The two most powerful regional powers: Turkey and Iran; (Nov. 10, 2009)

Turkey is the 16th ranked economy and Iran the 17th with the understanding that Turkey has no oil or gas production while Iran is the second exporter of oil and the second in world’s reserve.  Turkey has a population of 70 million while Iran is about 60 million.  Iran is much larger than Turkey in superficies but they are big enough to be considered self sufficient and independent nations.  Turkey is the turnpike for most of oil and gas pipelines originating in Russia, Iran, and central Asia and converging to Europe.  Russia has borders with both nations that dictated their foreign policies.  Both countries have over 7 States on their borders. Both nations share the Kurdish problem for self-autonomy: The Kurds are about over 20 millions and live in inaccessible mountain chains and high plateaus; they overflow to vast regions in East Turkey and West Iran. Turkey is mostly Moslem Sunnis and Iran Moslem Chiaa since the 18th century. Since antiquity, Turkey influence reached to the Euphrates River while Iran to the Tigers River; both large rivers take sources in Turkey and cross Iraq. The good news is that these two most powerful regional powers have many interests in common that dwarf any petty political divergences; they are the cornerstone for a new economic and strategic alliance in the Middle East.

Brief history:  Throughout antiquity till our modern days three main empires dominated the landscape of the Middle East. Turkey, Iran, and Egypt were vast economic and political empires the advent of Islam. Turkey and Iran managed to enjoy a semi-continuous existence of empires but Egypt had large vacuums of many centuries in between empires since the Pharaohs. Egypt enjoyed special status during the Greek, Roman, Arab, and Ottoman empires and was a world apart as wheat basket and the most advanced in civilization. Turkey and Iran could benefit from stable “national” entities but Egypt experienced foreign leaders as kings or sultans and relied on foreign officers to lead its armies, the latest dynasty was from Albania with Muhammad Ali.

The three empires are currently mostly Moslems and they were in general lenient with the minority religious sects.  The three empires have vast lands, rich in water, and have currently about the same number of population of about 70 millions and increasing at high rates. The Iranian empires relied on Afghanistan’s and the central Asian’s tribes for their armies.  As the frequent Mogul raids descended on Persia its armies went on the defensive. The Turkish and Ottoman empires relied on the Caucasus tribes from current Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia States, and also from Albania and Romania.

As Russia started to expand southward and occupied many of these regions then Turkey curtailed most of its vast military campaigns and went on the defensive.  The Caucasus triangle of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia is still a hot spot for domination among Russia, Turkey, and to a lesser extent Iran, especially with the oil and gas pipelines that pass through them.  My post “Cursed Cities: Cars” would shed detailed historical accounts on that tragic triangle.

Modern Status:

In around 1920’s two military dictators ruled over Iran and Turkey.  Rida “shah” in Iran and “Attaturk” in Turkey were attempting to modernize their infrastructure and civil administrations by emulating the European examples.  Attaturk went as far as changing the Turkish alphabet to Latin.  Both dictators confronted the religious clerics for establishing secular States with unequal long term successes.  Iran has reverted to religious oligarchy after Khomeini came to power.

While Iran was historically more lenient with its minorities it appears that Turkey is practically taking steps to outpacing Iran in that advantage; for example, Turkey is translating the Koran into the ethnic languages such as Kurdish.  Women in Turkey are prominent in businesses such as Goler Sabanji; 9% of women are represented in the Parliament.  In Iran, Shireen Abadi is Nobel laureate for defending women’s rights; Iranian women represent only 3% in the Parliament though they constitute 65% in universities.

In the 70’s, Iran was flush with oil revenue while Turkey was struggling to establish an industrial infrastructure. It appears that in the long term oil is definitely a curse for emerging nations because wealth is not invested on the human potentials and stable modern political structure.

In 2008, foreign investment in Turkey was 14 billions dollars and increasing while it amounted to just one billion in Iran.  Turkey has expanded its representation in Africa by opening 12 new Embassies and 20 new consulates.

Nisreen Ozaimy is from Iran by origin and fled to Turkey; when her family lived in Turkey it was impressed by the confidence that the Turks valued their various ethnic nationalities; they had this implicit feeling that Turkey is in fact a bridge between East and West.  The Turks managed to blend harmoniously the secular and religious inclinations.  Turkey is a member of NATO and has a chance to joining the European Union.  Turkey is out of its 60 years hibernation and is currently very active in Middle East Affairs.  Turkey is on excellent terms with Syria: they recently opened their borders to enter without visas and are conducting joint military maneuvers.  Turkey is about to reach a peace agreement with the Kurdish opposition movement.  Iran is struggling to be incorporated in the world community and the nuclear issue is poisoning its relations with the western nations.

Note:  this is a revised and updated version of my post “Turkey and Iran: Same and Different (April 25, 2009)”

And to this day, we still haven’t properly thanked Iran for this act of war.

Every year on the anniversary of the Iranian seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, where 53 Americans were held hostage for 444 days, the Iranian regime sponsors mass rallies to mark the event, with bused in pro-regime crowds burning U.S. flags and chanting “death to America” for the cameras. This year, something different happened, anti-regime protesters risked their lives to take to the streets and shout “death to the dictators’, while trying to stay one step ahead of the regime police, military, and paramilitary security forces using everything up to and including reports of live ammunition to try and stop them.

Iran protesters take to streets as regime marks 30th anniversary of US Embassy seizure

Iranian security forces used clubs, teargas and paintball guns to disperse thousands of antigovernment protesters in Tehran on Wednesday who took to the streets as thousands of regime loyalists marked the 30th anniversary of the US Embassy takeover in 1979.

While a pro-government crowd chanted anti-American slogans and burned US flags at the walls of the former embassy compound — still often called the “den of spies” – antigovernment demonstrators were caught in sometimes vicious confrontations at other locations in central Tehran in the first mass protests for six weeks.

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the embassy takeover anniversary has been an important event for rallying regime support, so the scale and boldness of the opposition turnout – after weeks of warnings from security officials that any attempt to gather would be harshly confronted—was seen as a test of opposition strength.

“Greens [won] by far. They proved that no longer can the government assemble people without any incident, and [the regime] has based everything since the beginning on [large] public assemblies,” said one witness who, like others quoted in this story, asked not be named for security reasons. “Also, if you bring out [security] guards in such numbers, you know you are in deep trouble. The government as expected was scared.”

And while the Islamic Republic revitalizes the anti-American pillar of its revolution with a celebration, many of the radical students who took control of the embassy have since become reformist critics.

And the pro-democracy protesters had a message for Obama.

Opposition demonstrators, meanwhile, chanted “Obama, Obama, are you with us, or against us?” Many opposition activists have been critical of Mr. Obama for negotiating with the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom they say was re-elected in June as a result of fraud and vote-rigging.

So, it’s the 30th anniversary of one of the most humiliating episodes in American history, an act of war that Iran still hasn’t paid any price for, and Obama decides to issue a statement to mark the event. Does he lend U.S. support to the brave pro-democracy factions, risking their lives to bring freedom to the Iranian people? Hell no, he “reaches out” again to the belligerent Iranian regime that consistently spurns U.S. diplomatic overtures on a weekly basis.

Obama calls for new relationship with Iran on anniversay of embassy takeover

President Obama today called for a new relationship with Iran in a statement that marked the 30th anniversary of the takeover by Iranian militants of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

The seizure of the embassy by radical students marked the beginning of Iran’s turn to hard-line policies. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days.

“This event helped set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust and confrontation,” Obama said in his statement. “I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.”

