Four months ago, we returned from a trip to the Middle East and wrote that “the main question engaging people with respect to the Arab Spring is no longer, ‘who’s next,’ but rather how far will Saudi Arabia go in pushing a ‘counter-revolutionary agenda’ across the” region, see here. Since then, something of a discussion, if not a debate, has arisen among Middle East analysts as to whether Saudi Arabia is, in fact, pursing a counter-revolutionary strategy and what it is really up to in the region.
In this regard, Gregory Gause published an interesting article, “Is Saudi Arabia Really Counter-revolutionary” on ForeignPolicy.com earlier this week, see here. Greg’s bottom line answer is that Saudi Arabia is not really counter-revolutionary; it is, rather, out to best Iran in an ongoing battle to shape the regional balance of power. Sometimes, this means that the Kingdom looks like it is acting in a counter-revolutionary way, as when it “sent troops to Bahrain to put down popular protests.” But sometimes, in Greg’s view, “counter-revolutionary” is not the right adjective to describe Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy initiatives—as with the Kingdom’s recent recall of its ambassador in Syria and King Abdullah’s public demand that Syrian President Bashar al Assad “stop the killing machine,” thereby appearing to put Saudi Arabia on the side of Syrian protesters.
“Syria is Iran’s most important and longest-standing Arab ally. Under Bashar’s father, Hafiz al-Assad, Damascus was able to sustain good relations with Riyadh while also cultivating the Persian connection. But the son has proven less nimble in balancing his regional relations. Syrian support for Hezbollah in Lebanon (and assumed Syrian involvement, if not directly then indirectly, in the assassination of Saudi ally Rafiq al-Hariri) alienated Riyadh. Bashar even publicly insulted the Saudi king and other Arab leaders over their stance during the Israel-Hezbollah war in 2006. King Abdullah was hesitant to break fully with Damascus, as demonstrations against the regime accelerated over the past five months, given the importance of Syria in regional politics. But the escalating violence of the past week, coming at the beginning of Ramadan, seemed to seal the issue. Dealing Iran a blow in regional politics trumps the risks of greater instability.
While public opinion is hardly a major factor in Saudi foreign policy decisions, on the break with Syria the King was following, not leading, his people. The Saudi media and Saudi-owned pan-Arab media has been vehemently opposed to Assad’s crackdown and sympathetic to the protestors. This is where the Ramadan timing comes into the picture. During the holy month religious feelings are heightened. The sectarian element of the Syrian confrontation, with an ostensibly secular and Alawite Shiite dominated regime brutally suppressing the Sunni Muslim majority, becomes a more prominent element in how the overwhelmingly Sunni Saudis, population and leadership, view events…
Saudi Arabia is against regime change in allied states. It supports its fellow monarchs both out of concern for its own domestic regime security, ideological solidarity, and balance of power politics. It might not like democracy much, and certainly not at home, but that does not mean it will oppose all democratic movements. Its support for the March 14 anti-Syrian coalition in Lebanon in the last two Lebanese elections was crucial. When leaders, even leaders with whom it has had decent relations in the past, no longer can get the job done, the Saudis will help usher them out the door. They will deal with their successors in a pragmatic way (as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces in Egypt, the deposers of Saudi ally Hosni Mubarak, quickly realized). They will oppose leaders and groups that they think are allied with Iran, whether it is Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, or Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq. Their focus is on checking and rolling back Iranian influence in the Arab world. That is what drives their policy, not some imagined notion of anti-revolutionary dictatorial solidarity.”
We might still argue that “counter-revolutionary” is an appropriate description for Saudi foreign policy in a number of contested regional venues, including not just Bahrain but also Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt. But, leaving that quibble aside, we think that Greg makes some important points about the drivers of current Saudi diplomacy. What does this mean for U.S. policy toward the region? We were struck that our former colleague John Hannah, now at the neo-conservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, recently argued, see here, that,
“King Abdullah’s dramatic intervention has created a potential turning point in the unfolding Syrian tragedy, but one that can only be fully taken advantage of by authoritative U.S. leadership that infuses our allies with confidence and a clear sense of direction, and our adversaries with the inevitability of their own eventual demise. The Obama administration has been handed an important opportunity to secure U.S. interests. The president should act quickly to seize it.”
Against this, Greg Gause offers what we think are some compelling cautionary observations.
“The sectarian factor, never absent, is now becoming a more open element in the Saudi-Iranian rivalry. The Saudi and Gulf commentary on events in Bahrain was openly sectarian. While the Saudi leaders do not explain their policies in sectarian terms and tend to view the region more in balance of power terms, they have always thought that sectarianism was their hole card in the confrontation with Iran. There are more Sunnis in the region than Shiites. They know it and the Iranians know it. But playing up the sectarian element of regional conflict will blow back on the Saudis sooner rather than later. Heightened sectarian tension provides fertile ground for extremist salafi jihadist movements like al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to sell their anti-Shiite ideas and recruit new members. The Saudi leadership believes it has the AQAP threat under control, but their current actions could be providing a safety net for an organization that, like its parent, has suffered serious reverses in recent years.
The ‘sectarianization’ of regional balance of power conflicts should concern the United States as well. The United States has an interest in a stable Iraq, a stable Lebanon, a Syria that does not implode into all-out civil war, and a Bahrain that overcomes the bitterness of its government’s recent brutal crackdown on its citizens. Heightened sectarian feelings work against all those interests. While the Saudis are correct that there are more Sunnis than Shiites in the Muslim world, privileging sectarian identity gives the Iranian regime an entry into the politics of many Arab states.”
On this basis, Greg argues that “Riyadh would be better served by encouraging a common Arab identity that overcomes sectarian differences and emphasizes the foreignness of Iran in the Arab world while marginalizing sectarian extremists like al Qaeda and its sympathizers.” But this is part of the Saudis’ problem, which leads them to take, what we describe as a counter-revolutionary approach: when regional publics look at their situations in terms of a common identity, this does not re-enforce an Arab-Persian divide. Rather, it directs attention to the ways in which the United States, Israel, and others trample on regional interests and sensibilities—something that plays powerfully to the Islamic Republic’s advantage. The Saudis really have no other option but to play the sectarian card. We remain intensely skeptical that this will be a winning play, in the long run, for Saudi Arabia or for the United States.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Rehmat,
Ah yes, the real jerk of the year contender: Congressman Peter King of Long Island, New York. Courting “Irish-American” – - meaning Roman Catholic Irish – - support, in 1982 he said: “We must pledge ourselves to support these brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism.” He cheered on the IRA terrorists as they blew up innocent women and children in Northern Ireland, and attacked civilian targets in Britain.
James Canning – majority of neocons are Jewish. But since some of their critics are Jewish too – I prefer to call these anti-Muslim thugs “Zioncons”.
One of the latest entry to these Ziocon gangster group is Rep. King who is even get paranoid by the proposed Hollywood movie on OBL.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/13/rep-king-thou-shalt-not-make-movie-on-obl/
fyi,
I very much agree with you that Israel should have accepted Hamas’ offer of a ceasefire. Many American politicians are so ignorant they are not even aware Hamas made the offer.
Fiorangela,
Do you agree with the mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, who is “black”, that many young “blacks” fail to get ahead because they dress so slovenly? Pat Buchanan quotes him in “The fire this time”:
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/
fyi,
I think it is a mistake to say that the neocons represent the “Jewish” interest in American foreign policy, not least because many of the most effective critics of the neocons, are Jews.
The neocons would like to achieve an overthrow of the government of Iran, no matter how many trillions of dollars this would cost the American taxpayers. I have difficulty seeing how this would be in the best interests of either the US or Iran.
