scott,
Regarding legal basis: I’m not sure what the legal basis for this is since I’m not aware of the full details of the situation nor am I that well-versed in Iranian Laws.
Regarding State News: There is a lot of news that the state media does not report. And there is a lot of news that other media reports that later on turn out to be false.
M. Ali,
“People at this thread don’t seem to care if Mousavi/Karoubi have been detained….”
This is indeed a valuable observation about the approach of RFI — both its authors and commenters — to Iran’s internal affairs.
S.
M. Ali,
“I would argue that Iranians in general wont care [about the detention of Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard], which is why they might have been detained at this moment.”
Fair speculation, but if so, why are State media not reporting the detention?
And what is the legal basis for this? In Pirouz’s example, detention without charge and habeas corpus was rationalised by civil war in the US in 1861. That is not the case in Iran in 2011.
S.
I was reading this article in Asia Times Online and this part was especially funny :
“…The February 14 street protests clogged up some streets in Tehran, but did not totally paralyze the city. Much of the video footage shows people walking or driving by, going about their normal business. Shops and cinemas remained open even in areas where demonstration was taking place.
Eyewitnesses say that motorcyclists were offering rides to sightseers who wanted to have a look at the demonstration, and to people just trying to work through the crowds….
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB26Ak01.html
Conclusion : Business must go on…
For SL and SP the ride is for free :-)
M.Ali says:
February 28, 2011 at 5:32 am
M.Ali , valuable comment , thanks.
Scott, you mentioned your news report several times in this thread. It is interesting to me that it does not seem to catch anyone’s interest. People at this thread don’t seem to care if Mousavi/Karoubi have been detained, and I would argue that Iranians in general wont care, which is why they might have been detained at this moment.
As emotions were high last year, any such move might have been counteractive for the nation’s interest, and the government seems to have acted wisely. They allowed the movement to run out of steam and are now cleaning up.
Of course, now that you have mentioned this item 3-4 times, are you looking for specific parts of it to debate? Because I didn’t see you mention anything, just repeated the story several times, hoping to bait someone, but no one seems to be catching, aside from me? Oh, except maybe Pirouz, who you jumped on his analogy to claim that maybe Iran is in a civil war. Since Pirouz brought up the analogy of Lincoln, and you linked it to civil war, why not take to another ridiculous and pointless comparison, by asking him if his analogy with Lincoln, also means that Iran has slaves?
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 27, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Richard, when I was talking about “stark lack of proliferation” I was not refering to the stand-off among the nuclear haves. I was pointing out that in the 60 years since Hiroshima, a good 40 technologically capable nations hsve not gone nuclear despite the fact that they live next door to nuclear powers with whome they have had huge historical problems. Before we dismiss Japan’s, S. Korea’s and Taiwan’s, lack of nuclear interest because of a nuclear unbrella, lets also consider Brazil and Argentina as examples. Where is their unbrella?
The fact is nuclear dominos have not fallen for 60 years. And, hence my point that US’ extravagant nuclear arsenal has not accorded it a strategic edge over Brazil, or even over a ‘single-bomb’ country such as Lebanon. India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are exceptions that don’t make a rule.
On your other points, you are essentially describing evil. Yes, they’ll make the bomb, use the bomb, and smoke a cigar and laugh about it. Fair enogh. An apt description of pure evil.
For the rest of us mortals, the only thing to fear is fear itself. It is that fear that paralizes us, and that paralysis is what gives the devil affirmation of power.
I have no doubt humanity will unshakle itself from these useless, disgusting instruments of evil.
Fiorangela says:
February 27, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Always a pleasure to exchange thoughts with you.
A couple of factoids might also interest you.
According to U.S. Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Iran/Electricity.html
Iran has focused on meeting higher demand mainly through expanding combined-cycle and hydroelectric power. However, a severe drought during late 2007 and early 2008 adversely affected Iran’s hydroelectric production, leaving water reservoirs emptied during the summer peak demand season, resulting in a drop of nearly 70 percent in hydroelectricity power generation. This has brought into question Irans ability to fulfill its domestic power obligations, let alone its export obligations. Consequently, as of late 2007 some 85 water dams were under construction.
===============
According to D8 alternative energy conference:
,http://www.developing8.org/2008/11/24/solar-energy-use-upbeat-iran/
Iran is the fourth country in the world in terms of generating electricity from solar energy. Since the solar irradiation is high in most parts of the country and in most months, Iran can procure a portion of its energy needs through solar energy.
=================
It has always amused me that Dick Cheney who “In 2004, said, `[Iran is] already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. No one can figure out why they need nuclear, as well, to generate energy’” never puzzeled about the Herculean efforts Iran was making in hydroelectric, wind and solar sources of power.
And, let us not forget that Messrs. Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld endorsed Iran’s quest for nuclear energy back in 1976 when her energy needs were a fraction of what they are today, and the domestically consumed oil was worth chump change compared to current $100 pb prices.
See ,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html
Iran Analysis: The Regime Arrests Mousavi and Karroubi in the Race Between Fear and Hope
“It was going to happen. For the past 20 months, not a day has gone by without the opposition voicing the fear that the Green Movement’s two leading figures would be arrested. Now those concerns have been borne out, as Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, along with their wives and political activists Zahra Rahnavard and Fatemeh Karroubi, were detained. But whether they were arrested now or 20 months ago makes little difference.
“The two men, holed up in their homes and guarded by security forces, already had very little freedom of movement; they have effectively been under house arrest for the past several months. So there is no shock in their transfer to a house of detention, run by the Ministry of Intelligence and/or the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Instead, the significance lies elsewhere, as an indication of how the political situation has changed on the ground in Iran.”
http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/2/28/iran-analysis-the-regime-arrests-mousavi-and-karroubi-in-the.html
Fiorangela
your last writing about Iran’s energy needs and your experience is wonderfully written. Thanks.
This is clearly one of the worst pieces ever posted on theraceforIran.
Much of the writing is clearly an American and perverted view of the region and Bahrain specially. The article pretends that Bahraini’s fear Iran, when there is no substance for such sentiment in a nation that is ruled by a Saudi/US backed Sunni minority, with no legitimacy.
What is even more sad is that the article ends with urging the Saudis to understand that a democratic rule would be to their benefit. This clearly is an abomination. We, in America, can assume that a democratic rule is ultimately to our benefit as it reflect our values. But for the author to argue that such a free system would be in the long interest of the despotic and ilegitimate Saudi thugs, is truly abomination. Most importantly, the author fails to understand that a democratic regime in Bahrain is unlikely to confront Iran or house the 5th fleet.
Finally, for better or for worst, every picture of the demonstrations shows that Bahrain more than any other ME uprising is a religious affair. No where can we hear the call for “Allaho Akbar” more clearly than in Bahrain, and their clerical leadership are emerging from the shadows.
The author should be ashamed of himself for attempting to mislead the audience.
Pirouz,
I think your analogy of the detentions of Mousavi, Rahnavard, and the Karroubis with Lincoln’s action does not apply for many reasons but to ask a basic question:
Are you saying that Iran in a state of civil war?
Best,
S.
BiBiJon: “In the specific case of Iran, should USA “totally obliterate” the country, they would not have imposed nothing on Iran, but eternal shame upon themselves.”
Which, however, would not help the dead Iranians – which is the point when you’re talking about war. And if the US can convince those countries in the world who matter that it was done because Iran was a “nuclear threat”, and if those countries don’t nuke the US in return, well, “shame” and a couple bucks buys you a cup of coffee. I an guarantee you that the people who run the US couldn’t give a rat’s ass about “eternal shame”. And the dead Iranians wouldn’t either.
“Putting Iran aside for the moment, the stark lack of proliferation in countries around nuclear powers over the decades demonstartes that possession of nukes, historically, has obtained no strategic benefit to those who have the darned things, and has not diminished those countries without.”
The reasons are well known – first, the MAD doctrine pretty much neutralizes the weapons – once again, IF you have enough deliverable weapons to be a credible threat – and second, obliterating millions of civilians is considered “tacky” since WWII, especially if you stand a chance of being nuked in return by that other country’s allies, which again was dependent on the Cold War and the possession of nukes.
This has nothing to do with the fact that the US has the most technologically advanced military in the world – plus thousands of nuclear weapons – is one of the reasons it can bully most other non-nuclear, non-massive conventional military countries to at least some degree. Only countries with large populations such as India and China, or nuclear weapons like Russia, India and Pakistan, or countries with both – China – can withstand such bullying, Even North Korea can withstand US bullying – not because it has nukes, but because it has a massive conventional military buried in underground bunkers.
None of which is relevant to Iran, which again doesn’t qualify on either count. Their population isn’t big enough, their conventional military isn’t strong enough, and they don’t have – and can’t get – nukes in time to be a credible threat.
So nukes aren’t always useless. There are tactical nukes for which a tactical doctrine has been worked out. There’s never been a war where that doctrine could be tested because such a war is likely to escalate to strategically nuclear. But there are rumors that tactical nukes were used in 1991 to take out some Iraqi bunkers. I haven’t heard any similar rumors about the 2003 war, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear them.
Strategic nukes are useful if your enemy has them. Tactical nukes are useful if your enemy doesn’t have them but has targets worthy of them. The same for nuclear bunker busters – to some degree; it will always be possible to dig deeper than they can penetrate.
But in general, as I always said in response to the nuclear free movement: nukes were never meant to be USED. They were meant to be PAID FOR, like most expensive weapons systems. So all the propaganda about how nukes could “destroy the world” (which was never true) was a waste of time.
The reason to get rid of nukes is because they are expensive, rarely useful outside of a specific tactical context, and any other use is a war crime.
RFI was quoted on Farsnews today
http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8912030315
BiBiJon, because I saw the power lines radiating from Natanz, and saw the hectares planted in pine trees near Natanz, and took photos of the hundreds of windmills in the desert (near Kashan, I think), and drove for miles past fields of green crops in the desert around Qom, I’m pretty convinced that Iran has a long-range plan to use nuclear power to supply energy to cities it thinks Iran needs to build in the deserts. Iran is rapidly urbanizing, and the existing cities do not have enough capacity to absorb all the rural dwellers who, it is anticipated, will wish to move to cities.
Iran has devised creative and innovative means of wresting water from the desert floor, harnessing the wind for cooling, and channeling mountain streams to irrigate its cities and croplands throughout its long history; nuclear energy is the natural next step.
I understand there is a state-of-the-art solar ‘farm’ close to the Persian Gulf, but I did not travel to that part of the country. Maybe next year.
kooshy says:
February 27, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Kooshy, what Tony is saying will be cold comfort for the Anti-Iran crowd. It is true that Egypt is unlikely to ever be as close to Iran as Syria, for example. But even a neutral Egypt is a much better situation for Iran than the anti-Iran, anti Hezbollah Mubarak regime was. Egypt breaking the Gaza siege alone will keep Israel somewhat distracted. Restoring diplomatic relations with Iran opens the whole Arab world to better relations with Iran and further breaks the “isolation” the US is always trying to impose. At the very least, the US concentrating its efforts at manipulating the next Egyptian elections will give Iran a breather.
