Thursday, June 25, 2009

Former Iranian Revolutionary Guard Speaks Out

Foreign Affairs is a very well respected professional journal on US foreign policy. It is widely read in Washington DC.

Suzanne Maloney has recently written an excellent piece on the situation in Iran, with which I was very impressed. She also gives this list of required reading on Iran.

She also recommends an author named Akbar Ganji. She writes:
Akbar Ganji’s biography itself offers a trenchant commentary on the ebb and flow of ideological orthodoxy in the Islamic Republic. Having served during the regime’s early years in the Revolutionary Guards and the fearsome Intelligence Ministry, Ganji progressively became disenchanted. By the mid-1990s, he had transformed himself into an influential political journalist, assailing Iran’s senior leadership in newspaper columns on the regime’s excesses. Arrested in 2000, he later spent nearly six years in prison, where his fate attracted worldwide attention. Today, Ganji remains passionate about realizing a genuine representative state in Iran, although he effectively lives in exile. These writings present his erudite denunciation of Iran’s current system and his effort to chart a path forward.
Quite an endorsement. He has also written an article recently for Foreign Affairs. It's a very good read, and brief. He writes:
This is nothing less than an electoral coup, and its aim goes far beyond bringing victory to Ahmadinejad; it is a full-fledged takeover of the state...one of Khamenei's central goals is to create a new unified ruling elite with vast political and economic power. Khamenei and his supporters have been snuffing out dissent among intellectuals, political parties, labor unions, clerical seminaries, and civil society groups. They have been enhancing ideological uniformity at the senior level of government by defaming previously high-ranking officials, such as former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. They have also been extending their control over state corporations, large industries, and banks in a bid to create a state-run form of capitalism that would benefit them.
Wow. That's much the same thing that Reza Aslan is saying. Our gut reaction to things like this is to smile and say, "Ah, you're just a conspiracy theorist." But this is being said by a lot of people who have a LOT of credibility, lots of credentials - people who know what they're talking about. We in the West need to open our eyes.

Of course, once we realize the truth, then usually people in the US say, "Yes, let's topple their government just like we did to Iraq!" That's not the right reaction. Toppling Iran, believe it or not, would be VASTLY more difficult than toppling Iraq. It would take much, much longer. It would be a lot of urban warfare. A lot of American troops would die. It took Americans about a month to grow weary of the war in Iraq. Americans have a very weak stomach. This is not the 1940's anymore, when everyone pitched in for the war effort. We live in a different world. Many, many people in the US are squeamish about warfare, and as soon as someone dies they'll be screaming for it all to be over, for it all to end. They will stop caring about what's at stake, choosing instead to just be offended at the shedding of blood. Our country has forgotten that there are some things worth dying for.

We can't go to war with Iran. We don't have the stomach for it. We don't have the troops for it. We're not willing to pay for it. If we go to war with Iran, they'll win. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't understand what's taking place there.
.

Outside Iran, at an Afghan Truckstop...

Here's an interesting piece from a journalist in Afghanistan (which borders on Iran to the East) at a truckstop, interviewing Iranian truck drivers. It appears the country is divided.
.

Rumors of Compromise?

Tehran Bureau is publishing rumors of a possible compromise in Iran involving a runoff election between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad. I say "rumors" because at this point that's all it is.

My response? Not bloody likely.

If it were true, it would signal a major, major shift in Khamenei, the Supreme Leader. So far, Khamenei has bet all his chips on Ahmadinejad. That's why people are chanting "Death to Khamenei" in the streets of Iran. He certified the election results too early, less than 24 hours after the vote (he was supposed to wait three days). In last Friday's sermon he said that Ahmadinejad was closer to his own position, and just yesterday he spoke publicly saying that there would be no compromise. I didn't even bother to post about it, because it wasn't anything new. No, Khamenei has vowed not to budge, and has so far been willing to shed the blood of his own people to keep from budging. Why would he suddenly do an about face? What's changed?

Also, if it were true, who has to be the source of the rumor? Wouldn't it have to be one of Khamenei's top aides? If Khamenei was truly willing to compromise, who would he tell?

We must also ask, who is he negotiating with? Mousavi? Parliament? Who?

Tehran Bureau cites Mehdi Noorbaksh, of Harrisburg University of Science and Technology as their source, who says he got a phone call late last night from someone in Iran. That's it.