Of course, Obama’s endless all carrot, no stick apologies have become something of a running joke in international circles, his weakness is palpable. Like clockwork, the Iranians rebuked Obama’s groveling with the same response they’ve used ever since Obama took office.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Rejects Engagement With U.S.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Tuesday rejected any direct engagement with the United States, stressing that the Islamic Republic will not be deceived by Washington’s “apparent re-conciliatory behavior.”

“We do not want any negotiations whose results are predefined by the U.S.,” Khamenei said Tuesday. “Iran will not be deceived by Washington’s apparent re-conciliatory behavior.”

Oh, and if Obama somehow thinks the Iranian regime is kidding when they keep telling him in no uncertain words that they have no intention of cooperating with the United States or the West, all he has to do is take a look at what Israel found today.

Israel: Commandos seize huge Iranian arms shipment

Open crates from a cargo ship seized Wednesday by Israel revealed dark green missiles inside. Containers from the vessel bore writing in English that said “I.R. Iranian Shipping Lines Group.”

Israel alleged that the shipment of hundreds of tons of rockets, missiles, mortars, grenades and anti-tank weapons — the largest it ever seized — was headed for Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

Israel stopped the ship, named the Francop, off the coast of Cyprus and towed it to the port of Ashdod. It carried orange, red, white and blue containers piled three deep on its deck.

Rows of crates from the vessel were displayed on the dock, and inside were rockets, hand grenades, mortars and ammunition. At least 3,000 missiles were on board, the Israeli military said.

The seizure spotlighted the dangerous tensions between Israel and Iran. Israel considers Iran a strategic threat because of its nuclear program and long-range missile development, dismissing Iranian denials that it is building nuclear weapons.

Among the weaponry displayed were Katyusha rockets. One of the long skinny missiles sat atop a pile of storage boxes the military had labeled in Hebrew “rocket 122 mm.” The 122 mm Katyusha was the main weapon used against Israel by Hezbollah in a monthlong war in 2006. During that war, about 1,200 people were killed in Lebanon, most of them civilians, and about 160 people were killed in Israel.

See also:
Iran Protests Against U.S. and Regime on Hostage Anniversary
Iran protesters hijack 30th anniversary of US embassy seizure
Protests erupt on 30th anniversary of U.S. embassy seizure
Iranian opposition and police in fresh clashes
Iranians hold anti-U.S. rallies to mark 30th anniversary of embassy takeover
Iranians Mark 30th Anniversary Of U.S. Embassy Siege, Anti-Government Protesters Dispersed
Clashes in Iran on Embassy Takeover Anniversary
Relationship With Iran Should Be Based On Mutual Interests: Obama
Obama calls for new relationship with Iran
Obama: Iran must decide what its focus is
The President Snubs Iran’s Democrats
Iran’s Courageous Dissidents Need Our Support
‘Obama Are You with Iran or with Us?’
Dialogue with Obama a trick, says Khamenei
Supreme Leader Ridicules Obama, Condemns U.S.
Iran warns US against influencing talks
Strong oil prices give confidence to Iran amid sea of troubles
Iran Boosts Output of Uranium Mine, Satellite Images Show
Israel says seized ship contained Iranian arms
Analysis: Seized arms evidence of Iran’s investment of Israel’s borders
Israel Seizes Ship Loaded With Weapons
Former Embassy Hostages Recall Anniversary of Iran Takeover
Iran hostage crisis
The Hostage Crisis in Iran
Iran Hostage Crisis
30 Years Later: Iran Hostage Crisis

/how many time does the Iranian regime have to kick Obama in the nuts before he feels the pain and humiliation, man’s up to the in your face hostility, and fights back in defense of the United States’ honor and national security?

Date: October 31, 2009
Persian: Parleman News
English: Zahra Rahnavsad FB page

Join us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shortlink to share blog: http://wp.me/pDjBz-eO

***********************************************************

According to the Public Relations Office of Seyyed Mohammad Khatami, the former president, members of the Central Council of Islamic Association of Tehran University and Tehran Medical Sciences met with Khatami. In this meeting Khatami warned that surveillance into personal affairs of people is not allowed even in cases of those who do not believe in the establishment or God as long as they don’t use weapons and also warned about the current diversions in analysing today’s critical situation of the country. He also emphasised that people and the Green movement are against violence but in the opposite side there are some who only think and act violently. He stressed that he along with other reformists and Green leaders will firmly stay as an opposition to the current government but in a movement that honours Islam, the establishment and the revolution. Khatami reinstated that the important point is to first accept that there is a crisis in the society and then one can find the solution to this crisis and if today we make mistakes in analysing the current situation we will face more problems in future. Khatami pointed out that unfortunately sometimes some consider these deviations as what the establishment is about.

**********************************

CICK HERE for Persian

Law of silence: CIA; (Oct. 28, 2009)

            On September 18, seven ex-CIA chiefs exhorted President Barak Obama to emulate former Presidents and cover up the serious infringements to laws and regulations. The CIA and FBI during Bush Junior two Adminstrations committed excesses by the operators in anti-terrorist interrogations; the CIA chiefs claim that opening public investigation may jeopardize State security. 

            Brigadier General John Magruder has stated the objective of the CIA by 1947: “Clandestine operations constantly implicate infringement of internal laws and regulations. The Pentagon and the State Department cannot take risks for covering such operations.  A new service for clandestine actions has to take charge for covering up the official institutions.”  This statement is fundamentally the main reason for establishing the CIA: it was meant to execute unlawful orders and decisions taken by the Executive Administrations.

            Allen Dulles, chief of the “Agency” from 1953 to 61, confirm the doctrine that the “CIA is to execute what the President authorizes it in the wide gamut of political assassinations and destabilization of countries. The CIA main job is to cover for the President; all plausible denials should be extended to cover the involvement of the President in the decision process.  Thus, the President can securely admit that he ignored any failed operations overseas.”

            John Prados noted: “Thirty years ago the public perception of the CIA was of a lone and solitary elephant that escaped all kinds of control; that the CIA was running amuck with clandestine operations all over the world.  It is now clear that the Agency and its phalanges were just following presidential orders.  It is the Presidency that is the lone elephant because the Agency was not doing its publicly declared mission of providing intelligence to the President.  All the revealed documents show that Presidents had no intelligence of the imminent coming to power of Khomeini in Iran in 1979, the potential disintegration of the Soviet Union, or the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers.”

            Gordon Thomas said: “The Agency never managed to implant a spy in the higher circles of the Soviet Union decision makers. Bill Casey just took the risk of misinforming Ronald Reagan and systematically overestimated whatever intelligence he had”

            At every new Presidency the CIA got worse in control and management; it was overwhelmed by paramilitary operations than doing intelligence gathering; intelligence was thus relegated to non-human operators of remote control data from satellites and computer processing of images.

            The newly sacked CIA chief Porter Goss pronounced an allocution at Tiffin University and gave a sound counsel to new recruits “Never admit, deny everything, and take the best strategy of launching counter accusations when targeted within the CIA and the political circles.”

            The engraved motto of the CIA at Langley is St. John pronouncement “And you will know truth and truth will set you free”.  Apparently, to setting you free to assassinate and get away with it; to lie on State interests and get away with it; to cover up Evil Presidents and Administrations who follow orders from lobbying powerful interest groups.

            The US had agreed to finance the Nile dam during Nasser but reneged on the deal; it was learned later that the lobby of the cotton producers in the US South put the squeeze on the ground that Egypt would later compete with US cotton.  The Soviet Union was invited to Egypt and many other regions.        