And note the Domino effect Egypt’s better relations with Iran will have. Saudi Arabia will be much less confident about its own hostility to Iran. It may quickly learn that good relations, or at least less bad relations, with Iran are in its own national interest. That following the US strategy of escalating confrontation with Iran is not. Now, even the remotest hint of Saudi connivance with Israel to attack Iran will be a threat to the ruling Saud family’s survival.
The Arab uprisings are nothing but upside for Iran. One may quibble about the exact degree of upside, but it will be very hard to argue there is much downside.
Richard,
I should add that I have American family members that hold top level law enforcement positions at the state and major metropolitan level, so I am generally sympathetic to law enforcement.
I also make observations, as well as provide photo/video interpretation and analyses on Iranian law enforcement efforts.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 27, 2011 at 10:06 pm
“However, the fact remains they give countries who are willing to use them massive capabilities to impose their will on countries that don’t have them.”
This is were I disagree. In the specific case of Iran, should USA “totally obliterate” the country, they would not have imposed nothing on Iran, but eternal shame upon themselves.
Putting Iran aside for the moment, the stark lack of proliferation in countries around nuclear powers over the decades demonstartes that possession of nukes, historically, has obtained no strategic benefit to those who have the darned things, and has not diminished those countries without.
I recommend http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/23/the_rise_of_nuclear_alarmism
by John Mueller
“Just criticizing the US government today brings you under police surveillance”–RSH
Yes it happened to me, Richard. It started out when I criticized the reporting of a major metro newspaper at the onset of the 33-Day War in Lebanon. Basically I stated the Lebanese defense would employ light infantry tactics (not terrorism, as everyone in the West seemed to think) and that the defense would likely stand. And yes I was critical of US Middle East policy. What followed was a prolonged period of covert surveillance.
There’s a classic line in the movie “The Bourne Ultimatum” where Bourne states “It gets easier.” In my case, I’m not bitter. It was done for purposes of national defense. True, there was an element of vindictiveness and racism involved. But like I said, I’m not bitter. It’s actually one of the reasons I’m personally accommodating to Iran’s national security challenges: if I can understand the rationale here in the US, I can certainly understand it for Iran, where the stakes are so much greater.
Fiorangela says:
February 27, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Yes, I think the quest for nuclear energy is legitimate as part of a package of other non-fossil fuel sources of energy.
How about you, Fiorangela?
kooshy says:
February 27, 2011 at 10:12 pm
I read Tony’s piece through LobeLog.
It struck me as odd that he lambasts zero-sum type of thinking, only to assuage our fears that our enemy Iran, won’t be benefitting.
There would be more consistency if he had formulated it thus: so what if Iran benefits. The whole world benefits from people liberating themselves from sadistic despots.
.
Does anybody notice how ironically Mr. Karon’s tone on Iran is changing
A false choice between Iran and the US for Arab states
Tony Karon
Last Updated: Feb 28, 2011
Washington saw the “hand of communism” at work everywhere during the Cold War, whether in the heroic rebellion of young black South Africans against the apartheid regime, Chileans challenging the brutality of their military dictatorship, the pacifist policies of an Australian Labor government or even India pursuing a foreign policy independent of the United States. “Those who are not with us are against us,” was the underlying sentiment, reiterated by President George W Bush at the outset of his “global war on terror” – and also in the US-led Cold War against Iran in the Middle East.
No surprise, then, that the democratic tsunami sweeping the Arab world has prompted warnings in Washington that Iran would be the primary strategic beneficiary from the collapse of “moderate” Arab autocracies. Iranian officials, for their own propaganda purposes, claim the same thing: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for example, hailed the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak as an “Islamic revolution” – which earned him a rebuke from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, which made clear that it was not leading the revolution, and that it shared the common goal of a democratic political order in Egypt.
Still, a steady stream of western pundits and unnamed officials from Israel and Saudi Arabia warn that regimes which fall out of the US camp inevitably become part of the Iran-led “resistance” front. They said the same, of course, about Turkey when it began to adopt a foreign policy independent of its Nato allies, challenging Israel’s actions in Gaza and intervening in search of a viable diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff – distancing itself from a US regional strategy it saw as fatally flawed.
Viewed through the prism of a zero-sum conflict between a US-led alliance of Arab autocrats and Israel against an Iran-led “resistance” camp, the Arab rebellion has been nothing short of catastrophic for the anti-Iran forces. Not only has the Egyptian uprising swept away one of the key antagonists of Iran in the person of Hosni Mubarak; the fact that two Iranian warships were allowed to sail through the Suez Canal en route to Syria last week was a clear signal that the new military rulers in Cairo hope to normalise ties with the Islamic Republic, and are unlikely to support a regional strategy of confronting Tehran, much less take the lead in promoting one. Even before Egypt and Tunisia, the anti-Iran camp had suffered major setbacks in Lebanon and Iraq. Events in Bahrain, Jordan and elsewhere suggest that Arab leaders pressing hardest to confront Iran are in deep trouble.
While Israeli leaders insist they may still see the need to take military action to halt Iran’s nuclear programme, they know that recent events have considerably diminished the chances of them winning even discreet Arab or US backing for such an action. And it’s not just the “military option” that has been set back. Arab backing for sanctions, too, is likely to diminish, as is the impact of those measures currently in place, as regional turmoil boosts Tehran’s revenues by sending oil prices soaring.
Indeed, the entire US regional strategy of organising Arab countries into an anti-Iran alliance lies in tatters. New Arab governments more responsive to their public are inevitably going to distance themselves from the US agenda. The risen Arab public is far more sympathetic to the Palestinians – and less indulgent of Israeli abuses – than Washington and some of its Arab allies have been. And that same Arab public simply doesn’t share the US-Israeli-Saudi view of Iran as some sort of regional menace. It’s worth remembering, for example, that in last summer’s edition of the University of Maryland’s authoritative annual poll of Arab public opinion conducted by Shibley Telhami, 57 per cent of respondents believed that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would have a positive effect on the Middle East!
Pressure on Iran is likely to decrease in the months ahead, particularly – as seems likely – it manages to avoid a domestic rebellion of its own. But the Iranian nuclear “peril” was always something of a manufactured crisis. The forthcoming US National Intelligence Estimate reaffirms that the regime in Tehran has yet to decide on whether to turn its growing nuclear capacity into an actual weapons programme, and its leadership is divided over wether to seek a strategic nuclear deterrent. The announcement that the Iranians have been forced by a technical breakdown to remove fuel rods from the Bushehr reactor suggests that technical problems continue to plague Iran’s nuclear activities.
But whatever its current state of progress, Iran’s nuclear development is simply not a priority for the newly empowered Arab public, and more accountable Arab governments are likely to distance themselves from Washington’s regional strategy, pretty much as Turkey has done. That’s precisely why so many US and Israeli observers paint the Arab rebellion as a win for Iran. But that conclusion is based on the flawed premise that a setback for the United States is automatically a gain for Iran. The Arab declaration of independence from Washington is anything but a declaration of loyalty to Tehran. Turkey may have built new trade and diplomatic ties with Tehran and opposed the US policy on Iran, but it has not broken ties with Washington. Its policies are genuinely independent, geared towards resolving problems rather than power bloc politics.
Arab opinion polls in recent years at one point showed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as more popular than any Arab leader, but that was simply an expression of protest at the Arab world’s own leaders. More recently, some of the same polls saw Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan eclipse Mr Ahmadinejad. But the essence of the rebellion is the demand by the Arab public to choose its own leaders and shape its own destiny. Those who picked Mr Erdogan or Mr Ahmadinejad in opinion polls did so out of frustration at Arab leaders; they want more democratically accountable governments whose policies that express the popular will. And that’s bad news not only for the US but also for any other foreign government that seeks to bend the Arab public to its own agenda.
Tony Karon is a New York-based analyst. Follow him on Twitter @TonyKaron
http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/a-false-choice-between-iran-and-the-us-for-arab-states?pageCount=0
BiBiJon: “Trap 1 – If it is desirable, who could then fault those nations ‘lucky’ enough to possess them, refine their existing arsenal, and increase their inventory?”
Well, we can fault them because nukes, especially strategic nukes, are the ultimate in war crimes because they kill mass amounts of civilians, as you correctly note.
However, the fact remains they give countries who are willing to use them massive capabilities to impose their will on countries that don’t have them.
Which is the point of my discussion. If one believes nukes give a weaker country a strategic advantage, then clearly it is in that country’s interests to have them. But that is TOTALLY dependent on whether it is POSSIBLE for that country to build enough to actually give it a strategic advantage, even if only as a deterrent. Which means you have to build enough weapons and have sufficient delivery systems for those weapons that you can credibly threaten another country or its forces sufficient to deter an attack.
The US, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan and India are in that position. So they have the nukes and they’re continuing to develop them and in most cases expand their arsenal.
Iran isn’t in that position. So they don’t need and shouldn’t bother developing nukes.
BiBiJon, Do you think the quest for nuclear POWER is legitimate?
Pirouz: Just as an aside, and not necessarily agreeing with it, when shortly after the Revolutionary War in the US there broke out an insurrection (Shays Rebellion) (because not all the promises of the Revolution were realized according to some factions of the US a the time), Sam Adams revoked habeas corpus in Massachusetts.
The Wikipedia article on Shays Rebellion says this:
Samuel Adams claimed that foreigners (“British emissaries”) were instigating treason among the commoners, and he helped draw up a Riot Act, and a resolution suspending habeas corpus in order to permit the authorities to keep people in jail without trial. Adams proposed a new legal distinction: that rebellion in a republic, unlike in a monarchy, should be punished by execution.
Not much different than in Iran…Again I don’t agree with the concept but if one is going to demonize Iran for this, clearly the US government would do exactly the same if it thought a rebellion had any serious chances of success – and probably even if it didn’t. Just criticizing the US government today brings you under police surveillance, and if you’re organized enough, a SWAT raid on your offices and house where they seize your stuff “pending an investigation”.
BiBiJon: “If Iran could get away with building a weapon, it would.”
Nope. You misread that completely. Never said anything like it.
What I said was that IF I RAN IRAN, that’s what I would be doing – or at least that I couldn’t complain if they did – except that it wouldn’t work. Which is why I THEN said that’s what Iran is NOT doing.
I’m sure plenty of other people here will misinterpret what I wrote as well, so you’re undoubtedly in good company. Every time Arnold has suggested something similar, everyone gets upset.
We’re not saying Iran SHOULD build nukes or WILL build nukes. He’s saying they COULD build nukes and derive a benefit, I’m saying they COULD build nukes – but wouldn’t get any benefit specifically because if they did, they’d be stopped and even if they weren’t stopped, it still wouldn’t help in any practical sense.