James Canning says: August 12, 2011 at 5:31 pm
You ascribe US foreign policy to Jewish interest, I ascribe them, based on public Internet sources and testimony of men like Dr. Khalilzad to a (delusional as you say) Grand Strategy.
I do not have any problem with Neocons; they have advanced Iranian interests and God willing, they would continue to do so.
The more US leaders cheer men like Mr. Netanyahu the better its is for Iran.
Please note one things though:
Each escalation, each insult, each murder, will make the cost of any re-approachement higher and higher.
Eventually, it will get to the point that reapproachment has nothing to recommend itself.
If American leaders and planners were smart (likewise Israelis) they would have taken the HAMAS ceasefire deal the day before yesterday.
There is still the possibility of materializing that deal.
Barring taht, Israel and the United States are only two or 3 more incidents (wars) away from being declared Enemies of Islam.
At that point, all bets are off.
Two warring ideologies and U.S. hypocrisy
By Dr. Seyed Reza Mousavi Niya
Some countries depict themselves as committed to the universal human values, but when those values come into conflict with their national interests, they demonstrate hypocritical behavior.
http://old.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=245987
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/books/ehsan-yarshaters-encyclopedia-of-iranian-history.html
James Canning says:
August 11, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Wonder if Mz Pearson is over her self-righteous high yet. Her analysis is onion-skin deep.
Peel the onion a little deeper; think about Bibi Netanyahu’s comment to the US Congress on Sept. 12, 2002: “I know how to destroy Iran: blast in Beverly Hills 90210 and Melrose Place; make the young people want nice clothes and houses and swimming pools. That’s subversive.”
None of the Congressmen who snorted with glee at Bibi’s subversive scheme to destroy Iranian society comprehended that American children had been bombarded with Melrose Place etc. all their lives. Since the Reagan 1980s, American children have been saturated with consumerism, with greed is good, with more is better and excess best of all.
From Pearson’s pov the London riots might well be dubbed the Flat Screen riots — at her cut of the onion, all she recognizes is that children are walking off with goods that they did not pay for. She does not penetrate the cycle of years of sophisticated propaganda that conditioned these children to want those items, to perceive in the possession of them symbolic equality with White Folks and Rich folks — a status they have as little chance of attaining as they have the means to purchase a flat screen TV.
“Where are their parents?” Pearson demands, and then answers — Their parents are sleeping. Did Pearson trouble herself to consider that that lazy, good for nothing sleeping parent might just have gotten off a night shift, which followed hard on a full day of work at another dead-end, low-pay job?
Hollywood-style propaganda sets up a system of expectations that cannot be satisfied. In the case of Iran, Netanyahu advised the Congress to use that propaganda to ratchet up a sense of dissatisfaction so intense that Iranian young people would riot in the streets and topple the Iranian government.
Is there a Nobel Prize for vicious, culture-shattering ideas that backfire?
James Canning – FP is itself a Zioncon mouthpiece. The paper do post some rational article once a while to maintain its credibility among the sheep.
YES – America is the best empire money can buy – because, for sure, USA has never been a democracy. It was created as world’s first Masonic entity.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/it-is-not-a-democracy-stupid/
Rep. King: ‘Thou shalt not make movie on OBL’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/13/rep-king-thou-shalt-not-make-movie-on-obl/
A bit off topic, but is the idiot Christian Zionist, Rick Perry, a real threat to take possession of the White House? Quote: ‘The idea that [Obama] would make this statement about [Israel's] going back to the ‘67 borders sent a chill down my friends’ back and certainly mine.’ Doug Feith, one of the idiot neocons who conspired to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq, is an adviser to Perry. Gleen Greenwald has some comments on this situation at salon.com today.
Those who think the US Congress is the collective stooge of the government of Israel will not change their viewpoint from reading Stephen Walt’s ‘The greatest elected body that money can buy (UPDATED)’.
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/11/the_greatest_elected_body_that_money_can_buy
fyi,
I meant to say Cordesman argues it is ‘difficult to gain insight into Iran’s biological weapons programmes’, although there is no proof they even exist.
fyi,
In October 2008, Anthony Cordesman produced a study: “Iran’s Biological Weapons Programs”. Anthrax. Smallpox. Biotoxins. Although he said there is no proof of such programmes, it is difficult to gain insight into them.
fyi,
And Anthony Cordesman acts as a cheerleader for continuing utter stupidity of the US in trying to ‘isolate’ Iran.
BiBiJon,
Interesting comments. Does any surplus Iranian 20% U have value, in itself, after the plates or rods are produced? Could it be sold to another country (assuming IAEA approval)? I would welcome a statement from William Hague, acknowledging the production of the fuel plates or rods, and the anticpated number of years the Tehran reactor will be fueled by them.
fyi,
Anthony Cordesman assumes Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons. Do you think this assumption is correct? Russia and China both oppose any Iranian nuclear weapons capability. And, of course, Iran says it does not want nukes and instead, wants all nukes destroyed globally.
kooshy,
I would argue that anyone who thinks ‘Islamic Iran’ can be ‘destroyed at reasonable cost’ is a bit delusional. How many trillions of dollars has been squandered on the idiotic invasion of Iraq and the foolish effort to create a stable ally of Israel?
FYI sometimes sounds like he is trying to make the neocons seem reasonable.
fyi,
And bear in mind how hard Jewish groups worked to defeat G H W Bush, in 1992, to punish him for his efforts to get Israel out of the West Bank.
fyi,
Aipac and other Jewish groups did ‘put a gun to America’s head’, to block restoration of normal relations between Iran and the US. (Maybe we should say that Aipac and other Jewish groups put a gun to Bill Clinton’s head.)
kooshy says: August 12, 2011 at 4:14 pm
It is not just about US-Iran relations.
It is across the spectrum.
There is the War in Palestine and the transparent inability of the United States and her allies in EU and NATO to do anything but manage the carnage as the flames of the religious war spreads and poisons her relationship with other Muslim states.
It is in her desire to neutralize the strategic weapons of Russia in the European Theathre.
It is in her absolute incapacity to articulate any vision of a positive future; it is all a security-driven agenda.
And in the Middle East, she and her allies only have more bloodshed, mnore violence, more wars, and more confrontations as offerings.
Fyi
“But there are internal issues within the community of planners in the United States that one: prevents them from percieving – at a cognitive level – the viability of other choices and two: the choices are unacceptable to them due to their prejudices and prejudgements.’
Agree with this point on your last post, never less that sums up to currently not having a choice (therefore the best thing they can do is at least to keep the status quo alive), for whatever personal or non-personal reasons there may be. That is exactly my point.
But on your insertion (Laiee)
“When your policy is predicated on the desirability of and eventual destruction of Islamic Iran and the near certainity of achieveing it at reasonable costs; then, I submit to you, other choices become invisible.’
Nope (ain’t hapenen) day by day in this past three decades is becoming more of wishful thinking on the part of US and unfortunate allies.
kooshy says: August 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm
I think you are mistaken in assessing that American leaders and planners do not have any choice.
They do.
But there are internal issues within the community of planners in the United States that one: prevents them from percieving – at a cognitive level – the viability of other choices and two: the choices are unacceptable to them due to their prejudices and prejudgements.
In 1992, nobody had put a gun to the head of US leaders and told them to establish a policy of Dual Containment against Iran – and that after Mr. Rafsanjani’s overture to US via the awarding of an oil contract to CONOCO.