Now, I can understand that Noorbaksh wants to protect the source in Iran, whoever they may be. But I'd be willing to bet that whoever the mysterious caller from Iran is, they're speculating; it's their own theory. It may be a very well educated guess, but it'd still be just that, a guess, a prediction. Noorbaksh stressed that it's a possibility, a mere possibility, and then cites reasons for why it may be correct. They sound like reasons supporting a theory. They certainly aren't evidence.

Evidence that a compromise may be in the works would be witness testimony that negotiations are ongoing. No such evidence has been cited. No one has claimed to have been present at such negotiations, nor have they claimed to have heard rumors of such negotiations. No, Noorbaksh only says that there's a possibility of a compromise.

Noorbaksh should have said, "I believe that this is what might happen." Instead, we are told, "There IS a possibility of..." When you use words like "is", you need to provide some evidence.

In my judgment, there's nothing in the report on Tehran Bureau to suggest that this is anything other than someone's speculative theory turned into a rumor.
.

Reza Aslan on the Daily Show

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Reza Aslan
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorJason Jones in Iran

FBI Interrogation: Saddam Was Afraid of Iran, not US

Click here.

Apparently, Saddam was lying about having WMD because he was afraid of Iran, and therefore wanted them to be afraid of him. He said that if he had had any WMD, he would have used them against the US.

This has apparently come out in now declassified FBI interrogation reports of Saddam after his capture.
.

Aslan: Slow Military Coup in Iran

Reza Aslan analyzes the situation in Iran here. (If your computer wants to print the article, just hit cancel. I used the "print" link because it was a little less annoying to look at. If you want the original article, click here.)

Aslan's basic theory is this: that there's a military/intelligence body called the Pasdaran that has been slowly taking over the country behind the scenes since Ahmadinejad was elected. It sounds fairly plausible, but no concrete evidence is offered to support the theory, so I can't really evaluate it properly.
.

Who is Larijani?

He's the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament.
Since the election, Larijani has rarely been noted or quoted in the western press, except for an occasional sentence in the print media. Media attention has been directed primarily toward Rafsanjani as the man to watch in the current turmoil. As Speaker of the Majlis, Larijani immediately and repeatedly condemned the violence against the students at Teheran University on Monday night (June 15). The website of the Iranian Majlis (parliament) for the week of June 13-17 reported that the Larijani said he had visited some of the areas where students had been assaulted and asked what the “meaning” was of attacking students in their dormitories at 2:30 in the morning. He said that laws had to be observed, and that the Minister of the Interior must be held “accountable for such incidents.” Larijani promised that the Majles would “seriously investigate” such issues.

On Thursday, even CNN had taken note: “Speaker Ali Larijani blamed the Interior Ministry for the raid on the dorm and attacks on civilians.” The article added that “Larijani’s comments are seen as an unprecedented rebuke to Ahmadinejad, who has been taking heat from many religious conservatives who’ve knocked the president’s criticism of protesters. And such criticism reflects an unprecedented public airing of a rift among ruling conservatives.”

Arab Perceptions of the Iranian "Green Wave"

Ok, so you know that Iranians aren't Arabs, right? They're Persians. So how do Arabs feel about what's going on in Iran? What's their perception of it? Well, how about we ask someone who has been travelling in Arab countries, someone who is in a position to tell us? The Tehran Bureau has published the essay for us. Here's a quote:

Most Arab governments dislike the current Iranian regime, so you would think they would be pleased to see it toppled, or tempered by its own people. Yet, if such change were to occur through street demonstrations choreographed via a web of digital communications, whispered messages, and rooftop religious chants in the middle of the night, Arab leaders of autocratic regimes would be unhappy — because they would sense their own vulnerability to similar mass political challenges. The fact is not lost on anyone that the Iranian regime effectively withstood and defied American-Israeli-European-UN pressure, threats and sanctions for years, but found itself much more vulnerable to the spontaneous rebellion of many of its own citizens who felt degraded by the falsification of election results by the government.

(An intriguing side note: Events inside Iran picked up steam at the same time as the Iranian presidential elections coincided with the Obama administration’s change of policy — as Washington backed off the threats and aggressiveness of the Bush years — and offered to engage with Iran on the basis of mutual respect. Would a more detached US policy towards Arab autocrats similarly open space for Arab domestic effervescence and indigenous calls for more liberal, honest politics?)