On the question: should Iran strive for nuclear weapons
Many have argued forcefully for Iran’s nuclear rights. At times, this has included advocacy for Iran’s rights to have nuclear weapons. The officialdom has us believing that though Iran has not yet made a decision to weaponize their program, they are busy building the capacity to have that option in the future.
These sets of arguments are incorrect. Noone, including Iran should want such weapons. And, importantly, people of good will should understand that by glorifying nuclear weapons as something desirable under any circumstances they are falling into a double trap.
Trap 1 – If it is desirable, who could then fault those nations ‘lucky’ enough to possess them, refine their existing arsenal, and increase their inventory?
Trap 2 – If it is desirable then the ‘have nots’ are either mentally/culturally/technologically deficient, or they are cheating on their treaty obligations. I feel no need to explain how heavy a yoke such a concept is around the neck of a vast majority of nations around the world.
It is time to reject nuclear weapons because they are sickening, repulsive, abominable, awful, beastly, cloying, creepy, detestable, distasteful, foul, frightful, ghastly, grody, gross, gruesome, hateful, hideous, horrid, horrific, icky, loathsome, lousy, macabre, monstrous, nasty, nauseating, nerdy, noisome, objectionable, obnoxious, odious, offensive, outrageous, repellent, repugnant, revolting, rotten, scandalous, scuzzy, shameless, shocking, sleazy, stinking, surfeiting, vile, vulgar, yecchy, and yucky at all times under any circumstances.
And, because they are utterly useless, for defense, offense, or any other conceivable human activity.
BAN the BOMB
Scott,
The apparent detention and move to a “safe house” reminds me a lot of what President Lincoln did to political sympathizers of the South as well as political agitators during the Civil War.
Compared to Lincoln’s quickness and decisiveness in suspending key aspects of the US Constitution based on national security considerations, this Iranian move could actually be considered belated.
Everybody wants to get into the act.
Wolfowitz, who should be in prison, weighs in on bad bad Iran.
Conrad Black, who is temporarily out on bail from his 7 year prison sentence, which will be reassessed this June, apparently spends his time writing bad fiction.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/26/conrad-black-prosperity-comes-before-democracy/
” …Qadafi is a psychotic transvestite. . . .
“If Gaddafi goes down, that could embolden the opposition in Iran. The Persian tradition is far more sophisticated than the Nubian (Libyan) one, and in the agitations over the fraudulent elections in Iran two years ago, the Iranian army did not fire on demonstrators: The thuggish elite guard of the governing movement did. Their resources are not unlimited, and they could not deal with any mutiny in the armed forces. If the Iranians see Gaddafi put to flight or executed, despite the savage fight he has put up, they would realize how close they may be to evicting the whole hideous theocracy that has degraded Iran. Repulsive and psychotic though he is, Gaddafi has not been a worse ruler than the Khamanei-Ahmadinejad duo. And in Iran, the opposition already includes some of the most powerful people in the country, such as former president Hashemi Rafsanjani.
but, like the Levi paper in CFR, why would anybody give any credibility to someone like Conrad Black?
nb. James Glassman was on C Span Washington Journal last Friday +-. He made the same argument vis a vis Palestinians — they should have democracy, freedom, yes yes. But FIRST, economic development. In other words, don’t give Palestinians autonomy lest Israel fail in its attempt to turn Palestinians into full vassals of the predatory capitalists headquartered in Tel Aviv.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 27, 2011 at 8:11 pm
I get the sense that your essetial argument boils down to:
If Iran could get away with building a weapon, it would. I assume because you think in todays world, Iran and anyone else ‘should’ want the ghastly weapons.
I have two problems with that.
a) It plays right into the endless parnoia and excuses the fear mongers, and masks prejudice as prudence. If the only reason the cat says the meat stinks is because she can’t reach it, then prohibitting red meat indeed was a clever imperialistic ploy — ‘we need to search your pants at all times to make sure you’re not hiding anything’.
b) see http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/#Nuclear
Fiorangela / Richard
Thanks for your comments , I must admit I felt the same from the get go , I thought what an authoritative arrogant way for CFR to present the establishment’s ideology with can haves and can’t haves and its impact on the rest of the NPT countries, I make me believe that a certain group of elites in this country is very angry and is becoming incapable to control their anger and related behavior, a while back Ahmadinijad in one of his interviews said that they tell us that they are very anger for our persistence on our rights “ we tell them be angry and die of this anger” that’s how I felt with the paper in question.
On February 8, 2011 – The Jewish Chronicle reported that Ronald Lauder (Reagan’s ambassador to Austria), President of the World Jewish Congress (WJC) has “called for Israel to be admitted into NATO in order to guarantee its survival in the future. NATO membership “would send a strong signal to other countries not to take on Israel”. Interestingly though, it’s the Zionist entity which has invaded all its neighboring countries (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Gaza and Syria) and not the other way around.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/israel-needs-nato-membership-for-its-survival/
Shamsi says:
February 27, 2011 at 7:27 pm
MEK, not in a million years, are going to bring a change of diapers to a babe, let alone a regime change to Iran. Hate mongers are losing face incessantly bad mouthing Iran, so they’ve found utility in MEK to do the war mongering for them.
The black-and-white world view does not cut it for me. Necons started life in the 30s as card-carrying Trotskites. Our beloved Bill Kristol’s dad, creditted as the founder of neoconservitism, was even arguing Hitler was getting a bad rap. They have used ideas of ‘enterism’ to devour the democratic party from within before they moved on to embraced the Republican party. They are capable of intelectualising absolutely anything that they see as an important tactic for their grip on power and influence. So, in short, anything is possible if only enough of them see a potential benefit.
Personally, I think the power ascribed to zionists, or neocons, itself is propaganda created by themselves. To have any influence, you’d best exaggerate what little influence you actually have. So, Shamsi, don’t be fooled. As Cat Stevens said, there is a higher power out there. The rest are nobodies.
Fiorangela/Kooshy: I agree with Fiorangela on the referenced article.
The second part of the synopsis (I haven’t read the paper and am not motivated to do so) reads: “‘robust enrichment,’ which Levi defines as a situation that would leave Iran able to build a bomb without being stopped?”
There is no such thing. Iran could be stopped from building a bomb at almost any point short of inserting already weapons grade nuclear material into an already manufactured weapon housing. As long as enrichment has to be done, that can be stopped at ANY time depending on how far the US is willing to go to do so.
Enrichment is a complicated, delicate process. It is not robust. Even in an underground bunker, it is not robust. It needs massive amounts of energy. Blow up that energy source and enrichment stops. Period. And finding where sufficient energy to conduct large scale enrichment is being conducted is not that difficult.
Various experts keep saying that the US can’t be sure of locating all of Iran’s “nuclear facilities”. That’s because Iran isn’t doing anything with those potential facilities at this time. Hook them up to the electrical grid and the US will find them very quickly. It’s also a propaganda line to suggest that Iran has some “secret nuclear weapons program” that the US can’t locate and therefore the US should attack Iran anyway. To quote Rumsfeld, “unknown unknowns” and Cheney’s “1% chance”.
Except it’s bullcrap.
The US can stop Iran from enriching with a military strike at any time depending on how far it is willing to go to do so – meaning up to and beyond nuclear bunker buster weapons.
Now, if Iran were ALREADY enriching to weapons grade, and had the material stored secretly, then of course it could build a weapon – assuming it has the designs and has some confidence in performance without a test – a dangerous assumption if you’re staking your regime on the credible performance of the weapon – and introduce the material in too short a time to stop it unless the US had precise coordinates for the weapon’s location.
Except the US would already KNOW that and we would already be at war with Iran. So Iran isn’t doing it. This is one excellent reason why we KNOW Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program – because if it was really manufacturing them in numbers in the real world, the US would know it. This is as opposed to merely researching the design of a weapon; in that situation, the US might not know it – but it wouldn’t matter because there is still no physical weapon.
Based on the synopsis, the article is not credible because it makes no sense either logically or in the real world.
Iran has a legal right to, and should be allowed to, enrich, both to LEU and to 20% if it so desires and requires such. Only enrichment to weapons grade should be disallowed as that clearly has only one purpose. And even there, the only reason to disallow would be because Iran has contracted with the international community not to do so via the NPT.
If Iran were to continue to be credibly threatened with actual nuclear attack from Israel and/or US nuclear bunkers busters despite it’s maintaining its enrichment at LEU levels, Iran would have every justifiable reason to withdraw from the NPT and enrich to weapons grade and to design a weapon. If Iran did so, without actually manufacturing weapons and arming them with fissile material, I could not complain as it would be prudent to do so. The worse the threats and probability of attack, the more Iran should in fact produce nuclear weapons – *IF I was running Iran* and *IF I could do so SUCCESSFULLY without being attacked first.*
But I don’t run Iran. The Iranians do. And they’ve clearly decided they don’t need to do any of that. And so they haven’t. And their rationale is both clear and correct. Nuclear weapons won’t help them unless they could do the above SUCCESSFULLY WITHOUT being attacked first. Clearly their (correct) assessment is that they can’t.
So the whole issue over what is “acceptable” is a red herring and a superficial concern that doesn’t get to the meat of the real circumstances. Thus, the article is not credible in any respect, even without reading it (assuming the synopsis was accurate, of course.)
BiBiJon writes:
{I predict before March 21st, the neo-con movement will be solidly behind an Iran-US rapprochement. I also predict no such rapprochement will materialize}
DON’T BE A FOOL. This is zionist style to hide the hand of Jews who supports MEK to bring ‘regime change’. The ziofascists are trying hard to remove MEK from the state Department terrorist list. MEK is killing Iranian citizens on behalf of Israel.
kooshy @ February 27, 2011 at 6:38 pm
pardon my intruding on your comment to Arnold —
I started to read the referenced paper, and asked myself how serious and intellectually honest could an argument be when it opens with this statement:
“How much Iranian nuclear capability is too much? The simplest answer is that any amount is unacceptable.”
Let’s say we’re discussing the right to bear arms, in the United States, surely a contentious issue.
What if we asked, “How much of a right to bear arms do the citizens of Texas have? The simplest answer is that any right to bear arms is unacceptable.”
What then are the rights of the citizens of Wyoming to bear arms? If the answer to the Texas answer is so simple, the answer regarding Wyoming must be the same: the citizens of Wyoming, like the citizens of Texas, have NO right to bear arms.
But a principle of law ratified by duly authorized members of a community has imbued the right to bear arms on the citizens of Texas and on the citizens of Wyoming.
Similarly, a treaty to which Iran is a ratified signatory imbues in Iran the right to “nuclear capability.” That is the “simple” fact. Any other interpretation Michael Levi attempts to put on that fact is “simply” wrong.
Why should I bother reading further?
Dear UU,
I started reading your post, but stopped when I saw “Wet T-Shirt Nights” and “Bud Light”. The fact of the matter is that the Leveretts blatantly lied in their previous article, and nobody managed to back-up their claims. Instead you nodded along like a flock of clueless sheep being shepherded into a trap.