When your policy is predicated on the desirability of and eventual destruction of Islamic Iran and the near certainity of achieveing it at reasonable costs; then, I submit to you, other choices become invisible.
But those choices are there; they have not gone away.
No one put a gun to the heads of US leaders to applaud the Prime Minister of the Apratheid State of Israel in US Congress; they did it on their own free will. They could have sat silent, but they chose not to.
Likewise, the US leaders, even now, can take the HAMAS ceasefire deal and proceed from there; helping their Muslim allies and hampering Iran, Hizbullah, Syria. But they won’t move – and that is beneficial to the Resistance Alliance, thank you very much.
US leaders have made their choices clear over the last 20 years, they can change but they are convinced that the Collapse of Islamic Republic of Iran is just around teh corner – just like USSR’s.
Fyi
This kind of reports and the wave MSM articles and interviews which will fallow are not made to seriously change the current US policy toward Iran, US has no alternative to change her policy of the Iranian revolution, if they did they would have done it 30 years ago, with even soft bellies like Khatami they didn’t change in any meaningful way.
These repetitive reports are made to feed the coming articles and TV interviews for the sole purpose of keeping the issue alive and not getting forgotten.
۰۰۰۰دیگرشراب هم جزتا کناربسترخوابم نمی برد
پرکن پیاله را۰۰۰۰۰
kooshy says: August 12, 2011 at 3:08 pm
My reading of his most recent piece is that he has finally grasped the fundamental mistake of US in dealing with Iran – concession of power to other states.
The Prince covers that in detail.
“If the US is to be successful in its attempt to isolate Iran by severing these great power connections, it must work to upset their present cost-benefit calculations.”
Same old nothing new or capable of being changed, he may as well had his 05 report republished, analyst like Mr. Cordesman are incapable of recommending any alternative policy with regard to this situation even if they could come up with an alternative policy. Clearly US had been trying to change the cost benefit calculations of Chinese and Russians for past 8 years without any luck. What makes Mr. Cordesman think there exist a better chance now, is it the current state of the US’s economy or their new geopolitical standing or is it their international behavior. Another requested rubbish report.
All:
http://csis.org/publication/us-and-iranian-strategic-competition-6
Finally, after 20 years, Dr. Cordesman gets it.
[Clearly, never had he studied the prince.]
James,
“Is Iran’s enriching to 20% being used to demonise the country, as part of continuing Zionist propaganda programme? Clearly. But, does Iran’s enriching to 20% raise concerns in intelligent people whose goodwill could mean a great deal for Iran? Yes.”
It is way above my station. But I only can imagine that no governmental decision is devoid of a downside. If you think Iran had a different choice that she did not exercise, then let me know.
The proof of the pudding is when it comes to fabricating the fuel plates, how much 19.75% stuff gets left behind. If none is left, I fully expect Mr Hague to forget to eat his words in his rush to move on to some other topic for fear-mongering.
Kathleen,
The piece on Mondoweiss.net, about US State Dept. giving $200,000 to a Zionist propaganda entity run by neocons eager to dupe the American public yet again, is astounding. Or should be.
And Aipac is pushing the US Congress to spend perhaps billions of dollars to take care of elderly Jews who immigrated to the US during or after the Second World War! Incredible. Or should be.
BiBiJon,
I very much agree the US very stupidly in effect forced Iran to enrich to 20%. And, like you, I do not think Iran is preparing to build nukes on the sly, or even on a ‘fast track’ basis.
And producing a few years’ worth of plates or rods for the Tehran reactor, in one go, seems to make sense (not being an expert in these matters).
Is Iran’s enriching to 20% being used to demonise the country, as part of continuing Zionist propaganda programme? Clearly. But, does Iran’s enriching to 20% raise concerns in intelligent people whose goodwill could mean a great deal for Iran? Yes.
According to counter terrorism expert Richard Clarke and former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O Neil when it comes to deep investigations into Saudi Arabia’s efforts to undermine US National security it is all hands off.
Check this out
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/martin-in-palestine.html/comment-page-1#comment-348953
James Canning says:
August 12, 2011 at 1:28 pm
James,
the way things are supposed to work is that countries sign a treaty, and a safeguard agreement. Until, and unless there is evidence of abrogating that treaty, there ought not be a constant chatter about why they are doing this or that.
Some say Iran has not answered IAEA questions regarding allegations of weapons work provided by Iran’s adversaries. It is not true. Iran has answered: “they are fabricated, forgeries.” The way it is supposed to work, is that an independent body looks at the evidence and determines if they are or aren’t forgeries. A little difficult as the accusers will not even give possession of the ‘incriminating’ documents to IAEA.
James, you see, otherwise any country can come up with endless allegations against another country.
As I’d written to you in the past, Iran started to produce 19.75% LEU only after fuel suppliers would not sell Iran the goods. Faced with a choice of permanently shutting down TRR, a research reactor (under IAEA supervision since 1970s) or producing the fuel herself, Iran has chosen the latter path. Particularly, because the TRR is the only source of medical and agricultural isotopes for Iran. And, you can imagine, if they won’t sell Iran fuel plates, how likely are they to sell Iran far ‘dirtier’ cesium?
The tripling of production capacity for the 19.75 LEU is simply a way of meeting a deadline imposed by how much fuel the TRR has left.
How many years worth of fuel should they produce? Unless Iran enjoys the kind of fear-mongering by Mr Hague to be repeated every other year, Iran is better off making several years’ worth in one shot.
I have absolute faith in Mr Hague to be the first person to inform the world if Iran enriches more than 1200 Kg of 3.5% LEU to 19.75%.
You recall the 1200 Kg figure comes from president Obama’s letters to both Turkish and Brazilian heads of state.
Anyway, to be producing 19.75% LEU is well within Iran’s safeguard agreement so long as the production process is under IAEA prevue and the material is accounted for.
Iran can be (and has been) accused of duplicity for the last 25 years at least. A little like Monty Python’s life of Brian, every little thing is trumpeted by Iran’s adversaries as “this is THE sign”.
Don’t know about you, but until and unless you hear about an actual nuclear weapon test, please don’t bother wake me up.
kooshy says: August 12, 2011 at 1:33 pm
The answer to your question is not to be found in the causes of Muslims’ (or Hindus’ or the Orientals’) decline.
You have to look at the causes of the rise of the West.
Best explanation, in my opinion, is the Henri Pirenne’s Thesis.
James Canning says: August 12, 2011 at 1:22 pm
There is no blend there in Istanbul.
Just try to get close to a Turkish woman.
Neo says:
August 12, 2011 at 12:40 pm
On Malaysia vs Iran:
I see strong parallels between the two countries already. Even vis-a-vis Israel, there is likeness of approach (some call it a parody) between the two.
See http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=1639&TTL=Malaysia:_Anti-Semitism_without_Jews
The resistance (downright animosity) towards Iran cutting a respectful meritorious niche for herself cannot be explained by Iran’s behavior, especially during Khatami’s presidency (1997 – 2005).
fyi says:
August 12, 2011 at 1:14 pm
“The rot actually started much earlier. centuries before.”
“Muslims were not unique in this; they were in good company with the Hindus and the Orientals of this world”.
Is that the best reason you could come up with in reply to my earlier question, if so, that’s a usual second sentence to complete an earlier standard orientalist rhetoric which you made on this regard , it seems at times that you are a well-read person but it also seems that your grouch prevents you of freely using the accumulated knowledge.
BiBiJon,
Your Aug. 12th (8:00am) post seems to indicate that I believe Iran is preparing to build nukes? I don’t think so, but is there an explanation for the amount of 20% U Iran seems to be preparing to produce?