The Arcane Art of Khamenei Watching

Tehran Bureau has a brilliant and fascinating piece analyzing the current situation in Iran. Here's my favorite part:
For those steeped in the arcane art of Khamenei-watching, June 19 holds a special significance. On that day, after issuing his much-anticipated ultimatum to the people of Iran, the Supreme Leader showed a side of himself never before seen in public: while finishing his blood-soaked sermon with a vow of martyrdom, instead of looking bold and defiant, he looked weak and pathetic. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the man whose mien has inspired fear and awe in millions of people, actually had a lump in his throat. He fought back tears before tens of millions of bemused and perplexed viewers because in less than three weeks’ time, a system he had helped perfect — rule by a supreme religious leader — was showing signs of unraveling.
Read more here.

Tehran Bureau

There's a new link on the right ----------------------------->
It's called Tehran Bureau.
There's an interesting story out about it, here.

The Passion of Captain America

Captain America, John McCain, is at it again. He was interviewed on C-SPAN (a VERY important and highly watched network, ahem) as seen in the video below.

As you watch the short clip, ask yourself this question. What exactly does McCain want Obama to do? Does he want him to declare war on Iran? Perhaps just make a stronger verbal statement? It's unclear. At the end of the clip he says he just wants Obama to stand up for human rights like our founding fathers did. I could hear the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing softly in McCain's head when he said it.

And yet where's McCain's passion? Where's the gusto? I was half expecting him to yawn at some point. I yawned a couple times watching it. He's boring. Why is he boring? Look, I'm not a young, naive child who has to be entertained all the time, but if someone is speaking and you're bored to tears within seconds, it's not because you have a short attention span, it's because the person's heart isn't in it. McCain's heart isn't in it. He has no passion. And why, I ask you?

Because his words are empty and meaningless. Because he's calling on Obama to say what he's already said. Because he knows that his earlier stance was outrageous and harmful to the US, and he knows it, and he's had to back off of it because he looks like a fool.

I don't want to practice age discrimination, so I apologize, but McCain is just old and tired, and I'm tremendously relieved that he wasn't elected President. He's got nothing to contribute to this situation, which is probably why he's being interviewed on C-SPAN. Anyway, here, watch for yourself, and be glad he's not our President. (Not that I love Obama - I didn't vote for him either. At least he's got a little personality though, sheesh!)


Ahmadinejad: Snubbed Politically, Diplomatically in Iran, Around the World

This is a great article from the BBC. It's one of those articles that helpfully summarizes recent events in Iran, putting lots of information into one easy to read article. I highly recommend it. Here are some points:

Ahmadinejad snubbed by the majority of Iranian Parliament: There are 290 members of Iran's Parliament (think Congress; they are elected). Ahmadinejad invited them all to a party to celebrate his re-election. Only 105 showed up. Apparently there are about 50 reformist MP's (members of Parliament), who we shouldn't be surprised about their absence. But the other 135 who didn't show up, why is that?

Well, these are popularly elected representatives, just like our Congress. If they were Congressmen, I'd say they were ditching the party for political reasons, that they were worried about alienating voters by siding with Ahmadinejad. I'd say they thought that their voter base would have wanted them to stay home. But the strange thing is, for 135 of these guys who didn't show up, their voter base is not reformist. Looks like more evidence that Stratfor is wrong to me. Looks like it's more than just a few educated youths who are against Ahmadinejad now-a-days. At least, that's what the country's MP's think, and they're in a far better position to gauge the political mood of the Iranian public than we are.

US snubs Iran diplomatically: apparently, President Obama, in an attempt to reach out to Iran, had invited Iranian diplomats to our embassies all over the world to celebrate the 4th of July. Now, some have said that this is a horrible thing for him to do. Iranians don't believe in liberty, which is what the 4th of July is supposed to celebrate. Of course, Obama has 2-3 active brain cells, so it's a safe assumption that he understands this. Rather, he was trying to put Iran in a difficult situation diplomatically. What would it have meant for Iranian diplomats to toast the founding of the US by celebrating the 4th of July with us? They'd be making a statement that they appreciate our values. Of course, he knew they wouldn't show up. But that gives the US the upper hand diplomatically down the line. "We've reached out to you...and you've rejected us."