And by dragging it down to the level you have, it only proves that you have nothing productive to say.
You are welcome to try again by all means; it is the taking part that counts at the end of the day, not the winning.
The music of revolution
Singer Yusuf Islam talks about his latest song, which was inspired by the popular uprisings in the Arab world.
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/rizkhan/2011/02/201122484440953389.html#
Interesting expansion of Iranian military cooperation with Syria:
Commander: Iran Ready to Construct Port Infrastructures in Syria
:http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8912071274
“Earlier this week, Iran and Syria inked a cooperation agreement enabling the two countries’ Navy forces to boost their mutual cooperation, specially in holding joint training programs and courses.”
Israel is going to go berserk over this expanded cooperation. Hizballah, however, is going to be delighted, since all this means better military support from Iran via Syria.
Notice how Scott Lucas is using obfuscated URLs to disguise the fact that he’s hijacking links to his Web site from this site.
Pathetic.
Arnold, have you seen this new report by CFR a PDF for download is available, if you did I appreciate your comments
Limiting Iranian Nuclear Activities: Options and Consequences
A CFR Working Paper
Author: Michael A. Levi, David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change
Publisher: Council on Foreign Relations Press
Release Date: February 2011
http://www.cfr.org/iran/limiting-iranian-nuclear-activities-options-consequences/p24147
Fiorangela,
Yes, the US needs a de-Zionization campaign. But won’t get it, of course. I take heart in the fact British leaders are increasingly aware of how neocons like Wolfowitz took the US off a cliff (and damaged the UK in the process). The truth continues to emerge, but clearly with no help from Wolfowitz.
BiBiJon and Unknown Unknowns,
Michael Rubin asks in effect a good question: how much is being paid to the people who advocate US suuport for the MEK terrorists that operate within Iran. The neocons will oppose any rapprochement between Iran and the US, unless Iran starts to be friendly toward Israel. Which of course is not going to happen.
To my knowledge, this significant news has not yet been acknowledged by Iranian state media (if it has, I would be grateful for info):
*MIR HOSSEIN MOUSAVI, ZAHRA RAHNAVARD, AND MEHDI AND FATEMEH KARROUBI ARE IN A REVOLUTIONARY GUARD SAFE HOUSE.
“Iranian government sources” have told CNN — to be specific, the reliable CNN reporter Reza Sayah — that the four were placed in a safe house for their own welfare, although they have not been arrested.
One source rather bizarrely suggested the move occurred because the opposition might have been planning to injure or kill the Mousavi, Karroubi, and their wives: “The opposition movement is very much looking for martyrs so if this is true it’s for their own safety…[The opposition] is always looking for an excuse to create something, so this may be done to keep someone from doing something to them.”
The regime source who told CNN of the move may be Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of Parliament’s National Security Commission. According to Al Jazeera:
“The head of the Iranian parliament’s National Security Commission has said that Mousavi and Karroubi were “escorted” by security forces. Alaeddin Boroujerdi also denied they were under house arrest, and told Italian newspaper Il Manifesto that ‘they also committed certain illegal acts such as organising protests without a permit, and for this they may become subject to prosecution’. The two men had been reportedly arrested secretly without being summoned or charged, and their contact with the outside world was effectively cut.”
Best,
S.
Pirouz,
“….not necessarily an effort at deriving a better understanding. Which is too bad, really.”
On the contrary, Pirouz, I am pleased at reaching a better understanding of events. Discussions on the nuclear programme on RFI, for example, are full of information and evaluation, and I benefit from them greatly.
Generally, discussions on internal developments in Iran do not have that level of information, so when I post material or respond to any info that is posted by others, it is to draw out the facts. (My frustration with the authors of RFI is that, while they present much info on the regional position, their assertions on internal Iranian matters are thinly supported, if supported at all.)
So I did appreciate your genuine exchange on numbers of protesters on 25 Bahman and 1 Esfand. I understand we disagree on those numbers and, indeed, the make-up of the opposition, which is fair enough. At least there is a dialogue.
Best,
S.
Matt — no, please, don’t “just shut up.”
The best way to stunt the proliferation of crab grass is by cultivating desirable plants in its stead.
James Canning, Kathleen —
1. I intended to close my comment about Leveretts on NPR calling for a shift in US diplomatic skills, with the statement, “Just as US military de-Baathified Iraq, so US foreign policy establishment requires de-zionization.”
2. Wolfowitz was on C Span Washington Journal some months ago and displayed truly psychopathic behavior:
A caller severely criticized Wolfowitz for his role in taking US to war in Iraq. Throughout the caller’s remarks, Wolfowitz’s eyes were two blank black ball-bearings, completely detached from the world where the rest of his body was sitting.
After the caller hung up, Wolfowitz began a 2-minute long exhortation on some totally unrelated topics, never bothering to even acknowledge that a caller had addressed him just a moment earlier.
When Wolfowitz ended his ramble, the Moderator asked, somewhat sheepishly, if Wolfowitz had any response to the caller. Wolfie merely shrugged.
“Next Call . . .”
Wolfowitz does not give a damn who was killed, who was bankrupted, what values and lives were upended.
For the record, by “boycott”, I meant what Arnold Evans wrote: “We, the regular commenters can’t stop Scott from posting links. I wouldn’t advocate that if we could. All we can do is not engage him.”
Pirouz, I certainly don’t advocate trying to squash minority views. However, in this case, there seems to be considerable question as to his intent. Maybe it would be best for those of us who do so to not engage him, while those who feel he’s just a Green “partisan” (which certainly may be correct, for all I know) should continue to engage him when they find something of possible interest in his comments or links. Queries such as yours are unlikely to become heated, drawn-out exchanges which might disrupt the flow of the discussion of US foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran. However, I’m just a lurker for the most part, so I’ll shut up for now.
Arnold Evans @ February 27, 2011 at 11:13 am
re Leveretts on NPR.
Several important spokesmen for zionism in the US have focused on the decisive shift in the US foreign policy community from “Arabists” to zionists. Ron and Allis Radosh and Mitchell Bard are three such chroniclers of that switch.
According to the Radoshes, Harry Truman initiated the trend. Truman’s affirmation of Israel’s unilateral declaration of statehood at the United Nations was the critical and direct first step, but as Andrew Bacevich points out, in the Truman administration numerous policies and institutions that constrain the US today, were introduced on Truman’s watch but, claims Bacevich, by forces that were larger than Truman’s ability to control. :http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Presidentsat
Mitchell Bard stated in a recent talk that the Obama administration was initially laboring under the influence of Arabists, but, fortunately, says Bard, AIPAC came to the rescue, slid Stuart Levery from the Bush admin to the Obama Treasury dept, and moved Dennis Ross into the White House to give Obama “better” advice than he was getting from his former “Arabist” advisors. :http://www.c-spanvideo.org/mitchellbard
I would argue that the encroachment of zionists on US foreign — and domestic– policy pre-dated Truman, dating in a specifically identifiable manner to the Wilson administration. Samuel Untermyer was a major force in placing Louis Brandeis on the Supreme Court, and Brandeis leveraged that position to make himself a veritable Joseph to the pharaoh Wilson, which resulted in Wilson abandoning a most critical element of his Fourteen Points, wrt Arab states formerly part of the Ottoman empire: at the behest of the Jewish advisors who surrounded Wilson at Versailles, instead of enacting Point 12 and granting self-determination to the former Ottoman regions, the Balfour declaration was validated and European zionists were granted rights to stake a claim in Palestine, displacing Arabs.
Brandeis’s influence extended well beyond Wilson; for example, Brandeis was a major benefactor of Felix Frankfurter, who would not have been able to retain his position at Harvard without Brandeis’s financial support. In return, FRankfurter referred a major share of the clerks who worked for justices on the Supreme Court. Later, upon Brandeis’s recommendation, Frankfurter himself gained a seat on the Supreme Court, followed shortly by Benjamin Cardozo.
Arnold, I don’t think “the last word” is required.
For example when I inquired of him his evidence for head counts during 25 Bahman, as well as the means of arrests, his explanations weren’t evidenced to the satisfaction of my queries. To me, that was obvious and I didn’t push it. The query was genuine, so it didn’t matter that I try to take Scott down, argumentatively.
He’s a partisan (surprisingly, for a non-Iranian). So we can expect certain positions put forward by him and not necessarily an effort at deriving a better understanding. Which is too bad, really. Mr. Lucas is a learned fellow. I’m sure if he dropped his partisanship, he’d be of greater value to a genuine discussion. Perhaps he has been “purchased” as a paid partisan, I don’t know.
Kathleen,
The neocons and the Israel lobby love Paul D. Wolfowitz even if he was a major cause of the catastrophe the US waded into by invading Iraq illegally in 2003. Which is to say the neocons and the Israel lobby try to reward those who inflict massive damage on the US through stupidity and worse.
Arnold,
The government of Iran has given signals a number of times over the years that, if the Palestinians accept Israel within its “1967″ borders, Iran will do so also.
Iran is unfairly demonised by fanatical “supporters” of Israel who claim Iran will never accept Israel – - unless its government is overhthrown. You should be caustious about reinforcing a false message put out by large sectors of the Israel lobby.
Pirouz:
We know where Mr. Lucas stands. I don’t advocate a boycott. Let him post his links to EA. Perhaps sometime in the future, something of merit will be published there. You never know. Barring that, mentally filter that which is erroneous or uninteresting. That’s my advice.
We, the regular commenters can’t stop Scott from posting links. I wouldn’t advocate that if we could. All we can do is not engage him.
I feel like there is a balance between the impulse to get the last word in and the impulse to prevent this comment section from being just one big repetitive conversation with Scott Lucas. For now, several people are agreeing to basically give him the last word. To let him post without us making the same essentially unanswered criticisms of his posts and his positions that have been made in previous threads.
Anyone very new who might be interested in seeing Scott’s positions challenged can see that here:
http://www.raceforiran.com/obama-adviser-lee-hamilton-joins-call-to-de-list-the-mek#comments
We can, if we choose, replicate that thread on every post. So I think we’re seeing some people making a decision not to do so. But not any form of decision to in any way silence Scott.
I don’t necessarily support boycotting Scott. Here he vents an unpopular view. Most places Iran-related that I frequent, my view is unpopular (and I consider myself a moderate, at least by the standards of Iranians inside Iran).
Here’s the thing about Scott’s links: the articles which he directs to are pretty much the same you can find anywhere in the MSM but they’re pretty much written in a tone of what you would expect of an external “Green movement” communique. I don’t make it past the initial couple of sentences with articles written as such.
Sometimes he makes claims (such as protest numbers and arrest tallies) that interest me but upon further elaboration it turns out these numbers can be considered anecdotal.
He does put up a spirited defense against public opinion polls and Mr. Brill’s comprehensive analysis of the 2009 election. But he comes up short.