Zionist propagandists want to see Iranian hostility toward Saudi Arabia, indeed. I very much agree. Iran should seek good relations with KSA.
fyi,
If one visits Istanbul, is the experience completely ‘non-western’? Or a blend of ‘western’ and ‘eastern’?
Are you arguing in effect that Bulgaria should not be in the EU? And that Serbia should not join the EU?
kooshy says: August 12, 2011 at 12:52 pm
The profound dis-orientation of Turkish society is captured in the book “My name is Red” by Orhan Hamuk.
“Crow wanted to learn the pheasant’s walk but could not, and forgot his own way of walking as well.”
On the other hand, the Iranian’s way of walking led to the Nekbat Islami – do not know which one is worse.
Neo,
why would Iran want to ‘challenge’ Turkey’s influence? Turkey has been trying to resolve some of the difficulties Iran has been experiencing, as a result of its nuclear programme.
James Canning says: August 12, 2011 at 1:01 pm
She is a member of NATO but not Western.
She is a Muslim country in a clubd of Christian states.
Greece is not Western either; that is – Western Christian.
Really, is EU anything but a Godless version of the Holy Roman Empire?
kooshy says: August 12, 2011 at 1:06 pm
The rot actually started much earlier. centuries before.
Muslims were not unique in this, they were in good company with the Hindus and the Orientals of this world.
kooshy,
The proposed gas pipeline from Iran through Iraq to Syria, could also be connected to Turkish line running to EU. This would be a good thing for the EU.
fyi says:
August 12, 2011 at 12:47 pm
I kind of knew that’s not going to catch up with you well, but beside the colonial rhetoric of calling the Muslims lazy do you have any historical proven reasons that you can table why the Muslim world was incapable of advancing starting after the 1453.
BiBiJon,
I agree Turkey will work with Iran to some degree, in effort to avoid chaos in Syria. Turkey and Iran have strong mutual interest in stability, and in ensuring no independent Kurdistan is created.
kooshy,
Isn’t Turkey part of ‘the west’? How could Turkey be seeking entry into the EU without being part of ‘the west’?
kooshy,
A primary reason for the entry of the Ottoman Empire into the First World War on the side of Germany, was the belief of Turkish ‘reformers’ that Germany could help Turkey keep its Arab provinces. Would Turkey have been able to keep its Arab provinces if it had stayed out of the war? I doubt it. But yes, there would have been no reason for Britain and France to receive mandates over Iraq, Syria, Palestine, & Transjordan.
BiBiJon says:
August 12, 2011 at 12:24 pm
I hope that you are right and this time around the Turks can keep themselves away from the usual insecurity of not controlling the east west access, historically that’s all they think they have which is not true. If they did, they will deprive themselves and the broader Middle East to be empowered and develop without a colonial control. Frankly I was more hopeful when they participated in the Tehran agreement, but since the Arab awakening started, I am less hopeful that they are capable of completely becoming independent of western influence.
Neo says: August 12, 2011 at 12:40 pm
“They have not compromised their independence so much……”
You live in dream world.
Dan Cooper,
Prince Bandar bin Sultan loathed Aipac (and the Israel lobby generally). That he would seek to use Aipac to bring benefits to Saudi Arabia does not mean he did not detest much of what Aipac stands for.
kooshy says: August 12, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Nonsense.
Muslim polities, from Java to the Atlas Mountains were asleep.
They were not even dumb, fat, and happy as Americans would say.
They were just dumb.
BibiJon,
Just briefly, I think what has happened in Iraq since the US invasion supports your approach. I was not alluding to ‘rivalry’ so much, and in any case, the ‘competition’ for power has both regional and global dimensions that are not identical. There can be more cooperation on one front as compared to the other. Iran’s ‘problem’ may be that Turkey’s rise in the global arena has been more effective and rather welcomed whereas Iran has had to struggle every step of the way.
Personally, I don’t believe in ‘revolution’, and would have preferred to see Iran take a more ‘Malaysian’ or ‘Turkish’ approach in her foreign relations. They have not compromised their independence so much…
The real reason that the Muslims were deprived to developed during the industrial age was the greed and stupidity of the Ottoman Turks, the real reason that made possible to colonize the ME and NA was the greed and stupidity of the Ottoman Turks, and now that there exist an opportunity to empower the Muslims and make them independent and self-ruled the greed and stupidity of the Turks is getting reignited.
P.S.
Syria in a geo-strategic sense is liability to both Iran and Turkey. I expect a lot of cooperation between the two countries in avoiding mayhem in Syria.
kooshy says:
August 12, 2011 at 11:45 am
I think you are describing two areas of potential/actual competition between Iran and Turkey. Competition is distinct from rivalry — one is constructive, the other destructive; one has logical limits, the other is unbound.
E.g. Turkey is unlikely to calculate the costs of a civil war in Syria as equal to the benefits derived from a Turkish monopoly on access to Europe.
Even the beauty contest on the Azeri catwalk pushes both Turkey and Iran to be as good a neighbor as possible to Azerbaijan. I’d put these in the constructive category.
kooshy says: August 12, 2011 at 11:45 am
There is a strategic alliance between Syria and Iran that will persist even if Alawite rule ends; it will re-assert itself.
Syria is ncessary for the defense of Iran.
BiBiJon says:
August 12, 2011 at 9:53 am
“Neither Iran, nor Turkey are diminished by the other’s success, nor need/feed on the other’s failure. Indeed the opposite is true.”
I completely agree with the above statement except on two points that should be considered if the two countries are compered on a geostrategic level.
One is that Iran is resources rich which makes her self-capitalized therefore less subject to foreign influence and more ready for a total independence then turkey currently can be.(see last 32 years, Turkey never would have survive the fight Iran is putting up, against western hegemony).
Two Iran needs Syria not because Iran needs a foot hole in the Arab word, it’s not all that, but rather because Iran needs an alternative access to the Mediterranean and Europe, historically this is against the interest of the Turks since there is a lot of income for the Turks to maintain a monopoly on east west access through the Anatolian corridor, that’s where currently the interest of the SKA and Turkey on Syria coincides, simply for different interests both Turkey and SKA want to reduce Iranian influence in Syria now that there is a possible opportunity.
We read last month that Iran hurried up and signed a new gas Pipeline with Iraq and Syria and in turn just yesterday Turkey hurried up and cleared the Nabucco with Azari’s.
I argue this is against the long term US and specially EU’s interest, unless they think there can come up with a new Magellan of a kind.
American archaeologist and author, Professor Dr. Ernest L. Martin (1932-2002) had conducted archaeology work in East jerusalem. In his controversial book ‘The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot’, published in 1999 – Dr. Martin claimed that Muslim sacred places, Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of Rock are not built on top of the Temple Mount ruins.
The ‘Wailing Wall’ is not Jewish
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/the-%e2%80%98wailing-wall%e2%80%99-is-not-jewish/
Neo says: August 12, 2011 at 9:13 am
Muslims in genral and Iranians in particular had been dreaming of an Islamic Just Order; sort of like the legendary days of early Muslim communities.
Since 1979, they have been trying to live that fantasy in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
But Reality keeps on intruding on the Fantasy.
Iranians – and Muslims who are watching the Iranian scene – had to go through this process of being painfully disabused from their cherished notions of what Islam is and is not.
Turkey, Arab states, Pakistan, Indonesia, and others have yet to experience that transformation.
The bigotry, narrow-minded-ness, prejudice, foolishness, inwardness all have been hit hard in the pysche of the Iranian Muslims – some have shattered and some are in the process of being so.