      The CIA and FBI think that they can get away with a lot of crimes on the premise that the US citizen believes that intelligence gathering cannot be performed without breaking a couple of eggs in a democratic society in order to preserve citizen from further hardship and secure him more liberty.  It is becoming evident that the more power you let a government gets the less liberty you should expect.  If the last eight years did not exhibit this fact then do not blame anyone for further slavery and totalitarianism.

      It is a good thing to have more than two superpowers: extreme fundamentalism (i.e., religious and liberal capitalism) would be checked, cultural life would rejuvenate and people would enjoy more opportunities and choices instead of a gigantic financial crisis and global mass ignorance floating all over our planet.

      For further declassified evidences read my post “The critical decade of Islamic extremism”

Date: October 23, 2009
Persian Source: Aut News
Translated by: Persian2English

Join Persian2English on Facebook
Follow Persian2English on Twitter

Shortlink to share blog: http://wp.me/pDjBz-cF

********************************************************************

Read this article in Persian

Grand Ayatollahs Montazeri and Sanaie express regret over the attack at Komeil prayers: attack on a religious event is an indicator of the other side’s weakness.

While expressing deep regrets concerning the attack of officials at a Komeil prayer organized at the house of Shahab Tabatabaie’s in-laws, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri and Sanaie urged the family members of the arrested to be patient.

According to Norooz News, the family members of the arrested political prisoners and some of the recently arrested who were participating in the prayer session, notified the appropriate officials of the attack.  On Friday morning, Grand Ayatollahs Montazeri, Sanaie, and Makarem Shirazi were notified of what had occurred the previous night.

Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, while expressing deep regrets that such treatments took place at Komeil prayer, strongly condemned the attack on the family members of political prisoners.

Stressing that the messages of the early days of the Islamic Revolution had been forgotten, The Grand Ayatollah stated, “The most important message of our revolution which was ‘Independence, Freedom, Islamic Republic’ has been forgotten. The definition of republicanism in an Islamic regime is democracy, which the late Imam Khomeini strongly believed in. It has been ignored and the people’s right to freedom is not being acknowledged.”

Grand Ayatollah Sanaie also expressed his sadness over the recent events and urged the families to be strong and patient. He also urged the families to follow on up their loved ones and to continue to spread any relevant news.

The Grand Ayatollah believes that the attack on the Komeil prayers shows the vulnerability of the opposite side. He stated, “When the families of political prisoners and faithful people are being attacked, especially in a religious gathering, it means weakness for the other side. It shows that  ‘gentlemen’ cannot stand together at a Komeil prayer gathering.

According to Norooz News, following the attack on the gathering eveyone was arrested, except for Shahab Tabatabaie’s mother in law, Morteza Alviri’s spouce, and Fa’aeze Abtahi, because she had her child with her.

Until now, out of the thirty or more people arrested, only Mahrak Mirab Zadeh has been freed.

The inevitable Northern Middle East strategic block

(Report #30); (October 21, 2009)

            There would be much turmoil within the next five years in the Greater Middle East.  There is this inevitable trend toward forming a strategic and economic bloc in the northern Middle East region of Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Iraq.   Turkey and Iran are the main regional powers with the means to drive this trend to fruition.  Saudi Arabia is in line to supporting this bloc which will secure to the monarchy a new lease on life and not relying exclusively on the US Administrations.

            To prevent this new emerging bloc many superpowers are in a frenzy to obstruct this natural trend in economic and financial stability.  For example, this week the south eastern region of Iran witnessed a terrorist attack that decapitated the military leadership of the paramilitary Pasdaran or Guardian of the Islamic Revolution.  Iran is blaming Pakistan to facilitating the movements of the Sunni “Jund Allah” with full backing and finance from Britain and the USA. Personally, I tend to see indirect coordination of the Iranian regime in that attack: decapitating the paramilitary organization is the first phase into disbanding an organization that is no longer the guardian of the revolution but the military backer of the retrograded clerics working on maintaining their hold on the political climate in Iran.

            Another example is the terrorist blasting of a couple of ministries in downtown Baghdad.  This attack followed the signing of full diplomatic relation with Syria at the instigation of the US and France.  In retaliation of Syria cozying up with Maliki of Iraq without Iran’s full consent a prompt response sent the appropriate signal; Maliki promptly broke diplomatic ties with Damascus under lame excuses.  Syria got the message clear and loud not to cooperate with France, the US, or any regional power without prior coordination with Iran.  Syria is not about to ruin its internal security for any baits extended to it by the Western powers.

            The Arab Emirates are under pressures to kick out all Islamic Chiaa immigrants, starting with the Lebanese.  Israel is constantly pressuring the US to get militarily involved in Iran. Turkey is in excellent terms with Syria and Iran: it has canceled an air exercise with Israel and the US that was intended to cross the borders of Syria, Turkey, and Iraq; it is an exercise for Israel to take this alternative air route to blast Iran’s nuclear power stations.  Lebanon is unable to form a government for 4 months; it is waiting for green light of the new strategic block that is now backed by Saudi Arabia.  The US, Israel, and Egypt are counter blocking any unity government in Lebanon.

            The trend toward forming a strategic and economic bloc in the northern Middle East region started in 1979 as the Islamic revolution in Iran came to power and the Shah went to exile (Only Sadate of Egypt accepted the Shah to take political refuge in its land). Thus, the first clue goes back to 1979.  Iran of Khomeini, Syria of Hafez Assad, and President Bakr of Iraq decided on a rapprochement of Islamic sects (Sunni and Chiaa).  Saddam Hussein was chief of security and Vice President of Bakr; Saddam hated the Chiaa as well as Hafez Assad his archenemy to the leadership of the Baath Party.  At the instigation of Saudi Arabia and the green light from the USA Saddam deposed Bakr and swiftly executed all the Iraqi Baath members who supported this entente; these prominent members of the Iraqi Baath were mostly Chiaa. At the time the Saudi Defense Minister Sultan and the Interior Nayef (Sultan’s cadet brother) hated the Chiaa and were worried for their obscurantist and salafist Wahhabit Sunni sect. Thus, Saddam and the Saudi monarchs joined forces to destabilize Iran of Khomeini.  Many regional States, the US, France, and Britain would not allow a strategic and economical block in the Middle East to be formed of Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria. Thus, Saddam was encouraged to invade Iran. After two years, Saddam had to retreat his troops from Khuzestan.  Iran wanted this war of attrition to resume as an excuse to clean and re-structure its Islamic regime; (this nonsense war lasted 8 years).  

            The second clue is after invaded Kuwait in 1990.  Saddam’s regime was publicly terribly weakened; the Chiaa in southern Iraq and the Kurds in the north were threatening to destabilize Saddam’s regime.  The US wanted to help Saddam by any means to prevent Iran from taking hold of Iraq and joining forces with Syria (Iran’s ally).  The short-term strategy was to give Saddam an external activity or a semblance of war to re-unite Iraq on a national excuse.  To that effect, the US lured Kuwait to pressure Iraq into refunding 50 billions in war loan.  Saddam amassed his troops on the borders with Kuwait. The unstable Saddam wanted to believe that he got effective green light to conquer Kuwait. Bush Senior formed a coalition and forced Saddam to retreat from Kuwait. Saddam was defeated and the US and coalition forces could easily enter Baghdad. The purpose of this war was not to depose Saddam but for Iraq to be a buffer zone between Iran and Syria.  Saddam was permitted to crush the Chiaa insurgency in the south and the Kurdish upheaval in the north. Turkey strengthened its relationship with Syria and Iran. Syria was given bait for a mandate over Lebanon. Moubarak of Egypt was ordered to accept the deal and help put an end to the civil war in Lebanon. These hot regions needed to be pacified while the US and Europe tends to bigger problems: the proper dismantling of the Soviet Union, stabilizing Europe, and overseeing the financial globalization.