We know where Mr. Lucas stands. I don’t advocate a boycott. Let him post his links to EA. Perhaps sometime in the future, something of merit will be published there. You never know. Barring that, mentally filter that which is erroneous or uninteresting. That’s my advice.
All:
I’m not sure how clear I was in the sentence about Iranian support for Hezbollah. Let me just put a link to the poll.
http://www.ipinst.org/images/pdfs/cr_iran_2010_survey_frequency_questionnaire.pdf
19. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose
Iran’s financial and military aid to Hamas in the Palestinian Territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon?
Total support … 69%
Total oppose … 29%
My point is that this result does not come from the fact that Iran is Shia. Bahrain does not have to agree to join with Iran or identify itself primarily along Islamic sectarian lines for its people to have similar perceptions and to make any Bahraini government that is accountable to its people and/or that reflect Bahraini values and sensibilities.
Any alliance between Bahrain and Iran does not have to reflect Iranian dominance, it can just represent an agreement between the Bahraini people and the Iranian people of what the right thing to do is, with respect to values and justice.
Paul Wolfowitz was on Fareed Zakaria’s program this morning
Can anyone explain why Zareed Zakaria and other MSM talking heads have on the architects of the Iraq war like Paul Wolfowitz on. Do they really think all of us are complete numbskulls? Why in the world would Fareed choose one of the Bush administration’s main architects of the Iraq war who helped lie this nation into a immoral and unnecessary war in Iraq on to talk about the situation in the middle east right now? Are the directors and producers of these shows incapable or unwilling to bring more reliable individuals on to discuss the situation in the middle east. Why do we have to hear from the same warmongers who lied to the American public? Why not former Bush administration middle east analyst Flynt Leverett (website Race for Iran/ and a member of the New American Foundation) on Fareeds or MSNBC. Flynt quit the Bush administration right before the invasion because he disagreed with the bloody strategy. Why not have Professor Juan Cole over at Informed Comment who knows a great deal about the middle east. Steve Clemons over at Washington Note. Why do we have to have the same warmongers recycled on these news programs?
Disgusting and terribly unfair
This is what Paul “WMD’s in Iraq” Wolfowitz had to say about Saudi Arabia on Zakaria’s program “should not be U.S. policy to undermine the Saud government”
What the hell is up with these MSM outlets recycling the very same warmongers who lied this nation into Iraq on like Bill Kristol, David “axis of evil” Frum, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz? Get some more reliable people all ready. Enough!
FYI:
An important point that is too often overlooked, not by you but by others, especially Western analysts, is that just because Iran and Hezbollah happen to be Shia does not mean Iran rejects Israel, or the US as Israel’s sponsor because Iran is Shia.
Iran rejects Israel secondarily for the same reason most of the Non-Aligned rejects Israel to various degrees, because it is an artifact of the Western European colonial era. Iran rejects Israel primarily because Iran identifies both itself and most of the Palestinians as Muslim.
The Shia people of Iran are no more hostile to Israel than the Sunni people of Egypt and Jordan. The 60% to less than 30% support Iran’s government has for its policies of aiding Hamas and Hezbollah would be at least matched by the support any independent Egyptian, Jordianian, Arabian or Bahraini government would have for analogous policies.
Sunni vs. Shiite is a lot less important in this than Western analysts seem to understand.
Bahrain would not have to become subordinate to Iran or conceive itself as part of any Shia alliance to reject a US role in its affairs. The United States is, in the Middle East, primarily identified as the enabler of oppression of Arabs and Muslims.
A Shiite or to an even greater degree any Sunni who wants to lead Bahrain with any modicum of popular support or legitimacy would be under even more pressure than Iran’s leaders to enact policies that go against US’ preferred role in the region.
Arnold,
Absolutely, the US needs to show some diplomatic skill for a change. This would include sending an ambassador to Tehran.
James:
Israel has total control of the skies, and threats posed by armed intruders from the Sinai I think would be fairly unimportant – – unless they were heavily armed with missiles etc that could threaten Israeli airpower (which would be most unlikely).
The United States has all of that in Iraq, but how long can it sustain the 2006 levels of insurgency?
Egypt is part of the reason Israel is not facing an active insurgency in the occupied territories and Israel proper. Jordan is both another part of the reason there is no active insurgency, also a country whose future as a member of the US colonial structure is in doubt and and a country whose position in that structure would be jeopardized by the types of provocations Israel was able to safely launch during the Mubarak era.
The US job of protecting Israel will be much more complicated in a post Mubarak era, and the Leveretts are right that somewhere it is going to have to learn diplomatic skills that it has never demonstrated yet in that region.
Arnold Evans says: February 27, 2011 at 12:16 pm
I have concluded that the Shia of Bahrain, at the moment at least, consider themselves Arabs first and Shia second (with very little sympathy or interest in Shia Iran).
Neither the Royal Family nor the Shia Leaders in Bahrain, at this time, will benefit in casting this as a Shia-Sunni conflict which renders it an insoluble (by peaceful means) religious conflict.
The crucial signs to look for is if there is a combined Shia-Sunni delegation that negotiates with the Al Khalif family for the contours of a new dispensation. If the Al Khalif were smart, they would be generous and give up more than the opposition demands. In that manner, they may still remain in power for another 2 generations.
If they are stupid, they will not negotiate in good faith and push the opposition underground. In that case, look for another explosion down the road.
I doubt that the Saudis would encourage Al Khalif obstinacy. They have a vested interest in keeping things tranquil; prolonged civil strife in Bahrain with continued public displays of Shia political emotionalism is not in the interest of the Saudi Arabia.
Yes, the Saudis probably can help Al Khalif kill enough of the Shia in Bahrain to buy tranquility for another generation, but that will be the end of Al Khalif. Violent suppression of the Shia of Bahrain will render them dependent on Iran and further consolidates the role of the Iranian state in the affairs of the (Shia) Arabs. I seriously doubt that Saudis will go down this path.
From an Iranian stand-point; if Shia Bahraini gain any political clout it is beneficial to Iran (certainly is not harmful) since they also believe, like US, that representative government is an intrinsically morally superior form of political organization. And having fellow Shias in sharing power in the Bahrain could reduce – in their judgment – a non-Arab, but Shia – hostility to Iran.
Likewise, violent suppression of Shia in Bahrain, like the analogous one 20 years earlier in Iraq, will leave the Shia Bahrainis with no place to go but Tehran. Where they will kiss the hand of Mr. Khamenei and will ask him to be their Protector (“Godfather” in the language of US politics).
Iranian leaders thus have no need to do anything; just like Yemen.
Either way, they will win, it just is not clear by how much and by what date.
fyi,
What specifically did the Shah fail to do, regarding promotion of Shia Islam?
fyi,
The Shah spent 40% of his budget on weapons etc. This was insanity promoted of course by armaments manufacturers.
The tens of thousands of Americans who lived in Iran due to the Shah’s weapons purchases etc did much to damage the standing of the monarchy.
fyi,
Bashar al-Assad has said he would sign a peace treaty with Israel “tomorrow” if Israel got out of the Golan Heights. That has been the issue for 30 years now.
The Leverets might ask why there is any “strategic struggle” between the US and Iran.
The US was only too happy to help the Shah of Iran build up enormous amounts of military equipment that in the end served no purpose whatever.
James Canning says: February 27, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Shah of Iran was overthrown because he was not sufficiently Shia; he had to push the interests of the Shia world-wide and he did not. Thus he lost the support of the Shia Doctors of Religion.
James Canning says: February 27, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Peace with Syria is not possible even if all of Golan were to be returned to Syria.
Until and unless Al Haram Al Sharif is returned to Muslim Sovereignity, there cannot be any Peace possible, only “Cease Fire”.
Syria will not sign a Peace treaty with Israel that does not return the Noble Sanctuary to Muslim control.
Syria in general and the Allawaite Sect in particular are not going to take the harmful (to themselves) path of becoming the Judas of Islam.
Arnold,
I very much agree with you that the strength of the US is greater if the US is less encumbered by vastly expensive (and unnecessary)foreign bases. However, I would expect the US to keep the naval base in Bahrain and the airbases in Qatar.
One reason the Shah of Iran was overthrown was that he squandered vast sums on useless or unnecessary weapons. He was of course the No. 1 buyer of American armaments in the 1970s. The Shah’s delusion was to think that vast amounts of armaments increased the strength of his country. In fact, it achieved the opposite.
Arnold,
I think Israel’s larger problem is its failure to make peace with Syria by getting out of the Golan Heights, and its failure to end the occupation of the West Bank. Israel has total control of the skies, and threats posed by armed intruders from the Sinai I think would be fairly unimportant – - unless they were heavily armed with missiles etc that could threaten Israeli airpower (which would be most unlikely).
The thing about Bahrain is that while it is a part of the US’ Middle East colonial structure along with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait and others, if Egypt goes Bahrain is no longer the center of gravity in the region.
Bahrain agrees host a US naval base despite the fact that the US is heavily associated with a state that is seen by most people in Bahrain as an injustice and enemy of the Muslim and Arab people. That is the service Bahrain serves and why the US opposes Bahrain being accountable to its people.
But in a post Egypt world, what is this base really accomplishing? It is not shoring up the strength of the other colonies in the region. If Saudi Arabia or Kuwait fall, it will not be due to an invasion from Iran that could have been prevented by naval forces.
It is not forcing anyone to sell oil, which every country with oil would do anyway.
Every couple of years we get reports that there are three carrier groups in the Persian Gulf area. So what? What are these carrier groups, at least one presumably based in or near Bahrain, supposed to do to anybody?
Bahrain matters, especially to the people of Bahrain being shot with American weapons by forces loyal to an American colonial stooge. Bahrain also could amplify the pressure on Saudi Arabia the way Tunisia did to Egypt.
The most important human right, the right of everyone in the world to a government that is accountable to the people governed and that reflects the values and sensibilities of the people under its rule is at stake in Bahrain.
But strategically not much is at stake, especially now that military force is shown to be of decreasing value in maintaining control by a state against the wishes of the people governed. If the US loses the base in Bahrain, and decides to save money by not replacing it with another in one of its other regional colonies, then that “loss” may well end up delaying the US’ fall from great power status.
Matt says:
February 27, 2011 at 10:31 am
I fully agree with Matt and as our valuable RSH suggested so often , we all shoud put four or better indefinite rounds of ‘crippling ‘ sanctions on our resident trolls , namely SL and SP ( as I call him )…
Another thing is that Netanyahu took an historic gamble on Israel’s behalf in not even pretending to engage in peace negotiations.
In a post Mubarak world, history may show that to be the gamble that lost Israel.
I have to say this is extremely well put by Flynt and Hillary Leverett:
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/26/134091079/Iran-Predicted-To-Be-Winner-From-Uprisings
RAZ: What if what emerges in the Middle East, throughout the Middle East is a collection of essentially non-aligned states? You know, governments with no interest in serving as proxies or pawns, you know, in a strategic struggle between the U.S. and Iran.