And thank God for the Axis Powers and their anti-Iran policies; they seem to have been God’s instruments in slapping Iranians and waking them from the slumber of their intellectual and physical laziness and foolishness.
Neo says: August 12, 2011 at 9:13 am
Thanks for that well-argued cogent set of points. Respectfully I disagree with the premise which I interpret to be zero-sum influence rivalry, and balance-of-power politics.
Neither Iran, nor Turkey are diminished by the other’s success, nor need/feed on the other’s failure. Indeed the opposite is true.
On Syria, and every other issue around the region there are three guiding principles shared by Turkey and Iran: stability, stability and stability. Why? Because as Turkey experienced with Iraq, destruction of that country was an uncompensated economic disaster for Turkey. A civil war in Syria is equally bad for Turkey and Iran. Iran/Saudi estrangement is the last thing Iran or Turkey need.
I see the two countries prodding each other to do more, and use their influence to defuse any regional issue before it gets out of their hands and plops right into the hands of US/UK/Russia/Israel. Turkey and Iran have had long enough a shared history to mistrust one another a tad less than outside powers.
BiBiJon says: August 12, 2011 at 7:35 am
Though I agree with the general sentiment, I would go a little further than a foreign policy typology to describe Turkey’s rise. Turkey has since the Ottoman era been the regional leader in economic and political development, at least in terms of sophistication, inclusiveness and global influence. Even in the 1950s, both Egypt and Turkey, for example, had significantly higher levels of education and economic development than Iran. Today, Turkey remains ahead on both counts, despite having no oil income to spend on the social sector, and her annual growth rate outpaces all her regional competitors’, save for Azerbaijan (almost purely oil & gas based growth) and some city states.
Turkey’s potential political power has been eclipsed by the Iranian revolution for some decades now, but the countries’ economic and structural realities remain unchanged.
Turkey’s economy is stronger and her political system is superior to Iran’s. Even their Islamic ‘credentials’ have improved! So Turkey is the ‘natural’ leader among the general population in the region, while Iran has for some time assumed the ideological leadership role, which has been seen by some at least as confrontational and militaristic with some negative consequences (coming back to BibiJon’s point).
For Iran to be a real challenger to Turkish influence in the longer run, many things would need to change. For one thing, Iran will need to continue to reduce her over-dependence on oil income. But before that, Iran has to overcome several emerging political challenges posed by unpredictable regional turmoil on the one hand and Turkey’s generally more popular political model on the other.
Maintaining Syria as an ally is crucial for Iran’s regional power, hence, the obvious temptation for Turkey (as well as Israel, KSA/GCC and USA) to undermine Iran in Syria.
Having said that, Iran has already more or less gained Iraq, and may well be able to manage to grow in influence without Syria. This too, however, may depend on Turkey’s support as an ally. Question is: will they lean more toward Iran or KSA? Luckily, the Turks have far greater affinity with the Iranians on many levels.
Hasbara talking points
====================
1) Iran must develop nukes to be safe
2) Iran must destroy the Saudis
These of course are the absolute worst things that Iran could do in terms of her standing in the world, and her own security. Developing/testing a nuke will indelibly brand Iran as a pathological liar after years of denying she’s after nukes, and make her an instant target for annihilation. To be perceived as an existential threat to the Saudis will line up all energy consumers of the world against Iran.
Why Hasbara pushes these falsehoods
==========================
1) Make the baseless nuclear weapon accusations against Iran seem plausible, so that Jameses of this world fall into the vague Hague trap of demanding a negative to be proven.
2) Destroy Islam by pitting KSA and Iran against one another.
Neo says:
August 12, 2011 at 6:20 am
Many attribute Turkey’s rise in the region to her stated ‘zero problem’ foreign policy orientation. That makes sense to me too — a non-confrontational foreign policy encounters little resistance, especially in a region mired in wars and rivalries and foreign military occupations.
It would seem odd for Turkey to abandon her winning policy just as the dividends were pouring in.
I suspect Turkish Syria policy is a lot more nuanced than what first meets the eye.
masoud says:
August 12, 2011 at 4:09 am
Ron Paul may be an economic nutter, but compared to almost anyone else in mainstream US politics, he is Stephen Hawking.
,http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/ron-paul-schools-santorum-on-iran-diplomacy/
Masoud,
Apparently Hawking won the post debate poll hands down.
See http://www.topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11
All this of course leads to the rise of Turkey, as Iran and SA continue their war of attrition by proxy in the region. The Saudis’ regressive monarchic system based on petro-dollars and foreign expertise is untenable in the long run, particularly as public appetite for justice, autonomy and greater freedom keeps growing at both the national and regional levels. SA poses no real threat to Iran, but in time, Turkey is likely to surpass both countries in regional influence. If only the three could appreciate their common interest in avoiding a potentially devastating regional war starting in Syria…
Naqdi takes the cake:
http://www.thetotalcollapse.com/iran-ready-to-send-peacekeepers-to-uk/
Personally, I call for a simple referendum in Britain. The question should be simple: Do you wish the continuation of the absolute rule of the Royalist Establishment, or do you wish to be free?
Ron Paul may be an economic nutter, but compared to almost anyone else in mainstream US politics, he is Stephen Hawking.
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/ron-paul-schools-santorum-on-iran-diplomacy/
This is not a Saudi approach.This is an old approach first carried out in Afganistan as the Clinton administration tried to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afganistan. Then, they supported the regime as long as it was killing the Shiits and Iraninans. Clinton was pushing for a Sectarina war between Sunni Taleban Backed by the US, the Saudi’s and the UAE, versus Shiite Iran. It eventually backfired. Afganistan was the first US attempt to trigger Sectarian war.
The second attempt came after the invasion of Iraq. Many forget that the so-called Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq (a name that has been duplicated on other nations) killed the only Iraqi Shiite Grand Ayatollah who openly said would declare a Jihad against US occupation, Ayatollah Hakim. He was killed in a massive double car explosion never again seen in Iraq, that destroyed several blocks. Shortly after that Shiites were attacked to trigger a civil war.
Why would the Saudi’s care so much as to risk their own national security by triggering sectarian warfare, when they are home to over 4 million Shiites? Why do the Saudi’s care if the US leaves and they have to cut a deal with Iran who is less imposing and less powerful than the US? Surely, they realize that once the US leaves they simply would cut a deal with Iran that would bring them more in equal footing in the region’s balance of power, since Iran is not a superpower. Well, the don’t care. For the same reason that the Saudi’s buy Billions of US military goods they don’t need, and for the same reason that the Saudi’s pump 10 million barrels of oil per day that they don’t need, they are confronting Iran: They are doing America’s bidding. For a superpower that has actually shot itself in the foot and is now in financial catastrophe, and may prefer not to directly engage in yet another major war, the only card left to play is the sectarian card at the hands of their subordinates.
A Shiite vs Sunni war or cold war would allow the US to appear to be on the side of the Arab street by condemning Iran. America can regain its prestige, while selling weapons for the rest of the century. Meanwhile, nothing brings people closer to each other than the claud of regional threats. Israel can likely end its ME isolation by taking the Arab side, it is the only way Arabs can forget about Palestinian rights while they are fearful of the “Iranian Threat” where they can use some Israeli aid. Furthermore, this could lead to weakening of Iran and the nation could drop into chaos and civil war. The ultimate goal could be reached as finally Iran will be divided into several peaces, too weak to ever challenge the power of the hegemon.