Well, however we want to analyze what Obama had in mind, which is never easy when it comes to diplomacy, enough people cried out against the notion, and the invitation has been rescinded. Now Iran really has egg on their face. That's a very serious diplomatic slap in the face. Here's the US, trying to reach out to Iran, inviting their diplomats over for BBQ's all over the world, and then suddenly, nope, you can't come over after all. That's like severing diplomatic ties all over again. It's a very serious statement. (And one that Obama was reluctant to make.)
[Ahmadinejad responded to Obama]: "I hope you will avoid interfering in Iran's affairs and express regret in a way that the Iranian people are informed of it." [He said] Obama "made a mistake" with his comments about the crackdown in Iran. "Our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously Bush used to say," he was quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency as saying.
Iran expels 2 UK diplomats: and the UK responded by expelling 2 Iranian diplomats from England. This is another very big deal. Expelling diplomats usually happens when it is discovered that that particular diplomat has been spying. Sometimes, James Bond types disguise themselves as low level diplomats. When they get caught, usually they get expelled in this way (except in the cases where they get thrown into deep dark holes in the ground and get the firehose turned on them - but let's not talk about that.) So for Iran to expel 2 British diplomats is basically a proclamation of guilt: these 2 diplomats were spies trying to undermine the Iranian government. So the UK reciprocated. There are rumors that both countries are re-evaluating their diplomatic ties, that they're considering downgrading them. What this means is that they would both still maintain a diplomatic mission in the other country, but they would no longer have an ambassador. That's a very big deal. An ambassador can speak for their government. Ambassadors have authority to negotiate. When a country says that they're going to recall their ambassador, this means that they're not going to negotiate anymore. They'll still communicate, but no longer negotiate. Keep an eye out for this kind of thing in the future.

The BBC article has lots of other various tidbits of information, such as the arrest of 70 university professors after their meeting with Mousavi.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Time Capsule - 30 Years Ago

Read this article from Time Magazine - from 30 years ago.

Timeline of U.S.-Iran Relations From CFR

CFR.org - U.S.-Iran Relations Since World War II

Shared via AddThis

The FULL CNN Interview

This is unedited, quite a bit more explicit....

Follow the Money

A Russian website, helpfully translated (albeit roughly) by Google, is reporting that a lot of money has been leaving Iran in the last 48 hours.

What does it mean? It means wealthy people in Iran are predicting a revolution; or at least they don't want to bet their fortune on it. When revolutions take place, there's always the possibility that the new government will begin to seize assets, and if you've got big assets, the best way to protect yourself is to get your money out.

I wonder what would be triggering this money exodus 48 hours ago? Well, 48 hours ago in Tehrah it was Monday, the first major business day after Saturday. (I honestly don't know if Iranian banks are open on Sundays, but I think major transactions with international banks would probably have to wait until Monday.) On Friday, the Supreme Leader said that protests would be put down violently. On Saturday, people came out in huge numbers anyway. On Monday, money began to leave Iran.

Just follow the money. Granted, this is a precautionary move, but it's still significant. Note that it's not overly cautious. They waited until now to start moving money. They weren't moving it last week. Now that people are shouting, "Death to Khamenei" in the streets, money is leaving.
.

Heart-wrenching Video From CNN

The Huffington Post says: Another Iranian who has been reliable in the past posts on Facebook, "In Baharestan we saw militia with axe choping ppl like meat - blood everywhere - like butcher...Fighting in Vanak Sq, Tajrish sq, Azadi Sq - now"

Saudi Ties To Terrorism?

This is a blog about Iran, not terrorism, not the Middle East. The point of this blog is to help Westerners understand what's happening. So if you're wondering why I'm posting about an article on the supposed Saudi ties to terrorism, you're asking a good question. The reason why I'm writing about it is because it provides an excellent chance to show how the media is often profoundly flawed in its reporting, and sometimes even irresponsible and sensational.

The article in the NY Times today about Saudi's supposed ties to terrorism is just such a sensational, irresponsible article. It seems more interested in generating hits on their website than in reporting the truth.

Let's begin with the title: "Documents Back Saudi Link to Extremists". It's not a quote, it's a title. This is now the claim of the article, not a claim of someone else that the article is reporting on. The article itself is making a claim. The claim is that the documents the author is privy to support the theory that the Saudi government finances terrorism. This is the claim of the title, which makes it the claim of the NY Times. So before you even read the article, you've already been told what to think about it. You are not being presented with evidence and being asked to judge for yourself. You're being told what you should conclude in the very title.

Then you might find it very strange when the article states:
"The documents provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of Sept. 11, 2001. And the broader links rely at times on a circumstantial, connect-the-dots approach to tie together Saudi princes, Middle Eastern charities, suspicious transactions and terrorist groups."
I find that strange. It contradicts the title of the article. The title says that the documents do in fact back the claim that the Saudi government finances terrorism. And yet the body of the article says the exact opposite. Yet most Americans will be able to breeze right by this statement, because the article has already told them what conclusion to draw in the title. It's a conclusion many Americans have wanted very badly to draw since 9/11. And here's an article in a very old, very credible newspaper telling them that it's the appropriate conclusion, and that they've got documents to prove it. Meanwhile, after citing a number of outrageous pieces of evidence from said documents, the article slyly inserts that there's no smoking gun here, so as to be able to claim objectivity. But the truth is, people will still read this article and think that there's definitive proof that the Saudi government is financing terror.