Mr. LEVERETT: If that happens, and I think we are very much headed in that direction already, the United States is going to have to get serious about a skill that it has really allowed to atrophy for several decades.
RAZ: Which is?
Mr. LEVERETT: Which I would call classical diplomacy, the ability to align with multiple states, you know, find areas of common interest, play those to build relationships and manage the areas where there are going to be very, very strong disagreements.
This is not the way the United States is used to dealing with the Middle East. We really function as a kind of hegemonic power in this region. That is just not going to be tenable anymore. And the United States is going to have to have a much more creative, adaptive, strategically grounded foreign policy in this part of the world than it’s had for a long time.
While the process is not as transparent as I’d hope, Egypt really is doing the things it would be doing if it truly intended to pass control to a civilian government in the short term.
Egypt looks to be putting into place what will be a more competitive and representative political system than is currently in place in Turkey. Once you allow anyone to form a party and every party to participate in the political system you’ve leapfrogged Turkey to a system where politics is a fight for the median voter.
Turkey is not a fight for the median voter. Turkey is the remnants of a client political system far to the right of the median Turkish voter against a reformist party that is significantly to the left of the previous client party, but still probably at least slightly to the right of the median Turkish voter, with no effective pressure from its left. Most Westerners see that as relatively moderate. I hope that it will develop into a truly competitive system eventually and an improvement over the past, but not yet fully independent.
Egypt’s political system, and this may well be hopeful thinking on my part, might this year leapfrog Turkey and demand its politicians – who will actually control policy – to fully reflect Egypt’s values and sensibilities in its stances.
Egypt alone – leaving aside the current situation in flux in Bahrain, Jordan and possibly eventually Saudi Arabia – becoming accountable to the Egyptian people would represent a collapse of US policy in the region. This can be true even if Egypt becomes no more independent than Turkey.
For example, another operation against Gaza by Israel, in the face of an independent or semi-independent Egypt could undo very quickly almost every strategic gain Israel has achieved maybe since 1967.
Volunteers came from all over the Arab and Muslim world, especially through Syria and other neighbors to fight the US in Iraq immediately after 2003. A repeat of that in Gaza and the Sinai, even with Egypt officially neutral and uninvolved as Syria was officially regarding the US in Iraq could easily produce more pressure than Israel can support.
That is one example and not a prediction, but the United States is entering a very precarious time period in the region. The United States will have to handle the next decade with a lot more skill and subtlety than it has ever demonstrated in the Middle East.
Scott Lucas,
Millions of people took to the streets today chanting slogans in support of you and Mousavi. The baseej killed tens of thousands. There is blood all over the place…feeling better now?
Arnold: In light of the exchange re opinion polls, your line “I can’t argue with that” did raise a smile….
UU: Thank you for the kind compliment about my figure….
S.
BiBiJon,
OK — your questions were all met in previous discussions, as were those of other commenters. Can’t help it if you didn’t like the answers….
S.
Matt says:
February 27, 2011 at 10:31 am
The guy is pestering me to repeat questions about opinion surveys, evidence of election fraud, election vs police/court action vis-a-vis government legitimacy, and the paltry numbers that show up to demonstrations compared to Libyans who brave F15s.
Maybe he thinks the smart aleck type comments of his qualify as an answer. They are just minor annoyances.
BiBiJon says:
February 27, 2011 at 9:27 am
I for one, am taking RSH’s advice and not visiting your web site until I see substantive responses to questions that have been posed to you.
Reza Esfandiari says:
February 27, 2011 at 9:28 am
Scott Lucas and EA are a big and sorry joke.
=====
I can’t argue with that!
Matt:
As much as i hate to sanction the trolls who sanction us dune coons here in I-ran, I will bow to the will of the majority.
Scott Lucas says:
February 27, 2011 at 10:24 am
UU,
Bud Light is terrible….
Not if you want to keep your boyish, trollish figure its not.
The only thing worse than a troll is a troll with a beer belly.
Hey, forget about El Baradei. I want to bring back Butros Butros Butros-Ghali!!! That’s Peter Peter Pumpkin-Eater in the American dialect of the English language.
Bring back the Pumpkin-Eater, I say!
I second Richard Steven Hack’s suggestion that we boycott all future comments from Scott Lucas and suggest a coordinated effort so that he does not continue to derail the often insightful discussions on this blog. However, for such an effort to be successful, we’d need to get Liz and a couple others on board…
UU,
Bud Light is terrible….
S.
BiBiJon,
I didn’t think there was a question that had gone unanswered. Fire away….
And happy to put full links to the information — it was just easier, as I was moving between news coverage and a visit here (to see if anyone realised what had happened in Tehran today, given the silence of Iranian state media) to put the TinyURL.
S.
VoT:
I guess great minds think alike, as I was writing my post that ended with “sheebol” while you had already posted yours. But more to the point: again, technically, the word “sheebol” should under all circumstances, be used only with the adjectival modifier “American”, as in “the American sheebol”, and strictly speaking – and not to put too pedantic a point on it – in the context of the Islamic Awakening.
BiBiJon says:
February 27, 2011 at 9:54 am
It is all a question of aligning themselves with whoever is the likely winner.
Hmmmm. That’s true. Maybe the Weasel in Chief knows something we don’t. I think it all depends on whether the American empire will crash land or have a soft landing. I hope it is the latter, if only for the sake of the American sheebol :)
Unknown Unknowns says:
February 27, 2011 at 9:39 am
Ostad UU :
“PS. Remember: the correct technical term is beebol with a double b, and not beepol :) Now that the Islamic Awakening is in full swing, its imbortant to get the basics right.”
And Ostad UU , what about your famous “sheebol” quote ,which you mentioned in one of your earlier posts ?
When do we use this invaluable term ? :-)
Unknown Unknowns says:
February 27, 2011 at 9:39 am
Explanation for the prediction
When I saw Michael Rubin chastise fellow neocons for pushing to unlist MEK, and doing so in the necon’s flagship magazine, the Commentary, no less, I got thinking …
If the bee*b*el power in the Mideast proves to be unusurpable, then, out of a last ditch attempt at remaining relevant, the neo-cons will try and jump in front of the queue to be seen as the movers and the shakers behind an Iran-US rapprochement. It is all a question of aligning themselves with whoever is the likely winner.
Voice of Tehran says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 27, 2011 at 9:44 am
For my part , I am visting SL’s site regulary , no way I can resist….
http://www.hollyskarussell.de/bilder/lukas.jpg
Voice of Tehran says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 27, 2011 at 9:44 am
For my part , I am visting SL’s site regulary , no way I can resist….
/http://www.hollyskarussell.de/bilder/lukas.jpg
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_iUUAHCUhrIQ/TP4W3jBdkxI/AAAAAAAAI5c/pbs29XFsxh0/s400/Hau%20den%20Lukas%20.jpg
BiBiJon says:
February 27, 2011 at 9:22 am
1. It is my pleasure, and, maa kuchik-e shoma hastim.
2. It is almost a foregone conclusion that no rapprochement will materialize (unless the guy with a white beard up in Cloud 9 decides to have mercy on the American beebol and prevent them from becoming, like their Zionistani masters, yet another suicide in the trashheap of history. But I don’t follow how the delisting of the Monafeqeen would prompt the Neocons to want a rapprochment?? I would be curious to hear that explanation, unless I have misunderstood you entirely.
Best,
UU.
PS. Remember: the correct technical term is beebol with a double b, and not beepol :) Now that the Islamic Awakening is in full swing, its imbortant to get the basics right.
Even Karrubi’s oldest and closest ally has dumped him:
http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/150640/منتجب-نیا-هم-اعلام-برائت-کرد
Scott Lucas and EA are a big and sorry joke.
Scott Lucas says:
February 27, 2011 at 6:46 am
I for one, am taking RSH’s advice and not visiting your web site until I see substansive responses to questions that have been posed to you.
If you have information to share, put up the actual url, not tinyurl pointers to it.
Unknown Unknowns says:
February 27, 2011 at 8:53 am
I learn a lot from you. Thanks.
I have another prediction I can’t hold back any longer.
Based on http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/02/24/whats-behind-the-campaign-to-delist-the-mujahedin-al-khalq-organization/
I predict before March 21st, the neo-con movement will be solidly behind an Iran-US rapprochement. I also predict no such rapprochement will materialize.
Is Scott Lucas still upset with the Leveretts for being right all the time? Grow up.
Iran Predicted To Be Winner From Uprisings
NPR – 15 hours ago
While the US seems to be supporting the series of revolutions surfacing in the Middle East and Northern Africa, the big winner in the end may be Iran. Host Guy Raz speaks with Flynt Leverett, a professor at Penn State University and a Fellow at the New …
It’s interesting to note that the same American Jewish lobby groups which first supported Hosni Mubarak’s regime and later the take-over of pro-Israel military junta in Cairo – are now supporting the regime-change in Libya.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/who-is-behind-turmoil-in-libya/
I posted this in the last thread, not knowing it had been superceded by this new one, and am taking the liberty to repost on the presumption that those who have not seen it will find it of interest.
Unknown Unknowns says:
February 27, 2011 at 2:42 am
Eric, Arnold, et al:
Arnold’s question regarding the issue of screening is akin to Eric’s earlier question regarding the issue of permits for demonstrations; they are both well-intentioned questions that seek to shed light on areas of local politics which do not necessarily jibe with the mainstream understanding of “democracy”, in an attempt to strengthen the local body politic by weeding out problem patches.
The problem with these sort of questions is that in the final analysis, they boil down to – and there is no delicate way to put this that I am aware of – why can’t they be more like us? And of course, when one frames the question thus, the answer becomes very obvious: because they are NOT like us; they are a different civilization entirely.
it goes back to the universalising tendency began in teh Age of En”light”enment, where the attitude was (and remains) that there are laws that have universal adn eternal ontic status. To Moslems, this is *shirk* – assigning partners to God, who is the sole entity with universal and eternal ontic status. And besides, modern science has superceded those quaint notions from “Old Europe”. As an early pioneer in the new thinking, Alfred North Whitehead stated in the early part of the last century that there are no laws, only long-term tendencies [which can be suspended at any time and place at God's will].
So, what I am saying is that one cannot get at the issue of the representativeness of teh body politic of a different culture and civilization by extending one’s own norms and expecting them to apply to the other culture. For one thing (in this particular example, Iran), the body politic is decidedly not, alhamdullilah, a democracy. So stop expecting it to act like one. Now having said that, this does not mean that we buy into the Neocon-cum-PEPI (Progressive except on Palestine and Iran) philosophy that if a polity is not democratic then it is necessarily repressive/ autocratic/ totalitarian/ pick your bogeyman term… Not at all. Iran has its share of problems with the fact that the interests of those in power do not adequately reflect the intersets of the rest of teh population, and certain minorities in particular. However, it is a mistake to assume that by tweaking a certain filtering process or a process whereby permits for demonstrations are issued, that these problems will resolve in favor of a more transparent and representative polity.