Maybe I’m showing my age but these days KSA reminds me more and more of the Shah’s Iran in its regional moves. Substitute KSA’s move into Bahrain with the Shah’s move into Oman. Substitute the Shah’s posture toward the USSR/UAR alliance with KSA’s posture toward IRI/HEZ/HAMAS. Even the Shah’s unspoken alliance with Israel bears a striking resemblance to that Israel currently maintains with KSA. And what’s the common denominator to all of this? The U.S.
Rehmat says: August 11, 2011 at 10:31 pm
That is plainly silly.
The last thing we want is a Middle East free of Nuclear Weapons.
Irshad says: August 11, 2011 at 10:45 pm
“Why would Pakistan need to ‘renew’ its ties with its Saudi ‘lords’ ”
Because Pakistan is broke.
And what is damnable about the pseudpo-socialism of Iran is that by keeping Iran economically in a strait-jackey, her leaders are diminishing her geo-strategic options.
If Iranians were wealthier and not so attached to their foolish notions of Islamic Just Society, they would have had enough money to wean Pakistan from Suadi Arabia. But no, they preferred their walk in the silly wilderness of Na-Koja-Abad.
Irshad says: August 11, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Mr. Assad will be in power 12 months from now.
In the West, one hears censored news about what is going on in Syria – scant coverage is given to the armed & well organized attacks against Syrian security forces. When 120 security men (police & soldiers) are killed in 24 hours by the insurgents/protestors, you can safely conclude that these insurgents have had military training and were being led by competently.
I have come to the conclusion that there was a concerted effort to destroy the Alawaite rule in Syria and many states could have had a hand in it: US, France, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Turkey, and Qatar. Perhaps even UK and Italy.
But that failed.
Now is the time for pay-back both internally in Syria and outside of Syria. By that I mean that there will be retaliation by Syria and by Iran: I think the days of Saudi Monarchy are over; they have gone too far. I do not recall that they ever trying to overthrow Syria’s government over the last 2 generations. This attempt, was a direct, tangible, and clear threat to Iran as well. Thousands of Iranians could have died in the war against Iran that would have followed the descent of Syria into political chaos.
This is the second time in 30 years that Saudi Arabia leaders have taken action that has harmed Iran or could have done so. There is no other course of action for Iran to destroy Saudi Monarchy.
IN regards to the Palestinian state, US, and EU, and Canada, and Australia, will vote against it in General Assembly. So will India, Japan, South Korea, and Poland.
It will not bring about the immediate creation of the Palestinian state but it will almost certainly catapult Palestine to the level of Apartheid South Africa and the long hard struggle for Arabs to win their freedom. But only war will free Palestine, peace is not possible and Americans and Israelis are not willing to accept the parameters of HAMAS – the only realistic cease fire deal on the table. They prefer war because they think they can win. We shall see.
I cannot understand, from a power perspective, any reason for Turkey to do anything against the Alawaite state. I do not know if the recent resignations in her Armed Forces are related to this issue.
But, Turkey, as a NATO member, attacking Syria to destroy her government – which I cannot see in the realm of possibility. Not even with a UN mandate – which I doubt will be forthcoming. And before that UNSC resolution can be passed, Mr. Assad will have ruthlessly destroyed all the insurgents/opposition forces.
Historically, there have been many leaders who curried favor for US: the Shah of Iran, Lon Nol, Marcos, Noriega, Pinochet, Saddam Hussien, and lately Singh, leaders of Ukraine and others. They never ever got anything worthwhile; they risked their necks and their treasures and at the end of the day, were discarded – just like Mubarak. I cannot see Mr. Erdogan being that foolish. I cannot see anything benefiting Turkey by invading Syria; and she does not have the power to destroy Syria.
Assad will not fall, the House of Saud will; they have directly threatened the security of Iran, Syria, and Lebanon; advancing the cause of Israel and the Axis Powers.
And what is damning about this that even if they had succeeded in overthrowing Assad, neither Saudi Leaders nor the Axis Powers could have ushered in peace, stability, and prosperity. All they would have created would have been more war and more dead Muslims.
This is the sum total of Saudi Policy and her allied states; in my opinion.
All:
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
Saudi support: at what cost?
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani termed his recent visit to Saudi Arabia as a ‘renewal of ties’. Now this is interesting. Why would Pakistan need to ‘renew’ its ties with its Saudi ‘lords’ who have wreaked havoc here in the name of Islam? But obviously this subject was not on Mr Gilani’s agenda. The discussions were focused on asking the Saudis to reactivate bilateral cooperation in the fields of science, defence, defence production, trade and commerce. The Pakistani side tried to persuade the Saudis to buy weapons from us. The defence production facilities in Pakistan produce more weapons than we need, which is why we try to sell the extra weapons to other countries. Prime Minister Gilani also requested the Saudi authorities for an extension in the deferred oil payment facility, which the Saudis will ‘consider’. Apart from performing Umrah, which seemed to be the primary purpose of the Pakistani side for visiting Saudi Arabia, it looks as if nothing substantial came out of the talks. The two sides discussed the Afghan situation in the post-US withdrawal scenario. Saudi Arabia may have stressed Pakistan’s crucial role in the region given the new developments but maybe the Saudis have forgotten their own role in pushing this region into a quagmire.
Even before the Afghan jihad, Saudi Arabia was able to influence the Pakistani leadership due to the power of petro-dollars. By dazzling our leadership with its wealth and dangling the ‘Kadhimain-Haramain-Sharifain’ title in front of the Pakistani public, the Saudi monarchy was able to get what it wanted from Pakistan. Be it exporting terrorism to Iran, Saudi Arabia’s nemesis, by funding sectarian madrassas that are actually terror factories, fanning sectarian conflict inside Pakistan through these same madrassas, buying land in Pakistan to ensure food security in the barren kingdom, or hunting endangered animals and birds with their UAE brethren on Pakistani soil, the Arab sheikhs have lorded it in and over Pakistan. This, however, could not have happened unless our leaders allowed it, dazzled as they have been by the lure of money. The seeds of Arabisation of Pakistan germinated in Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s time and bore plentiful fruit under General Ziaul Haq’s regime. None of our leaders, be they civilian or military, thought much about the consequences of getting too close to the Arab overlords. The poison that the Saudiisation of Pakistan produced has now spread countrywide. King Abdullah’s words during Prime Minister Gilani’s visit are of significance. The monarch said, “Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are one country; they are more than friends and more than brothers.” Instead of sending shockwaves down our leadership’s spine, Prime Minister Gilani welcomed his statement and went a step further by saying, “Pakistan’s security was Saudi Arabia’s security and Saudi Arabia’s security was Pakistan’s security.”
If this is how our leaders are going to behave — bowing to every whim of the monarchs of Saudi Arabia — they might as well move all Pakistanis to the Rab’ al Khali (the empty quarter, the massive desert in the heart of Saudi Arabia where nothing grows or lives) and invite the Arab sheikhs to reside in Pakistan instead. Arab influence has already turned Pakistan into a blood-soaked battlefield. The fault lies with Pakistan’s leaders who have never questioned the Arab sheikhs for their dubious and nefarious activities in the region and in Pakistan. Pakistani society has become intolerant over the years because of various reasons, but most importantly because of Saudi Arabia’s powerful influence in our internal matters. The growth of Wahabiism and extremism in Pakistan is mostly because of funding by Arab sheikhs. Is it not time to bid adieu to such negative influences instead of asking them for ‘renewal’ of ties? *
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20118\11\story_11-8-2011_pg3_1
@fyi – do you see the Assad regime still being in power say 12 months from now?
the Leverettes article talks about the Saudis role in Syria, what do you see Turkeys role and wha game is Turkey playing in Syria?