            The third clue is the massive occupation of Iraq by the US troops in 2003. (Read my post “Why the massive occupation of Iraq?”).  After 9/11/2001, the US demoted the Taliban regime in Afghanistan but did nothing to finish off the job and stabilize Afghanistan: the US Administration had other strategic plan than worrying about Sunni salafist Al Qaeda “terrorism”: it was contained in northern Pakistan.         

            At the time of the invasion there was no nuclear program in Iraq and the Bush Junior Administration knew that fact.  Iraq had resumed the development of two other means of mass destruction: the biological and the chemical arms. Saddam Hussein prevented any further inspections by the UN for two years because he had these two arms programs functional.  Thus, the US employed Russia and France to misinform Saddam: Russia would displace and decontaminate the presence of the biological and chemical arms that it had supplied Iraq in return for vetoing any pre-emptive attack by the US in the UN.  This maneuver was effective and the inspectors found no arms of mass destructions in Iraq. It was when the US was totally confident that Saddam had no arms of mass destructions that it invaded Iraq; Saddam had nothing to counter the massive offensive of the US forces, especially that the officers in the field of the Iraqi army had no power but to wait orders from central commands:  that was how Saddam restructured his army since 1980 to prevent any army rebellion to his regime.

            Why the US had to completely occupy Iraq?  Saddam could have been deposed in many ways without any military invasion or at least a partial occupation of south Iraq with Chiaa majority and the north with Kurdish majority. Why the US did not invest one more year in Afghanistan to stabilize this country before turning on to Iraq?  Why the US failed to get out after Saddam his entourage were finished?  Why this occupying force is still there after seven years of the invasion?  The US wanted its physical presence in Iraq to prevent the formation of the Northern Middle East Block. Turkey was against this invasion and did its best to prevent the US troops crossing its territory to northern Iraq.  Syria and Iran played cats and mouse with the US to harass its presence in Iraq.

            Thus, deposing Saddam without US military presence in the field meant that Iraq will quickly link with Iran; the other bonus was to control oil production and distribution of the second largest oil reserve to put the squeeze on the giant economic power of China. This “pre-emptive” intervention didn’t turn right: first, radical Islam increased and proliferated even further; second, it was the catalyst for the severest financial crash ever, and it alienated Turkey. 

            What are the scores at this junction?  The Saudi Arabia click of (Sultan, Nayef, and Bandar) is deposed and Saudi Arabia is seeking stronger ties with Syria.  Turkey is increasingly improving its ties with Syria and de-linking with its former “strategic” ally Israel. Iran is recapturing its initial strategy of uniting the Islamic sects.  Pakistan will cooperate fully with Iran to stabilize Afghanistan and save the unstable State of Pakistan deeply involved militarily to crush the Taliban brand in northern Pakistan. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Armenia are changing their policies to join this bloc as allies if not partners.

            The trend is already inevitable and it cannot be stopped with the world economy and finance state in such disarray.  It is the movement of political leadership in the four States that is the driving force and not simply individual leaders. By the end of 2011 the US is to remove all its military troops from Iraq. During this period, the US, Russia, France, and Britain will coordinate efforts to keeping Turkey and Iran on tip tow; Syria and Iraq are to be frequently destabilized.

“The Monster and Cinderella”

Asharg Alawsat, by Amir Taheri – Traditionally, the Iranian army is called “the big mute”, because it is the only component of the system not to participate in any public debate. Unlike its counterparts in many “developing nations” it has never tried to seize power or act as political puppeteer.

In 1905-06, the army refused to protect absolutism against the constitutional revolution.

In 1911, it remained on the sidelines as Cossacks hired by the pretender Muhammad-Ali Mirza fought a losing battle against revolutionary irregulars and tribal warriors defending the new democracy.

In 1925, the army did nothing to prevent a putsch that was to end the Qajar dynasty four years later.

In 1953, the army refused to help keep Prime Minister Muhammad Mussadeq in power by crushing his opponents.

In 1979, in the fight between the Shah and Ayatollah Khomeini, the army declared “neutrality”, allowing the mullahs to seize power.

In recognition of that tradition, Khomeini created his Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in 1979. He knew that the army would not kill people in support of any ruler while the IRGC would.

More here…

Why the massive occupation of Iraq? (October 12, 2009)

            The crucial main question is unanswered yet: why the US had to completely occupy Iraq?  Saddam could have been deposed in many ways without any military invasion or at least a partial occupation of south Iraq with Chiaa majority and the north with Kurdish majority. The second question is: Why the US did not invest one more year in Afghanistan to stabilize this country before turning on to Iraq?  The third question is: why the US failed to get out after Saddam was finished and his entourage exterminated; why this occupying force is still there after seven years of the invasion?

            At the time of the invasion there was no nuclear program in Iraq and the Bush Junior Administration knew that fact.  Iraq had resumed the development of two other means of mass destruction: the biological and the chemical arms. Saddam Hussein prevented any further inspections by the UN for two years because he had these two arms programs functional.  Thus, the US employed Russia and France to misinform Saddam: Russia would displace and decontaminate the presence of the biological and chemical arms that it had supplied Iraq in return for vetoing any pre-emptive attack by the US in the UN.  This maneuver was effective and the inspectors found no arms of mass destructions in Iraq. It was when the US was totally confident that Saddam had no arms of mass destructions that it invaded Iraq; Saddam had nothing to counter the massive offensive of the US forces, especially that the officers in the field of the Iraqi army had no power but to wait orders from central commands:  that was how Saddam restructured his army since 1980 to prevent any army rebellion to his regime.

            The first clue goes back to 1979.  Iran of Khomeini, Syria of Hafez Assad, and President Bakr of Iraq decided on a rapprochement of Islam (Sunni and Chiaa).  Saddam Hussein was chief of security and Vice President of Bakr; Saddam hated the Chiaa and also Hafez Assad.  At the instigation of Saudi Arabia and the green light from the USA Saddam deposed Bakr and swiftly executed all the Iraqi Baath members who supported this entente; these prominent members of the Iraqi Baath were mostly Chiaa. Thus, Saddam and the Saudi monarchs joined forces to destabilize Iran of Khomeini.  Many regional States, the US, France, and Britain would not allow a strategic and economical block in the Middle East formed of Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

            Thus, deposing Saddam without US military presence in the field meant that Iraq will quickly link with Iran; the other bonus was to control oil production and distribution of the second largest oil reserve to put the squeeze on the giant economic power of China.

            This “pre-emptive” intervention didn’t turn right: first, radical Islam increased and proliferated even further; second, it was the catalyst for the severest financial crash ever, and it alienated Turkey.  The trend is for Turkey to become the fourth State to joining the Greater Middle East strategic and economic block.  Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Armenia are changing their policies to join this bloc as allies if not partners.

            There would be much turmoil within the next five years to prevent this new emerging bloc.  For example, Iran blasted a couple of ministries in downtown Baghdad in retaliation of Syria cozying up with Maliki of Iraq without Iran’s full consent; Maliki promptly broke diplomatic ties with Damascus under lame excuses.  Syria got the message clear and loud not to cooperate with France, the US, or any regional power without prior coordination with Iran.  Syria is not about to ruin its internal security for any baits extended to it by the Western powers. The Arab Emirates are under pressures to kick out all Chiaa immigrants, starting with the Lebanese.  Israel is constantly pressuring the US to get militarily involved in Iran. Turkey is in excellent terms with Syria and Iran: it has canceled an air exercise with Israel and the US that was intended to cross the borders of Syria, Turkey, and Iraq; it is an exercise for Israel to take this air route to blast Iran’s nuclear power stations. . The trend is already inevitable and it cannot be stopped with the world economy and finance in such disarray.