This kind of thinking is so ubiquitous that it is difficult to get English speakers to “get it”. I will therefore demonstrate the point with a couple of examples.
1. The possession of motor-cycles with engines having a cubic capacity of larger than 125 cc’s is prohibited by Iranian law. Well-intentioned Universalising question: Why can’t Iran change its laws to allow motorcyclists the “freedom” to ride more powerful motorcycles? Becuase the indiginous conditions cannot allow this. Powerful motocycles which can weave in and out of traffic at high speeds have been used and continue to be used to facilitate the getaways of political assassinations. The latest case in point: the assassination of a top nuclear scientist by a bomb attached to his car by an assassin on a high-powered motorcycle. This kind of “freedom” can only obtain in a state where the killing of a few highly placed figures would not shake the pillars of its polity to its foundations.
2. Why (the innocents at the WTO & GATT – the John Perkins’s and Stuart Levys of the world – ask) does Iran levy a 90% tax on the import of foreign-made automobiles (so as to make these imports prohibitively expensive except for the very few)? Well, it might surprise you to know that while the dynamic of wanting to protect a nascent indiginous car-manufacturing economy does bear on this policy, this dynamic would have been more than over-ruled by the greater dynamic of compradore capitalists wanting to make an easy buck merely from importing foreign goods and selling them at a large profit (and said capitalists not wanting to be hampered by such inconviniences as taxation). The truth is that becuase Iran does not have the administrative infrastructure in place to tax businesses and individuals and real estate, border crossings provide for an easy and convinient way to collect revenue for the government.
3. Why does the Sepah-e Pasdaran’s Khatam ol-Anbiya corporation (and here I’m channeling my mother) get all the large lucrative contracts that the government gives out? Because Uncle Sam prevents others from participating in the bidding process!!
4. (and here I am channeling fyi:) Why are modern-minded young girls and women not “free” to go about braless and in think t-shirts? This lack of personal “freedom” has them up in arms, dammit!
Well, for the simple reason that the Iranian public for whatever reason, and for better or worse, at this period in their history, is likely temporarily to be blinded by the glare eminating from those high-beam headlights shining forth from those exquisitely painful peaks of their mamalian protruberances.
Need I go on??
Packman and Scotty Boy: We are not – repeat, not – going to have Wet T-Shirt Nights in Northern Tehran with all you can drink Bud Light, OK? I’m sorry if that is inconvinient. I’m sorry if it is “undemocratic”. IF you are sincere in helping Iran, then the best thing for you to do is to stop whining about why they can’t be more like you, take your thumb out of your mouth, and agitate for the US to
1. Recognize the IRI goverment as legitimate
2. (Thereby) stop its efforts to destabilize and undermine it and the geographical integrity of Iran
3. Pay back with interest the assets of Iran frozen by the US at the time of the revolution
4. Allow US and European corporations to bid in and invest in Iran’s economy
5. Try (for once) not to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries
By taking these simple steps, which are in the interest of the American people if not in the interest of its out of control military-industrial-congressional complex, then, inshallah and in the fullness of time, Packman can bring his girlfriend for a visit and they can strut around town with high-beams glaring.
*
Swiss says:
February 27, 2011 at 4:31 am
UU,
That is the worst justification I’ve seen on this blog for the IRI. You seem to suggest that Islamic Republic’s own constitution cannot be upheld because it would be too uncharacteristic of Iranian culture and religion to implement its own constitution. The right to free assembly and free speech is not a Western ideal, its right there in the constitution. So is the right to free speech and equal access to state TV. And its very unfortunate that you equate the demand for more freedoms and gender equality, including the freedom to choose Hijab to a non-existant desire to hold wet Tshirt contests in northern Tehran. Goes to show how little you know about Iranian women. Perhaps you don’t have a sister or a mother who has been harraassed, arrested and or even beaten for showing one too many hair strands. The hijab law is neither Islamic or Iranian.
“1. Recognize the IRI goverment as legitimate”
How is connecting all former heads of IRI to foreign powers and suggestion that they were all stooges of the West and Israel in any way recognition of IRI government as legitimate. Between Mousavi, Karoubi, Hashemi and Khatami you have at least 24 years of public service of IRI 32 years being questined.
“2. (Thereby) stop its efforts to destabilize and undermine it and the geographical integrity of Iran”
Adventorours foreign policy of the hardliners and their Gadaffi-style rhetoric is doing more to destablize and undermine Iran’s socio-cultural-economic-geographical integrity of Iran.
“3. Pay back with interest the assets of Iran frozen by the US at the time of the revolution.”
How do you expect to get that back when you base your whole foreign policy on Death to this and that?
“4. Allow US and European corporations to bid in and invest in Iran’s economy”
I thought sanctions were good for the Iranian nation – so says president select AN.
“5. Try (for once) not to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.”
Would that mean Iran will have to stop interfering in internal affairs of other countries? ie. Palestine and Lebanon? Iraq and Afghanistan?
*
Unknown Unknowns says:
February 27, 2011 at 7:16 am
Swiss Miss says:
February 27, 2011 at 4:31 am
“You seem to suggest that Islamic Republic’s own constitution cannot be upheld because it would be too uncharacteristic of Iranian culture and religion to implement its own constitution. The right to free assembly and free speech is not a Western ideal, its right there in the constitution. So is the right to free speech and equal access to state TV.”
Swiss Miss: Unfortunately, the above is the only substantive statement of yours which merits a response. I hope and trust that Arnold, Eric, fyi et al can and will do better. [I trust the trolls to remain cluless.]
You mention contradictions between the IRI constitution and its practice. Look: the very juxtaposition of Islamic [and] Republic is a massive contradiction. Massive, OK? The confluence of Iranian modernity and her traditions, which History has juxtaposed, is a contradiction. I’m not denying these contradictions, let alone trying to “justify” them. To the contrary, if you read what I have said here and in previous threads with care, you will see that what I am saying is not that there are no contradictions, but that the contradictions are deeper, systemic, and ultimately, trans-systemic, i.e., take us out of the Wet T-Shirt Nite cultural ballpark and into another one altogether – one whose analysis, topology and ultimately, diagnosis and remedy are not conducive to etic tools and instruments, but require emic, indigenous solutions.
If the European experience is anything to go by, these contradictions will take centuries and not decades to resolve themselves. (As I insinuated well before January 25th, it seems PNAC’s American Century is being superceded by The Unknown Unknowns’s Moslem Century). What I am saying is, the sort of beligerence shown by the US and Europe to the IRI not only belies the Axis of Weasels’s own insecurities and envy, but radicalizes and entrenches radicals and elements refractory to the inevitable historical process of moderity and modernization which is unfolding, thereby retarding the process and giving it an unnatural developmental trajectory whilst at the same time betraying the pre-modern (and hence, reactionary) character of the Axis’s bankrupt foreign policy (in so far as the modern values and ideals that they purportedly uphold domestically – which in itself is becoming more tenuous – are not upheld internationally).
With regard to your other heartfelt point about the compulsoriness of the hejab, etc. (and I address here also fyi’s rejoiner to my response to his earlier comment): Listen, I am half Armenian myself. Of course it pains me that my government acts the way it does towards women and minorities. I part ways here, I am sure, with my esteemed Bussed-in Professor regarding the need for the continuation of a morality police to enforce these coercive policies. It pains me as a Moslem whose sacred text announced to the world that there shall be no compulsion in religion. And it saddens me to see the flight of Armenians to the US and elsewhere because the conditions, while not opressive, and indeed “discrimanatory” in the sense that Armenians are not afforded access to government jobs, no matter how lowly the position.
But these are the prices that must be paid if a genuinly multi-polar world is to obtain (rather than the pseudo-cultural enclaves that our New World Order zoo-masters and wardens have envisioned for us in our respective bantustans (squeezed between the Jewistani Starbucks Coffee and Noah’s Bagels.) And the more stable and secure this regime feels, the less reactionary it is likely to act. And besides, I’m sorry, but I for one do not allow the personal feelings of a small minority, irrespective of whether she is or is not my mother or sister, determine how I evaluate the current situation with respect to the legitimacy and future of the government of the “Islamic Republic”** of Iran.
** I put the phrase in quotes to emphasize its simultaneous impossibility and its undeniable reality. this one’s for you, VoT: it is a Tarantinoesque phantasmagoria and a Ritchiesque extravaganza. A mystery wrapped in an enigma.
Round and round the world she goes
Where she’ll stop, nobody knows
Gather round and place your bets.
And its very unfortunate that you equate the demand for more freedoms and gender equality, including the freedom to choose Hijab to a non-existant desire to hold wet Tshirt contests in northern Tehran. Goes to show how little you know about Iranian women. Perhaps you don’t have a sister or a mother who has been harraassed, arrested and or even beaten for showing one too many hair strands. The hijab law is neither Islamic or Iranian.
*
Bussed-in Basiji says:
February 27, 2011 at 7:44 am
First:
Hijab is both Iranian and Islamic. Hijab was the norm for women- especially nobility- in pre-Islamic Iran. It was forcifully removed by Reza Khan in the 1930s and what we have to today is a reassertation of what is the normal state.
Second:
As I explained earlier, the problem with the hijab laws in Iran today is that that the specific misdaq of hijab is not defined in the law. This causes problems during the enforcement because the officer doesn’t exactly know what to enforce. Thus the law should clearly define what the masadiq of hijab are and everyone will now where they stand. As I explained in the previous posts it has become “rusariye Osman”in terms of domestic politics and the last people who want the hijab matter to be clearly defined are the lefties.
In terms of the basic idea of the law, it is excellent that me and UU and UU’s mother and sister (with all due respect) and Swiss cannot go onto the street anyway we like- BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF PERSONAL CHOICE. Maybe in der Schweiz- but even their public clothing has rules.
It’s clear that the opposition to the Islamic Republic is based on opposition to Islam and its laws. As long as the majority of Iranians want Islamic law as it is currently defined by living mujtahids, implemented and enforced (hint: the majority do), who are gonna have to learn to live with it. Otherwise you can continue to enjoy your “freedom” in Geneva, Bern, Zurich, Basel or whatever other boring provinicial Schweizer “kaff” you are residing in. Gruezi.
From Cairo to Ohio….
http://www.presstv.com/Program/167132.html
Iran Eyewitness: Tehran Churns Towards “Long-Awaited Tide of Transition”
http://tinyurl.com/66pvcwk
Today’s big development….
Iran Special: Regime’s Detention of Opposition Figures Mousavi, Rahnavard, & Karroubi
http://tinyurl.com/6hb5tez
kooshy says:
February 26, 2011 at 2:36 pm
One thing is for sure. The beepol are invisible. Fiorangela (February 26, 2011 at 9:32 pm) shows large segments of American society are afflicted with invisibility.
I would love to know at what latitude/longitude and/or at what point of life from cradle to grave do we the beepol get infected with invisibility?