Can it be prudent to say that if Syria’s Assad falls, then the anti-resistance camp will decide to go for Hezbollah, maybe with Isreal and a UN resolution as a fig leaf???
“It’s a trick we always play. In Europe, when someone criticizes Israeli policies, we bring in Holocaust – and when someone in this country (US) criticizes Israeli policies, we bring in anti-Semitism…..” – former Israeli cabinet minister Shulamit Aloni told Amy Goodman in her interview on ‘Democracy Now’.
Romania to re-define ‘anti-Semitism’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/romania-to-re-define-anti-semitism%e2%80%99/
fyi – The only “face saving” for the Islamophobe5+1 is to force Zionist regime to open its nuclear arsenal for IAEA inspection – even though IAEA too is a ZOG watchdog.
I wonder how all this will help/hinder the Palestinians going to the UN for recognition in Sept.?
The Saudis have no policy except playing the secterian card and banging on to the world how the king is the”protector of the 2 holy places” (i.e. Mecca and Medina is in KSA) – work with us so 1. you can come here on pilgrimage or 2. work with us and we will spy on all the pilgrims and share their details with your intelligence agency – if you want to kidnap anyone then do it when they are here.
Irshad says: August 11, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Young Black men have a problem; it is quite clear in US that young Black men do not respect any law, any regulation, or anyone.
Not so Black women; diligent, harworking, and always catering to the whoms of these over-grown boys pretending to be real men.
I see that the situation is similar in UK.
That is a sorry state.
James Canning says: August 11, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Iran should ignore all these insinuations of Axis states.
She is a resourceful sovereign state.
Whether Iran enriches to 20 % is none of Mr. Cameron’s business.
And if they do not like it, they can always start a war.
May be they will like that better.
The structure of Axis Powers in the Middle East has to be destroyed for Iran to be safe.
That means that the Alawaite rule in Syria must continue.
It also means that there has to be regime change in Saudi Arabia.
These conclusions follow from the current situation – instigated by the Axis states.
Kooshy – the riots in London was carried out by young oppurtinistic hooligans, who come from broken families, who have no respect for anyone or anything but their own “respect” amongst their pals and their facebook friends.
In parts of London, young (mostly black) teenagers went in large numbers to raid sports shops and electronic equipment and just to vandalise small shops and businesses. On the first day of the riots, the police in London kept out of it as they under-estimated the seriousness of it all and also not enough man power. This lead to local people setting up their own vigilante groups to protect their businesses and homes – for e.g the Turkish community did this in North London.
The police are now been criticised for been to complacent during the looting – hence now you are seen 16000 police officers on the streets of London.
Today in the papers, I read an 11 year old looter appeared in Court, as he was caught stealing abin from a supermarket!
In other instances, gangs of black youths specifically targeted asian areas knowing thats where most of the gold shops were (East London) – as there was a lite police presence, Indians, Pakistanis, Bengalis, English all got together to protect their businesses – this acted as a deterence and the wanna-be looters had to change their plans. This did more to unite communities then any govt lead programme for community cohesion. Sikhs were guarding mosques at night so their Muslim neighbours can go for ramadan prayers.
Believe me this has nothing to do with rights – this had everything to do with wanting the goods of this world without working hard for it.
3 Muslim men were killed in Birmingham by looters, a Malaysian muslim student was attacked and as he lay on the floor blleeding, some of the kides pretended to help him only to help himself to steal his belonging from his rucksack.
There was a risk of these young thugs attacking peoples homes – hence the police have widespread support to act accordingly.
Lets see what this is about – a generation that believed it can only get respect by having the latest designer clothes/trainers/electronic goods etc. Instead of working and saving hard for it – they decided to help themselve by going on widespread looting campaign.
BTW – I am not blaming the riots solely on black teens – just as many white teens were involved but, it was the black teens who decided that this will be their revenge.
Also – I still believe the Police force to be a corrupt, inefficient, brutal force – but on this occasion they failed by not been tough enough. And lots of individual police officer acted bravely to protect lives and property.
Cyrus says: August 11, 2011 at 5:13 pm
There will be no more negogiations.
Iranian nuclear case is over.
There is just the hard slog until the sanctions unravel.
At that time, the Axis Powers haveto decide if they want to go to war or find a face-saving way for themselves.
Sanctioning Bank Markazi might, as mentioned by the Wall Street Journal’s Jay Solomon, be interpreted as an act of war. But that doesn’t seem to bother AIPAC.
The decision of more than 90 U.S. senators to press President Obama for Iraq-style sanctions on Iran flew in the face of what some observers warned could be the beginning of a stress test of the international support for pressuring Iran and another step closer to a potential war with the Islamic Republic.
But a Tuesday press release [PDF] from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) brings to mind eery parallels between the escalation of sanctions against Iran and the slow lead up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The press release read:
AIPAC applauds today’s bipartisan letter—signed by 92 U.S. Senators—to the administration urging it to sanction the Central Bank of Iran (CBI), or Bank Markazi. The letter, spearheaded by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Mark Kirk (R-IL), notes that the CBI lies at the center of Iran’s strategy to circumvent international sanctions against its illicit nuclear program.
Sanctioning Bank Markazi might, as mentioned by the Wall Street Journal’s Jay Solomon, be interpreted as an act of war. But that doesn’t seem to bother AIPAC. Indeed, they’ve been down this sanctions road once before before the invasion of Iraq.
In June, Robert Dreyfuss interviewed former AIPAC senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman who offered details of how AIPAC and its allies in the Bush administration pushed the allegation that Saddam Hussein was in league with al Qaeda. More importantly, Weissman discusses AIPAC’s plans for ultimately bringing regime change in Iran. Dreyfuss writes:
Weissman says that Iran was alarmed at the possibility that the United States might engage in overt and covert efforts to instigate opposition inside Iran. He says that many in AIPAC, especially among its lay leadership and biggest donors, strongly backed regime change in Iran. “That was what Larry [Franklin] and his friends wanted,” he says. “It included lots of different parts, like broadcasts, giving money to groups that would conduct sabotage, it included bringing the Mojahedin[-e Khalgh], bringing them out of Iraq and letting them go back to Iran to carry out missions for the United States. Harold Rhode backed this…. There were all these guys, Michael Ledeen, ‘Next stop Tehran, next stop Damascus.’“
Indeed, as shown in the AIPAC press release, Iran is now the target of similar sanctions and bellicose rhetoric similar to those that targeted Iraq in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Sanctioning Iran’s central bank and imposing a de facto oil embargo on Iranian oil exports would appear to be pages torn from the playbook before the invasion of Iraq.
If the current evidence that AIPAC is supporting an oil embargo isn’t convincing, consider Weissman’s comments on the oil industry’s support of AIPAC, and a boycott of Iranian oil, in the late 1990s:
Even Prince Bandar ibn Sultan, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, and Adel al-Jubeir — then the Saudi embassy spokesman and currently the ambassador — welcomed AIPAC’s work in helping to support the BTC pipeline and isolating Iran, its Persian Gulf rival, economically. Remembers Weissman:
“Prince Bandar used to send us messages. I used to meet with Adel al-Jubeir a couple times a year. Adel used to joke that if we could force an American embargo on Iranian oil, he’d buy us all Mercedes! Because Saudi [Arabia] would have had the excess capacity to make up for Iran at that time.”
It would appear that AIPAC is now using the same escalating measures against Iran that were used before the invasion of Iraq.