Radical Islam: the critical decade (1977-1989); (October 11, 2009)

            Sadate of Egypt visited Jerusalem in 1977 and spoke at the Knesset and sighed a peace treaty with Israel.  The Arab and Islamic world is angry.  The Arab League rejected Egypt as member for ten years. The Moslem Brotherhood movement in Egypt stopped cooperating with Sadate and an extremist faction proclaimed “Takfir wa Hejrat” which means repentance and refuge from the urban centers and isolation into communities for the Moslems abiding by the Charia. 

            The religious dogma of Sayyed Qotb whom Nasser had hanged in 1966 resurfaced with acute power.  Qotb was studying in the USA and returned to preach that Islam has been weakened because it has forgotten the notion of “Jihad” and is cooperating with the infidels the “monafikeen” or hypocrites whom the Prophet Muhammad lambasted for being ready to rally with the Jews or to returning to “Jahiliya”; thus, Qotb encouraged Jihad against the Moslems consorting with the policies and traditions of the infidels.

            A retired Palace Guard in Saudi Arabia, Juhaiman Otaibi, got wind of the message of “Takfir wa Hejra” and started Friday preaches in that vein: He warned the Moslems that 1979 is the 15^th century of the Moslem Hijra and that the most awaited Mahdi is coming to unite Islam.  A Yemenite from Assir, Abdallah Kahtani, who broke up from his master Ben Baz (still the formal actual cleric to the Saudi Kingdom), became the theologian for Otaibi.  The Egyptian Muhammad Elyas joined forces and the recruits of these three leaders invaded Al Kaaba in the autumn of 1979 and captured it.  The Saudi monarch paid the French paratroopers to retaking Al Kaaba; hundreds were massacred in that fight.

            The “Royal Family” in Saudi Arabia got the message clear and loud; Saudi Arabia was slightly inching from the Dark Ages before it re-sank even further in the darkest of ages.  The two monarchs Khaled and Fahd were staunch Wahhabits and hated the Chiaa sect. The minister of the Defense was Sultan and his cadet brother Nayef was the minister of the Interior, and their half-brother Bandar from a Sudanese mother was the eternal Ambassador to the USA.  This trio had vast contacts with Sunni radical Islamic Pakistan, Iraq of Saddam Hussein, and they financed the El Qaeda; they even asked the US to dismantle their bases in Saudi Arabia in order to keep the face of radical Moslems toward the widespread feeling in the Arab and Islamic World. It is to be understood that the Saudi sovereign fund is practically cash money for the US Administrations to use when the US Senate denies any funds to the Executive branch.

            In 1977, the Islamic forces in Iran were virulent and sympathized with the Egyptian Moslem Brotherhood movement.  The US, France, and Britain permitted the overseas Iranian parties against the Chah to organize and demonstrate: these three States wanted to put the squeeze on the overbearing Chah of Iran because he was leading OPEC and had increased oil prices 160% within a couple of years. I recall that during my study in Oklahoma the Iranian parties kept constant demonstrations and gathering all of 1977 until Khomeini came to power in 1979.  There were the Khomeini movement, the Islamic Moujahedeen Khalq, and the secular communist leaning Fedayeen Khalq.  What the Western powers started as a simple squeeze ended up in catastrophe: The Chah decided that the game is over and didn’t even put up a fight before the superpowers planned a counter-attack.

            In 1979, Iran of Khomeini, Syria of Hafez Assad, and President Bakr of Iraq decided on a rapprochement of Islam (Sunni and Chiaa).  Saddam Hussein was chief of security and Vice President of Bakr; Saddam hated the Chiaa and also Hafez Assad.  At the instigation of Saudi Arabia and the green light from the USA Saddam deposed Bakr and swiftly executed all the Iraqi Baath members who supported this entente; these prominent members of the Iraqi Baath were mostly Chiaa. Thus, Saddam and the Saudi monarchs joined forces to destabilize Iran of Khomeini.

            President Sadade was becoming a dead weight for the USA Administration; the Vice-President Housni Moubarak received the green light from the US to cooperate with the Moslem Brotherhood to eliminate Sadate. Lieutenant Islambouli, brother of Muhammad Elyas who invaded the Kaaba, shot dead Sadate during the yearly military parade.  Moubarak pleased the Moslem Brotherhood for a year and tightened the application of Charia and froze the peace treaty for a short while.

            The Saudi Monarchs financed and instigated Saddam to invade Iran in 1980. The US disturbed the electronics of a plane carrying the entire Iranian chief of staff inspecting the Khuzestan which crashed with no survivors.  After a swift advance in Khuzestan the Iraqi troops were halted, defeated, and then retreated into Iraq by 1982.  During that war Iraq received all the military logistic, support, and aerial intelligence from the USA, France, and Britain. France sold Saddam a nuclear reactor that Israel would bomb in 1983.  The US supplied Saddam with bacteriological and chemical arms of mass destruction. Iran wanted the war to continue in order to re-structure its political system and thus this insane war lasted till 1989 before Khomeini died.  The leaders of the strong Iranian movement for entente between Sunni and Chiaa were blown up during a convention; among the dead was Ayatollah Montazeri.  Rafsanjani, later to become President of Iran, hated the Sunni sect and made sure to arrive 15 minutes late to the convention: he was the right hand man of Khomeini at the time.

            With the Chah out the Soviet Union was encouraged and then sucked in militarily into Afghanistan; the same process as the US was gradually sucked in Viet Nam.  Iran of Khomeini arranged a deal with the Soviet not to interfere in the North and West of Afghanistan with Chiaa majority. Saudi Arabia recruited radical Moslem Sunnis from around the world to fight communist Soviet Union; Pakistan was the State to supply arms, logistics, and training to the Moslem “mujahideen”.

            As the Soviet Union was disintegrating in 1991, the US and Europe were busy with a new world order and intentionally forgot radical Islam for an entire decade.  Radical Islam got under way in organization and proliferation and performed many operational activities in Indonesia, Somalia, Tanzania, Kenya, Chechnya, Pakistan, India, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia (the Khobar bombing of the hotel where the American aviators had residence) to end up with the 9/11/ 2001 attack on the Twin Towers.  During the decade, after the dismantlement of Russia, the US Administrations toned down every terrorist’s activities to its public opinion in order to focus on world financial domination and the restructuring of Europe.

di Simona Maggiorelli

Shirin Neshat, I'm it's secret

Politica e poesia. Ricerca di identità femminile e rapporto con l’altro. Esplorando la diversità fra uomo e donna, il desiderio ma anche la solitudine. Sono i “temi” forti al centro della ricerca di Shirin Neshat fin da quando alla fine degli anni Settanta lasciò l’Iran per studiare negli Stati Uniti. Dopo la rivoluzione, il regime di Khomeini le vietò di tornare, pena il carcere. Solo dopo la morte dell’ayatollah finalmente lei riuscì a rimettere piede nella sua terra di origine. «Fu uno shock – racconta -.Perché trovai un Paese islamico, di donne velate, non c’erano più echi dell’antica Persia e della sua poesia». Una cultura orientale che Shirin Neshat dice di sentire profondamente propria, offrendo «uno sguardo meno razionale sulle cose». E uno sguardo lirico, pieno di pathos, è la cifra che più colpisce nei suoi lavori. Fin dalla prima serie fotografica, Donne di Allah, realizzata tra 1993 e il 1997 e che ha imposto l’artista iraniana sulla scena internazionale. Immagini in bianco e nero, aperte su orizzonti immensi, punteggiati da silenziose figure di donne velate. Mani maschili, in primo piano, segnate da versi in calligrafia araba squadrata e monumentale. Oppure autoritratti in cui l’artista, con in testa il chador, drammaticamente imbraccia un fucile. Sul volto ha impressi passi del Corano.