Don't believe what you want to believe, believe what is true. This is my plea, from me to you.

Before we look at the evidence, let's put it into context. Let's understand first that lawyers are behind this. These lawyers have talked the families of 9/11 survivors into suing the Saudi government in US courts. Now, I'm no mind reader. I don't know what the motives of the lawyers are for sure. They may be fully convinced that they're doing the right thing.

But here are the facts. The US government does not have any judicial authority over the government of Saudi Arabia or any other sovereign nation. For people to sue another country in US courts is ridiculous and outrageous. The lawsuit is completely illegitimate. The lawyers know this. It's their job to know this. It keeps getting thrown out by courts at every level. It has now been appealed to the Supreme Court. I for one hope they don't even hear it.

So lawyers have talked victims' families into an outrageously illegitimate and illegal lawsuit that is predicated on the US court system having authority over the government of a sovereign nation. This is scandalous. And not only is the lawsuit scandalous, but the fact that they've talked these poor, vulnerable people into pursuing it, taking advantage of their grief - this is nothing short of heartless and barbaric.

Again, I cannot read the mind of the lawyers. Perhaps they think they're doing the right thing. But I would submit to you that if they DO think they're doing the right thing, then they are profoundly misguided on a number of levels. They are deceived and ignorant. Since they've managed to graduate from law school, no small feat, I tend to think that ignorance isn't what drives them. I tend to think greed, something we all know drives many lawyers, is what is driving them. Who are they suing? A very rich country. If they win the lawsuit, they know that it will possibly be a huge, huge payday for them personally. They are exploiting these victims' families for the sake of dishonest gain through the pursuit of an outrageously illegitimate lawsuit of a foreign nation in the US court system.

Given all of this, I find it highly unlikely that anything they come up with is legitimate and reasonable. Given the context, I would tend to assume that everything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. I assume everything they're saying is designed to deceive me into helping to make them rich. Public opinion does often play a role in court proceedings.

Next, you'll notice that there are many references to classified information. Notice how the article seems to play on your fears that the government is trying to hide something. Our government is evil, as everyone knows, and they're trying to hide something from us.

That reminds me of an amusing story. When I was in the Marines, during combat training right after bootcampt, there was a young Marine who was about to go to intelligence school to learn to be an intelligence analyst. The poor guy was very nervous about it. So all the young Marines were sitting around talking to the platoon Sergeant one day, asking him questions about what the fleet was like, what the Marine Corps was like. Well, it came time for this young Marine, who was soon to be on the inside of the government's intelligence apparatus, to ask about what it was like to be in intelligence. He asked the Sergeant, what if there are some things I don't want to know? The Sergeant, as only Marine Sergeants can do, took pity on him and comforted him while also mocking his concerns. He said, look, it's not like when you show up at intel school they're gonna pull you aside and say, hey, you wanna know who shot Kennedy?

The Sergeant's point was a very good one. I doubt very much that the intelligence community is so sinister as everyone seems to assume. The fact is, no one but a very few insiders really know for sure. But the American people think they ought to know everything. They think they're the ones who are in power, that they're the ones who govern, and that therefore they have a right to judge for themselves, they have a right to classified information, they have a right to know whatever the government knows, so that they can decide if they're doing a good job or not.

America is not, however, a pure democracy. It's a democratic republic. We elect leaders to be privy to classified information for us. Classified information is classified for a reason. It's not classified to cover up government evils. It's classified to protect the source of the information. That's always the reason why something is classified.

So the article talks about classified financial documents that are claimed to be relevant to the case. Well, if they're classified, then it's because the US government obtained them illegally, meaning that they obtained this information without the consent of the Saudi government. The Saudi government has not decided to allow the US government access to its bank records. There's nothing sinister about that. I don't want the government to look at my bank records either. Everyone has a right to that privacy even in our own country. How much more a sovereign nation? The Saudi government doesn't have any right to look at our finances, does it? If they did, they'd find proof that we supported the Shah of Iran and other brutal dictators, like Saddam Hussein. Looks like we have financed some pretty awful things in our past. I'm not saying that the Saudis have financed terror and that that's ok or anything, I'm just saying that we aren't pure as the driven snow ourselves. He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.