The worst analysis to date on this blog! This seznec guy is raw! KSA should think of herself rather than Bahrain! Their King is struggling with his health, meanwhile there is a struggle amongst the elite in KSA on who is going to be the next ruler! How do they want to intervene in Bahrain? If i was the King I would pay more attention to the south of Bahrain which is their north and where the oil fields are! After all, what a watermelonish analysis. BTW, you think Iranian regime is yogurt?
The Arab and Muslim nations in a short span of time, less than a month proved that for self-governance and real democracy – and not just corporate money-dictated elections –
They have no need for a bully like George W. Bush at the head of a group of militarists from Texas and Zionist thieves from Brooklyn, New York to come down seven thousand miles to force the sword of “democracy and civility” down their throat, using bullets, depleted uranium, bombs, drones and the terrorists of Black Water Xe.
After all, the Muslims, including Iranians, have had much longer civilizations than such individuals like arrogant Donald Rumsfeld, phony Hillary Clinton and immoral Tony Blair can claim to.
But even now, after all the valiant struggles waged by the peoples in North Africa and the Middle East, nothing prevented the United States’ establishments, official spokespersons or the private corporate media reporters from ignoring the on-going and recent protests of the people of Iraq.
Furthermore, for the purpose of hiding the empire’s existential defeat, they inflate the setbacks or shortcomings of such governments as Libya, Syria and Iran.
http://www.iranian.com/main/2011/feb/new-world-order
AUTHOR
Ardeshir Ommani is an Iranian-born writer, political economist and president of the American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC)
James Canning, re your comment @ 7:07 pm, on the earlier thread:
No, dear James, I would never suggest that the US is “scamming the people . . .by causing them to believe Iran is developing nukes when these “ruling Elites” believe this is not true. That would be dishonest, and would undermine every principle that the US purports to stand for.
No, no indeed; that could never happen.
American leaders are no different from your Tony Blair – their only and highest wish is for the wellbeing of the beepol.
All kidding aside – I was playing with the WayBack machine today. In this Nov. 1999 Congressional debate, at issue was what to do with a “surplus” in the US Social Security account. (Now, the US Social Security “account” is a liability account, not an asset account – there are no dollars escrowed in a ‘fund,’ but only IOUs entered on a ledger. True, real dollars are collected from every employed American and his/her employer, and paid INTO “Social Security,” but those employee and employer dollars are expended as if they were deposited in the US general fund, and IOUs are put in their place in the Social Security “account.” So the concept of a Social Security “surplus” is roughly equivalent to saying your household budget has a surplus since you have a second lien/home equity loan, with your house as collateral, and your home equity loan is greater than your first mortgage – ie. has a “surplus” amount compared to your first mortgage (to boot, your house’s market value is less than the first mortgage).
But I digress – the point is, in Nov. 1999 the US Congress had an extended debate over how to spend money called a “surplus” in the Social Security account.
One of the ways Congress was persuading itself to spend the money was by rewarding Israel for entering into the Wye River Agreement, by which Israel was to pull back from lands it had no right to occupy in the first place (you DO recall the meaning of pilpul, don’t you?). On offer was $1.8 billion, to compensate Israel for military bases it would have to relocate. That amount was in addition to $1.2 billion that Israel would need to protect its 6 million citizens from 1.5 million unarmed Palestinians.
Bill Clinton/Democrats did not want the American people to think that their Social Security money was being sent to Israel; Republicans were, similarly, aware that the American public was OPPOSED to Congress dipping into Social Security “surplus” to fund foreign aid.
Back in October 1999, Baltimore Sun reporter Karen Hosler was a guest on C Span Washington Journal and explained how 1. The American people are free and welcome to express their wishes; and 2. the Congress ignores their wishes; while 3. sending that much money and more to Israel, 4. while blaming the raiding of the Social Security “surplus” on the other party.
From Hosler’s C Span appearance, here’s how it works: :http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/CongressionalIssues15&start=1319
Caller (a lady from Wyndham, CN):*** “I want to talk about foreign aid spending. Prime minister Barak of Israel wants $20 billion from us to cover the cost of the Wye Peace Agreement.
I think that’s out of the question. I hope they don’t give in to that.
It’s a very quiet thing – I read it in the Jerusalem Post, and I haven’t read it in any of the other papers. But I think the people should know where this money is going. I don’t think any money that’s a surplus should go – be given out to anybody.”
Hosler: “Well, she confirms what the Republicans believe about foreign aid, which is that it’s generally unpopular. One of the things they did in preparation for their negotiations with Clinton was to cut $2 billion – it’s $2 billion, not $20 billion, in this bill, at least for this year – they cut that from the foreign operations request that the president made, thinking that, okay, let the president say, “I’m going to take money from Social Security and give it to foreign aid,” thinking that this will be extremely unpopular and from the caller’s comment, I guess it would be.
“The argument that the president would make is, ‘Peace in the Middle East is incredibly important to us strategically, and, um, we need to contribute to making that happen.’”
Which is the same kabuki we’ve been dancing since at least 1967 if not 1947 or even 1913.
***You see, James Canning, at least some of the American people ARE well informed. Makes no difference – they’re ignored anyway. The American people have been ignored before: in 2003, over a million Americans protested against US involvement in Iraq war – they were ignored.
More recently, while Congress was debating the bank bailout in Fall 2008, over 80,000 phone calls saying NO to using taxpayer money to bail out banks, were placed by Americans to their representative. On September 29, 2008, Congress voted AGAINST the bank bailout. :http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm The evening of Sept. 29 marked the beginning of the Jewish holiday, Rosh Hashannah, and Congress recessed in respect of the Jewish holiday. On Oct. 1, the Senate reconvened, revised the bill, and sent it to the House, which passed the bill on Oct. 3. George Bush signed the bill within hours of the House’s passage of the legislation to which 80,000 Americans had specifically voiced their opposition just one week earlier.
No no, a thousand times no, James, US “ruling elites” would never “scam” American citizens. Why waste the energy? Nobody pays attention to the American people.
“Indeed, the Bahrainis, especially the younger ones, feel Bahraini first, not Iranian, Saudi, Sunni or Shi’a.”
The majority of bahrainis, and muslims, see themselfs as muslim first. Just ask them
Rep. Peter King: ‘IRA terror supporter to judge Muslims’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/rep-peter-king-ira-terror-supporter-to-judge-muslims/
The 5th fleet should leave the Persian Gulf once U.S forces are out of Iraq….if they are ever fully withdrawn. I suspect that most Iranians have had enough of a naval force that renames the waterway the “Arabian Gulf” to placate its tyrannical hosts.
I don’t know much about Bahrain, but any article discussing prospects future Bahrain and Saudi relations the island that completely ignores the US role and America’s fifth fleet to bee half baked at best.
Saudi Arabia is a closed society. Things happen there that we never hear about.
The people most likely to rebel are the Shias in Eastern province who cannot simply by bought off with a $37bn bribe from the King.
March 11th is the Saudi “25th of Bahman”. It will be interesting to see how many people come out to demonstrate on the streets.
I expect the country to disintegrate into smaller emirates. There is no “Arabian” identity as such holding everyone together – just oil money.
And what about Iraq? Yesterday there were demonstrations in all major cities, despite calls by religious leaders not to demonstrate. In Baghdad, there was a large demonstration where Shi’a and Sunna prayed together, despite the government’s blocking of bridges across the Tigris. To make matters worse, a northern oil pipeline got blasted. And the major oil refinery was attacked an shut down.
And, like Saudia Arabia in Bahrain, the US has no answer. Iraq, that imposed “model of democracy,” has shown itself to be unresponsive and unaccountable to the Iraqi people. What will the US reaction to the Iraqi people be–like Mubarak or like Qadhafi?
Related, worth reading:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-obama-mideast-20110226,0,3426375,print.story
I too do not see as likely a Saudi military intervention in Bahrain, at this time.
Gradual move toward representative democracy of constitutional monarchical form needs to continue.
Iran seeks good relations with all the countries in the Persian Fulf/Gulf of Oman area.
kooshy says:
Mr. Jean-Francois Seznec, very cleverly and in line with official western analysis of the recent middle east’s uprising continues to divert the attention from a…
Seznec talk of invasion of Bahrain by Saudi as they are deciding to go to summer vacation or not …!
There will be serious consequences for such invasion the kind perhaps Saudi can not afford. ُSomeone mentioned earlier story of mouse trying to invade a hole…
موش تو سوراخ نمیرفت
جارو به دمش میبست!
Mr. Jean-Francois Seznec, very cleverly and in line with official western analysis of the recent middle east’s uprising continues to divert the attention from an Islamic nature for this uprising and in case of Bahrain divert to Shieh, Sunni sectarian hoping that can be set aside and the crown prince comes out as the successor, can Mr. Seznec point to one single video of the uprisings in Bahrain and show us a single female in any age young , poor , educated etc. without the traditional hejab (and the black one at that, also notice how men and female are separated in rallies)although it’s not a requirement in Bahrain where you even have casinos, what does he think the reason is behind that?
No one is saying the demonstrators want an Iranian style government no but no one should refuse that all this uprising has a dignity fulfillment that it feeds from an Islamic base and origin. Which, in this case, Mr. Seznec, rather not to address he prefers to stick to watermelons, youth etc. and if is not that then the studies will come in to save the Sunnis.
Mr. Seznec, I remember a few months after the Iranian revolution some people complained to Ayatollah Khomeini that since the revolution the price of watermelon has gone up , Mr. Khomeini replied ‘we didn’t revolt for watermelons” I believe the same is true with all this revolts is not for watermelons, be honest at minimum to yourself.
Perhaps the Leveretts could comment, regarding this paragraph:
“The Crown Prince does not seem to fear any Shi’a take over. He seems to be only interested in having the island become a modern country ruled by law, not by whim, where every citizen has equal rights. The Crown Prince has support among the more educated and liberal Sunnis and Shi’a. Primarily, he has support among the youth, both Sunni and Shi’a. The youth instigated the present demonstrations and have shown a great deal of disdain for the Shi’a-Sunni divide emphasized by the older generation.”
If the gods are kind control over Bahrain goes to the Crown Prince and the young, educated, liberal Sunni and Shi’a who disdain the Sunni-Shi’a divide and see themselves as Bahrainis governed by their own described rule of law, what would be the attitude of this ‘new’ Bahrain toward Iran?
What is the relationship of the Crown Prince and “new Bahrainis” with Turkey? Would the ideas of Davutoglu impress the Bahrainis?
And how would Iran’s present government respond if the Crown Prince and the New Bahrainis were to prevail?
Finally, what is the ability of US State Department, its Israelist influencers, and Israel itself, to shift the balance in Bahrain one way or the other? What is the likelihood that US will marginalize the Crown Prince, in favor of protecting its relationship with Saudi (oil)? Ah, but — support for Saudi oil could cost the US the fifth fleet’s Bahraini berth, which would not please Israel.
Nice article. The author could have also explored whether a democratic change in Bahrain could, if at all, trigger changes in Saudi Arabia.