Ma nel carnet di Neshat si trovano anche sensuali immagini di donna in cui il body painting non è più una scrittura rigidamente imposta dall’esterno ma fiorisce sulla pelle in una più tondeggiante e morbida grafia. Le labbra appena schiuse, forse parole sussurrate, la gioia di potersi esprimere con una propria voce originale. Sono gli scatti magnetici, esteticamente raffinati e, insieme, di grande efficacia che ritroviamo nella serie di volumi editi da Charta che ripercorrono l’opera della fotografa e filmaker nata a Qazvin nel 1957. Compreso il suo lavoro di videoartista, fatto di sequenze “oniriche” e silenziose e in cui versi e  musica sostituiscono i dialoghi. Video dalle atmosfere malinconiche e struggenti come Turbolent (1998) Soliloquy (1999) o Rapture (1999) in cui appaiono donne misteriose e ribelli che pagano con la solitudine la propria rivolta contro la violenza privata o di regime, oppure donne follemente innamorate, coraggiose, pronte a tutto. Come in certi film di Tarkovsky (che Neshat riconosce come maestro assoluto d’arte cinematografica), sono storie che arrivano allo spettatore emotivamente, attraverso immagini sfumate, evocative. La videoarte di Shirin Neshat, più ancora della sua opera fotografica, suggerisce più che raccontare. è un’arte ellittica, densa di metafore, fortemente concettuale. Anche quando il tema è strettamente storico, le immagini non sono mai descrittive, cronachistiche. Ma se nella brevità di un video, come in poesia, possono bastare alcune immagini potenti a schiudere un intero universo di senso, più difficile è che questa impresa riesca in un film, in cui c’è comunque bisogno di tratteggiare e approfondire dei personaggi.

Shirin Neshat

La giuria di Venezia con il Leone d’argento dice che la poliedrica Neshat è riuscita anche in questo. E in attesa dell’uscita nelle sale italiane del film Women without men prevista per il 4 dicembre, intanto, la galleria Noire contemporary art di Torino, fino al 22 novembre, offre una interessante finestra sui sei anni di gestazione che precedono il film, liberamente tratto da un romanzo della scrittrice Shahrnush Parsipur, censurato in Iran. Anni in cui Neshat, in collaborazione con l’artista iraniano Shoja Azari, ha sviluppato in quattro videoinstallazioni le storie, diversissime, di altrettante donne che finiscono poi, casualmente, per incontrarsi nella rivolta del 1953 contro lo scià e l’imperialismo Usa. In questa serie di video non si raccontano solo gli slanci idealistici della rivolta, il furore rivoluzionario ma anche le storie intime, private, di uomini e donne che si amano o si perdono mentre stanno scrivendo questa importante pagina di storia. «Women without men – dice Neshat – è un romanzo bello e strano. Non avrei potuto scegliere un libro più difficile. è scritto con uno stile di realismo magico che poi ho scoperto è tra i più ardui da tradurre visivamente». Ma il rapporto di Neshat con la scrittura di Parsipur va al di là di questo romanzo «Il mio lavoro nasce all’incrocio di esigenze simili. Ciascuna di noi a suo modo ha cercato di creare opere molto personali e molto politiche».

La mostra – Game of desire

Da anni la vita e l’opera di Shirin Neshat è completamente assorbita dalle vicende che attraversano l’Iran. Cercando di appoggiare come artista le istanze di democrazia che soprattutto le giovani generazioni stanno esprimendo con passione nel Paese. Una rivolta pacifica e crescente che il regime di  Ahmadinejad sta cercando di soffocare  nel sangue. «Per questo – racconta l’artista – solo di rado negli ultimi dieci anni ho potuto e voluto sviluppare progetti che parlassero di altro». Uno di questi rari progetti l’ha portata di recente  in Laos e Vietnam, sulle tracce di antiche forme di rappresentazione, dette lam e conosciute in molte varianti in Asia. Si tratta di poemi che, intrecciandosi in tenzoni, uomini e donne intonano e suonano per notti intere. Neshat è riuscita a filmarle. Ne è nato un video e una mostra fotografica, Games of desire, presentata a Bruxelles e a Parigi e ora raccontata in un volume edito da Charta. Un lavoro sul modo di vivere e rappresentare poeticamente il rapporto uomo donna in alcune aree del Sudest asiatico, rinnovando tradizioni antichissime.

President Obama har alltså tilldelats Nobels fredspris. Beslutet har mötts med blandade känslor, förvåning och skepticism. Varför gör den norska nobelkommittén på detta viset? För egen del tror jag att Claes Arvidsson i SvD och Daniel Pipes kommer sanningen nära: Priset är delvis en markering mot George W Bush.

Göteborgs-Posten skriver, att Obama har

inlett vad som kan ses som en löftesrik kursändring av amerikansk utrikespolitik – bort från den aggressiva konfrontationsinriktning som George W Bush representerade och över mot en mer lyssnande, anständig och dialoginriktad linje.

GP sammanfattar väl någon slags mainstream-mjäkig politiskt korrekt europeisk syn på hur utrikespolitik bör bedrivas. Men den är farlig i de allra flesta avseenden, eftersom den av dem som står för den verkligt aggressiva konfrontationen, bara uppfattas som svaghetstecken.

- När al-Qaida aggressivt konfronterade USA genom att anfalla och döda tusentals människor den 11/9 2001: skulle det anständiga svaret från USA ha varit att lyssna och inrikta sig på dialog?
- När Hamas’ aggressivt konfronterar och anfaller Israel med Kassamraketer i det uttalade syftet att utplåna Israel genom anfallskrig: skulle det anständiga svaret från Israel ha varit att lyssna och inrikta sig på dialog?
- När Iran aggressivt konfronterar och provskjuter anfallsvapen på den judiska försoningsdagen: skulle det anständiga svaret från USA och Israel vara att lyssna och inrikta sig på dialog?
- När Saddam Hussein-regimen aggressivt konfronterar och skickar raketer mot Israel och genom anfallskrig ockuperar och annekterar Kuwait: skulle det anständiga svaret från USA vara att lyssna och inrikta sig på dialog?

Nej, knappast.

Har al-Qaida, Hamas och Iran någonsin bett om en dialog med USA? Nej, knappast. Det enda man kan höra från dem är skramlet av vapen och raketernas muller. Det är alldeles uppenbart att den “dialog” al-Qaida, Hamas och Iran vill föra inte ska ske med ord utan med vapen.

Men om då USA, eller för den delen Israel, svarar med samma mynt: vapen, så uppfattas detta märkligt nog som en aggressiv konfrontationspolitik!

Saddam Hussein-regimen bekämpades, inte med dialog, utan med vapen. Därigenom har Irak nu fått möjligheten att utvecklas till en demokrati och en rättsstat som inte hotar andra länder med anfallskrig.

Och normalt sett är det så krig bör föras, nämligen till dess motståndaren kapitulerar. Man för inte dialog med fienden, man besegrar honom.

De allierades försvarskrig mot Nazityskland fördes till dess Nazityskland kapitulerade. Någon dialog var inte aktuell. Hur skulle det ha sett ut om Hitler hade deltagit i Jalta, Teheran, Potsdam? Ur ruinerna av det besegrade Nazityskland föddes ett fritt, demokratiskt och fredligt Tyskland.