AIPAC’s Iran Strategy On Sanctions Mirrors Run-Up To Iraq War Tactics
By Eli Clifton
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28810.htm
Fara,
You may have a good point. Was there much looting in Tehran in 2009, after the presidential election?
I recommend Allison Pearson’s comments in the Daily Telegraph, ‘Raised to rampage’ (re: where are the parents of the young rioters?):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8693536/Raised-to-rampage.html
Prime Minister David Cameron made a statement to the parliament on Thursday warning to unleash a clampdown on social media including social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Research in Motion (Rim), the maker of BlackBerry devices.
David Cameron’s threat to crack down on social networking sites comes as the UK government has always lectured itself as an advocate of freedom of expression and human rights.
The online version of almost all British newspapers including the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the Independent, etc. had, during the last year, created a link to Facebook for an unfiltered access to the Iranian users, accusing the Iranian government of blocking access to the Internet and violating freedom of expression and all these. But, now that their own country is faced with a nationwide protest against the government’s policies, having access to social networking sites is becoming a matter of national security concern. And, this is a complete British hypocrisy.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/193517.html
Off-topic, but as a great admirer of Mikhail Gorbachev I recommend Christian Neef’s ‘Secret papers reveal truth about Soviet collapse’ on spiegel today:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,779277.html#ref=nlint
Cyrus,
William Hague has said, I think, that Iran has enriched U to 20% well in advance of what is needed for the Tehran reactor. I hope this statement is not correct, as you indicate.
Cyrus,
Interesting comment. Is Iran trying to produce the rods or plates, for the Tehran reactor, at this time? If the 20% U is put into usable form, how many years’ supply for the reactor would be available, from current holding of 20% U by Iran?
I like to think the Iranian government does not want to build nukes. What do you think?
kooshy,
I really cannot say. Maybe some of them? I usually do not have time to watch TV news. Maybe someone else can comment on this.
Rehmat,
I continue to be puzzled that you say Saudi Arabia was created by the British, and that the US in effect took control after the Second World War. How did Britain create Saudi Arabia? It’s quite true the British did not want Ibn Saud to attack the British protectorates in the Gulf, prior to the First World War. But Ibn Saud created the country. Britain would have been happy for the Hashemites to have remained in control of the Hejaz. Instead, it was conquered by Ibn Saud and the British could not reverse it.
If Britain had controlled Saudi Arabia before the Second World War, the oil concession would have been obtained by British companies (or British and Dutch).
James do you think these picture of the London riots will be allowed to be seen on the BBC, or the step sister networks CNN and PBS
http://www.farsnews.net/plarg.php?nn=M789995.jpg
@James Canning: Iran’s enrichment to 20% was not “well in advance of what seems to be needed for the Tehran reactor” since that enriched uranium then has to be converted to actual fuel plates, something IRan had never done before. And in any case Iran had to show the capability in order to gain some leverage over the negotiations.
As for Iran, unlike in the Pakistan, thanks god, in today’s Iranian social and demographic conditions even if Iranian government wanted to play a sectarian game it was impossible to attain, regionally and internally.
Why not simplify this and just say that KSA will support movements that it likes, and will oppose movements that it doesn’t like, regardless of whether they’re democratic or not.
The KSA has no national agenda. It was created by the British to control London’s colonial power in the Muslim nation-states. Since WW II – its masters have changed from London to Washington. Now the Saudi ‘royals’ look after the interests of America and Israel in the region. Riyadh recalled its ambassador from Damascus a few days ago – a move greatly commended by both Washington and Tel Aviv.
YES – all Saudi actions are counter-revolutionary – but unfortunately, there have been no real revolution in Tunisia and Egypt. KSA on behalf of US-Israel has tried its best to sabotage ‘democratic demands’ in Bahrain and Yemen. In both Libya and Syria – KSA has played dirty games in collaboration with the US and Israel.
The sooner the American realize the better for them – KSA is no match to Islamic Republic in military, economic and diplomacy. KSA only appeals to the sectarian creep within Muslim Ummah.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/israel-us-saudi-alliance-against-iran/
kooshy says: August 11, 2011 at 4:47 pm
I hope so too – there has to be payback for their support of the Ba’athist state in Iraq.
For Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait to condemn Syria is just surreal beyond belief. Then again, for the US and UK, busy brutalizing people from Colombia to Honduras to Libya to Afghanistan, to condemn Syria is surreal beyond belief. For Russia, with its Chechnya crackdowns to lecture Syria is beyond belief. As for the people of the middle east, I wonder how many of them really are interpreting what is going on in Syria in purely sectarian terms. I would guess that their take is probably far more sophisticated than most US pundits are capable of, that they see in Syria a crackdown against democracy, but that they also see a government struggling to survive against a violent uprising driven to large extent by subversion coming from all sides.
Fyi
“Saudis effort in promoting sectarianism is the non-Arab Muslim world will almost certainly be opposed by Pakistan and Turkey.”
That’s not the only point, since Iranian under no circumstances will take the trap of the sectarianism, as the result of Studies pushing to widen the divide, Saudis themselves and thier allied little PG states will cause their own instability at home, and become more marginalized in the region, even with spending huge amount of money.
“On this basis, Greg argues that “Riyadh would be better served by encouraging a common Arab identity that overcomes sectarian differences and emphasizes the foreignness of Iran in the Arab world while marginalizing sectarian extremists like al Qaeda and its sympathizers.” But this is part of the Saudis’ problem, which leads them to take, what we describe as a counter-revolutionary approach: when regional publics look at their situations in terms of a common identity, this does not re-enforce an Arab-Persian divide. Rather, it directs attention to the ways in which the United States, Israel, and others trample on regional interests and sensibilities—something that plays powerfully to the Islamic Republic’s advantage. The Saudis really have no other option but to play the sectarian card. We remain intensely skeptical that this will be a winning play, in the long run, for Saudi Arabia or for the United States.”
Hillary and Flynt
Bravo perfectly said , a sectarian conflict will not diminish Shieh influence and as a result the Iranian influence in the region, if it would the ottomans were able to do it long ago, without having an extra regional common problem that the two sects in the street share in this modern age.
I do not believe that the Saudi policy is defensive, having watched the Iranians moving the goal-posts/the red lines/etc. with impunity.
They know that they cannot check the Iranian power so they are going to play their sectarian card.
The Iranians, on the other hand, are also resourceful; they will continue to advance teh cause of the Shia Fortress of Iran and teh Shia-dominated Mesopotamia, and the Shia-defined Lebanon; all the while proclaiming their Islamic credentials (which they have earned over the last 32 years).
The Saudis have to match in being Champions of Islam; thus there will be zero flexibility coming out of Saudi Arabia and the allied states in regards to helping US and her allies in Axis Powers on the settlement of war in Palestine.
While the Iranians and the Saudis will be trying to “out-Islam” each other, Palestine will burn and harm US – which is fine by the Iranians.
Saudis effort in promoting sectarianism is the non-Arab Muslim world will almost certainly be opposed by Pakistan and Turkey.
I would add that the gtovernment of Bahrain was of course not likely to alter the structure that currently obtains, to enable the Shia community to take control. Some who would like to see this happen, spread animosity toward Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies. This in turn is unlikely not to be countered.
I continue to believe the Saudis should try to have normal relations with Iran, and avoid any widening of animosity between Sunni and Shia.
The assassination of Rafiq Hariri was a considerable shock to many Saudis (and others, of course).
When William Hague visited Saudi Arabia recently, the Saudis made clear their concerns about Iran’s enriching of U to 20%, well in advance of what seems to be needed for the Tehran reactor. This issue may be a factor in the Syrian matter.