Den fria världens försvarskrig mot al-Qaida, Hamas och Iran – Iran understödjer Hisbollahs anfallskrig mot Israel, och hotar enligt JPost (se länk nedan) med att “spränga Israels hjärta” – bör på samma sätt föras till dess angriparen besegrats och kapitulerat.

Att nu börja tala om ett lyssnande, en dialog som mera anständigt än försvar är direkt skadligt. Det går inte att kompromissa med de kompromisslösa, med de stater och politiska rörelser som verkar för Israels ovillkorliga utplåning, för världens ovillkorliga underkastelse under den islamiska lagen och som i likhet med Khomeini anser, att “Allt gott som existerar gör det tack vare svärdet och i svärdets skugga!”

Alltså måste man med svärdet stå emot dem som ovillkorligen vill använda svärdet för att uppnå sina onda syften. Detta är tyvärr det enda språk de förstår.

Låt oss hoppas att president Obama också kommer att förstå det innan det är försent.

Det borde nu vara dags att instifta ett demokrati- och frihetspris. Ett sådant pris skulle vara mera värt än ett fredspris. När Israel utplånats och när världen underkastat sig islam med svärdets hjälp uppnås visserligen fred, precis som fred förelåg både i Auschwitz och i Gulag-arkipelagen. Men förelåg frihet och demokrati? Nej, tvärtom: Där var slaveri, död och diktatur. Fred är som du ser alltså inte tillräckligt för att kunna leva ett människovärdigt liv. Det krävs demokrati och frihet också – men även många andra saker, såsom tro, hopp, kärlek …

Om det funnes ett demokrati- och frihetspris, borde George W Bush få det. Han har nämligen förstått vad saken gäller och agerat utifrån denna insikt. Heder åt honom!

- På denna bild ser man vad som enligt malisen är några fler Obama-supportrar, vid sidan av GP och norska nobelkommittén alltså:

Två av dem som förekommer på bilden har numera fått Nobels fredspris: Obama och Carter. En som märkligt nog inte finns på bild är fredspristagaren Arafat. Han är visserligen död, liksom “vännen” Yassin. Men deras fördärvliga inflytande lever tyvärr kvar. Läs mera om “Obamas fan-club?” här.

Länkar: Sapere Aude!, Ulf Nilson på Newsmill, JPost, DN, SvD, YNet.

***

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om kärnvapen, Israel, islamism, Hamas, demokrati, försvar, Barack Obama, Adolf Hitler, Jimmy Carter, Yassir Arafat, Sheik Yassin, George W Bush, Khomeini, Hisbollah, al-Qaida, Iran, Jalta, Teheran, Potsdam, Nazityskland, Tyskland, Kassamraketer, USA, Daniel Pipes, fredspriset

Mina muslimska vänner betonar Islams fredliga och barmhärtiga sida. De ser den iranska regimen som en politiserad militant islam, långt ifrån Islams innersta kärna. Det må vara sant, men mulla-regimen i Iran kontrollerar ett land med över 70 miljoner invånare, och har naturligtvis ett starkt stöd av många, även om oppositionen i det senaste presidentvalet visade sig stark.

Förtrycket i Iran är enormt. Politiskt motstånd innebär att man sätter sitt liv på spel. Förföljelse och förtryck av oppositionen är en del av systemet. Att lämna islam kan medföra dödsstraff. Bara Kina kan konkurrera med Iran i att utdöma flest dödsstraff. Enligt officiella uppgifter rör det sig om ca 400 människor per år, men i verkligheten rör det sig om betydligt fler, kanske flera tusen per år (enligt inofficiella källor). Offentliga massavrättningar förekommer ofta, till och med av minderåriga.

Den iranska regimen är inte bara ett dödligt hot mot sitt eget folk, den talar alltmer oförblommerat om vad den vill göra med omvärlden, speciellt Israel och västvärlden. Ayatollah Khomeini, gjorde en muslimsk teologi av, att utnämna USA och Israel till Irans huvudfiender. Den nuvarande presidenten Ahmadinejad talar klartext om att Israel måste bort. Han liknar Israel vid en ”svart mikrob”, alltså en sjukdomsalstrande varelse som måste avlägsnas för att patienten (= världen) ska tillfriskna. Likaså hotas USA, om än i något mer förtäckta ordalag. Om ett land, t ex USA, skulle våga ingripa mot Irans kärnvapen lovar Ahmadinejad att den som fattar det beslutet ska Iran ta hand om (omskrivning för avrätta).

Det är en typisk retorik från diktatorer att beskylla andra för de brott som man själv begår. För vem är det som verkligen hotar freden i Mellanöstern? Iran har sitt finger med i de flesta oroligheter som sker i Mellanöstern. Man stöder den shiamuslimska militanta rörelsen Hizbollah, som använder Libanon för sina attacker mot Israel. Man stöder också shiamuslimska krigare som försöker destabilisera regimen i Irak. Irans inflytande och vapen märks också alltmer i Gaza och på Västbanken. Inblandningen i konflikterna i Israel-Palestina och Irak gör det svårt eller omöjligt att uppnå fred i Mellanöstern.

 ”Sluta gulla med mullorna” säger en exiliranier som svar på frågan hur man ska bekämpa den iranska regimen. Med andra ord kraftfulla ekonomiska sanktioner skulle få regimen på fall. Det är hög tid nu att stoppa regimen, innan hela världsfreden är i fara. Västvärlden måste isolera och bojkotta Iran ekonomiskt! Iran hotar snart världen med kärnvapen, då kan det vara för sent.

 Läs även om de två iranska kvinnorna som hotas av dödsstraff därför att de konverterat.

di Simona Maggiorelli

Un semplice dettaglio come il nome di una strada. E la curiosità di vedere quante volte, negli anni quella targa è stata cambiata. Per damnatio memoriae nelle tante guerre che punteggiano la storia di quella che un tempo fu la Persia. Per servilismo dello Scià verso gli Stati Uniti. Per impeto rivoluzionario e poi per violenta restaurazione teocratica  degli ayatollah. Da un particolare di toponomastica ricostruire un intero mosaico di storia. Rintracciandone i segni nel presente. È il talento originale dell’inglese Jason Elliot: scrittore, studioso di storia, viaggiatore, giornalista culturale e molto altro ancora. Quasi una eclettica figura di letterato ottocentesco a dispetto dei sui quarantaquattro anni ben portati.

E così, come un inattuale flâneur, lasciandosi prendere da ciò che gli viene incontro per le strade e poi prendendosi tutto il tempo per studiare Elliot, per esempio, è riuscito a ricostruire in Specchi dell’invisibile, viaggio in Iran (Neri Pozza) la storia stratificata e complessa della censura iscritta nella mappa di Teheran. Rintracciando anche la sotterranea e sorprendente vitalità di tradizioni eterodosse. Tanto eversive come poteva essere quella dell’antica poesia persiana  per Khomeini e oggi per Ahmadinejad.

Così mentre il grande Ciro, fondatore del primo impero persiano (che venticinque secoli fa conquistò Babilonia, Assiria, Macedonia e Cina orientale), finì sotto la scure degli ayatollah che gli preferirono un oscuro personaggio sulla targa di un’importante strada della capitale, quello stesso regime teocratico non cancellò affatto la memoria degli antichi poeti persiani anche se avevano sempre avuto un rapporto assai conflittuale con l’ortodossia religiosa.

«Le immagini sensuali della loro poesia – nota Elliot – hanno sempre attirato gli strali dei bigotti e le dottrine mistiche esposte velatamente nei loro poemi causarono l’ostilità dei teologi tradizionalisti». Quasi tutti i grandi lirici persiani erano seguaci della mistica sufi che celebrava il rapporto fra uomo e donna e sbeffeggiava il clero, in nome di una relazione diretta con il divino. Ma non solo. «Passi di Khayyam parlavano di vino e di incontri e libagioni. Mentre il poeta Firdausi celebrava la gloria degli antichi re persiani preislamici. Nonostante il biasimo del regime il suo nome non è mai stato cancellato dalla toponomastica né la sua opera è mai stata ufficialmente messa al bando. Un dettaglio da cui si può dedurre – conclude Elliot – l’enorme rispetto che ancora oggi quella tradizione letteraria riscuote anche dalla parte più intollerante del Paese». Un fatto che può apparire paradossale.

Ma non a chi conosca la complessità iraniana dall’interno. Al Festival della letteratura di viaggio a Roma Elliot, presentando Specchi dell’invisibile insieme al precedente libro sull’Afghanistan, Una luce inattesa (Neri Pozza), è tornato a rovesciare il cannocchiale occidentale mettendo a fuoco quei pregiudizi che distorcono la nostra lettura dell’Iran. «L’ostacolo maggiore alla comprensione sottolinea con passione – è quel nostro giudicare nascosto e preventivo che si frappone fra noi e la realtà. Una sorta di schermo invisibile che ci impedisce di vedere il mondo come è realmente. Personalmente- ammette Elliot – ho cominciato a scrivere proprio per cercare di bucare quello schermo. Un sano scettismo anche rispetto a ciò che raccontano i media occidentali oggi mi pare indispensabile».

Obama’s Islamic advisor (Dahlia Mogahed) no doubt has told him that Islam is a “religion of peace” and all of Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s bravado about a new, previously untold underground uranium enrichment plant is just a bunch of saber rattling to gain attention. I’m sure Obama’s also been told that the recent test of Iran’s Sahib-3 missiles with 1,200 mile range (enough to strike Israel) is just a routine test.

Obama – and most liberals – desperately want to believe that these people are civilized, and that we can talk them out of their desire to “wipe Israel off the map” by just understaaaanding them. By being seeensitive to their desires, we can cajole them into working hand in hand with the rest of the world. Unicorns and rainbows will herald a new era of peace because we taaaalked with the maniacal dictators, and they took our message to heart and really believed us when we showed them through our humble apologies and disarming ourselves and removing missile defenses from our (former) allies. They will beat their swords into plowshares, and Ahamadinejad and Netenyahoo will sing Kum By Yah together.

Answer this question:

When in all of recorded history has a maniacal dictator ever put down his weapons and layed down his armies because someone talked him into acting peacefully?

You already know the answer: It has never happened. Hitler. Pol Pot. Hirohito. Keep going. A weak America doesn’t make dictators more willing to work with us, it makes them more willing to attack us and crush our allies us by any means while they have the opportunity.

Ahmadinejad strongly adheres to the Shiite belief that the return of the Mahdi will restore peace rid the world of error, injustice, and tyranny (go figure!). That is great, until you understand that the Mahdi will only return after “the world is washed in blood” – World War III – and Ahmadinejad wants that!

The left desperately doesn’t want to believe this truth: WWIII accomplishes the Shiite goal of “the return of the Mahdi.” Millions of Muslims believe this with excitement, including Iranian president Ahmadinejad. And collateral damage (his own people, and other warriors for Islam), and “innocents” (that’s probably where you would put yourself) don’t matter. In his mind, death brings righteous Muslims into paradise quicker, infidels get their right place in hell, and praise Allah, the Mahdi is almost here!

Check this video, especially “hasten the return of the 12^th Imam, the Mahdi” (at :46, right out of the maniacal dictators mouth at the UN last week).

There are only two groups of people with Islam. The first is dar al-Islam (the “house of Islam”). Those who have submitted to Islam (and “Islam” means “submit”) are in that category. If you’re reading this, chances are you are not in it. There is only one issue on the table for Ahmadinejad: “will you submit fully to Islam, and institute shariah law in place of democracy?” If the answer is “no” (and it is), then we live in dar al-harb (the house of war), whether you like it or not, and whether you agree with it or not. You don’t even have to do anything to make them angry: you are a filthy plague on this earth by your very existence, and those who are within Islam (“his pure household and his noble companions” per Ahmadinejad’s own voice above) have a duty to cleanse the world. Remember, Osama Bin Laden declared war on the West, and fundamentalist Islamists are at war with you, and what are you going to do about it? If you’re not going to convert to Islam and join the jihad against the infidels, then you are the enemy.

Fundamentalist Muslims don’t want to talk,

they want Islam to prevail at any cost.

(and you’re probably getting in the way of that by breathing).

There are peaceful Muslims, but there is no peaceful Islam.

As one blogger put it: “Obama’s unclenched fist policy is failing miserably.”

• Let Obama know that you want him to stand firm against Islam’s war against the world.
• Complete list of congress’ email and fax numbers here.
• Another “contact congress” option is here.
• Contact your representatives to put pressure on him to protect us and our interests from these religious warriors.
• Contact the media (radio, TV, blogs) and help them know more.
• Check out this “what can you do” link (there are LOTS of things you can do, but  – here’s the tease – check out number 9 especially).

Al Qaeda: Zawahiri versus Al Liby strategies; (September 27, 2009)

            Before 9/11, 2001 the media tried to convince people that the extremist Wahhabit terrorist organization Al Qaeda of Ussama bin Laden is a “parallel” central movement independent from any State in its decision and activities. Al Qaeda was financed and controlled directly by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan working in tandem to destabilize the Iranian Khomeini regime. During the Afghan soviet occupation the USA had direct interests to driving the Soviet trop into a quagmire of Islamist guerillas attacks of several Islamist factions supported by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran logistically, training, militarily and financially.  Bin Laden is of a Wahhabit sect of the Saudi Monarchy ruling cast.

            Currently, Al Qaeda is split into two drastic factions with allegiance to either Zawahiri or Al Liby strategies for Islam hegemony. Al Qaeda can no longer be described as “a parallel organization” because it is tightly controlled by regional powers and indirectly by the USA through these regional powers.

            The Egyptian Zawahiri, labeled the second in command, had the strategy of an alliance of the Chiaa and Sunni Moslem sects to defeat the western domination of the Middle East and destabilizing the monarchs and dictators in this region.  The Libyan Al Liby is rumored to be heading the second faction that is at war against the Chiaa power in Iran, Iraq, and part of Lebanon. Al Liby has succeeded to Al Zarkawi who was killed in 2006 in Iraq and was responsible for mass suicide attacks of the Iraqi Chiaas during the US occupation.

            Al Liby strategy is ultimately targeting the Kadhafi regime.  Thus, strong alliance to the Egyptian Moslem Brotherhood is a must for post President Mubarak reign. Kadhafi realized that he cannot fight on several fronts: the western interests, the African tribes in the south, and the tribes from the east along the Egyptian borders who have always been at odd with his enduring regime.  Consequently, before Mubarak demise and the rise of the Moslem Brotherhood to power in Egypt Kadhafi had to make peace with the Western European States and the USA: he relinquished his nuclear program, paid the victims of the Lockerby disaster, and reopened bidding to discovering new oil fields.  Kadhafi made it his main strategy to focus on Africa and secure the alliance of the States on his borders as buffers to infiltrations. (post to be updated or resumed with a follow up post)