Not only is the article playing on fears about classified information, worse, it seems to suggest that the US government is actually covering for the Saudi government. The US government is IN ON IT!!! It's outrageous. The article seems to suggest that not only does the Saudi government finance terrorism, but the US government knows it, has proof of it, and has classified it so that the American people won't know about it!!! Nothing short of nonsense.

Check this out:
"Adding to the intrigue, classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families. The Justice Department had the lawyers’ copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material."
And this:
"The Justice Department said a 1976 law on sovereign immunity protected the Saudis from liability and noted that 'potentially significant foreign relations consequences' would arise if such suits were allowed to proceed."
The suggestion is that the US government thinks our foreign relations with the Saudi government is more important than that justice be done for these families. The suggestion is that the US is protecting the Saudis.

But let's take a look at this "evidence", which isn't a "smoking gun", but yet nevertheless implicates the US government in a conspiracy to cover up the guilt of the Saudi government in the 9/11 attacks. (And by the way, if the Saudis were responsible, they would have made a very nice, very soft, easily conquerable enemy. If they were guilty, we would have had a very nice pretext to go and take them over and get rich in the process. It's not in our best interests to cover such a thing up.)

Out of the "thousands of pages" of "evidence" this is what the NY Times offers:
"Internal Treasury Department documents obtained by the lawyers under the Freedom of Information Act, for instance, said that a prominent Saudi charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, showed 'support for terrorist organizations' at least through 2006."
Like the article says, not exactly a smoking gun. If I give money to Red Cross, and Red Cross gives blankets and water to Taliban soldiers fighting against US troops, am I financing terror? If I send a care package to Iraq to US soldiers, does that mean that I think the entire US Congress made a good decision in going to war there? (After all, the Congress was almost unanimously in favor of going to war in Iraq.) If the Saudi government gives money to a charity that's supposed to provide humanitarian aid to Muslims around the world, that doesn't make the Saudis terrorists, it makes them human. Click the link above. Check out the charity's website. It's all about providing humanitarian aid. They even make their finances publicly available on their website. Does that mean it cannot possibly be a front for terror? No. Anything's possible. But Saudis donating to this organization, which obviously spends a LOT of money on humanitarian aid, does not support the article's claim at all. Yet it is presented as if it does. Where I come from, that's called a lie.

Next, the article states:
"A self-described Qaeda operative in Bosnia said in an interview with lawyers in the lawsuit that another charity largely controlled by members of the royal family, the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia, provided money and supplies to the terrorist group in the 1990s and hired militant operatives like himself."
This is a joke. I mean, this isn't even remotely responsible journalism. I suppose by "Qaeda" they mean "Al Qaida", the notorious terrorist organization responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Can you imagine? I wish I were a fly on the wall for that interview...

Terrorist: Hi, I'm an Al Qaida operative in Bosnia, and I've flown all the way here to the USA in order to help you lawyers incriminate my organization's biggest sponsor, even though they want to remain anonymous.

Lawyer: As an Al Qaida operative, are you willing to give your life for the cause?

Terrorist: you betcha!

Lawyer: And you're claiming that the Saudis gave a lot of money to the cause?

Terrorist: yup. Say, can I have some more of that filet mignon?

Lawyer: Sure you can. You can have all the filet mignon you want.

It's a joke. It's ridiculous. Preposterous. If he really is a member of a global terrorist organization, why on earth is he allowing himself to be interviewed by lawyers and betraying one of the biggest contributors to the cause for which he would supposedly be willing to give his life? It makes NO sense. The guy is obviously lying. More than likely the lawyers are paying him to say what he's saying, giving him a steak dinner, etc. It's a joke.

Just when you hoped that it wouldn't get any worse because your cheeks hurt from laughing so hard at what's being touted as responsible journalism, the article proceeds to publish this piece of nonsense:
Another witness in Afghanistan said in a sworn statement that in 1998 he had witnessed an emissary for a leading Saudi prince, Turki al-Faisal, hand a check for one billion Saudi riyals (now worth about $267 million) to a top Taliban leader.
Honestly, when I read this all I could think of was this clip from Austin Powers:


A billion riyals? He just handed him the check? But what about all this talk of using charities as front organizations in order to hide the fact that they're sponsoring terrorism? No - this terrorist from Afghanistan, who has never told a lie in his life, has never used drugs, and isn't blood thirsty as Dracula - no, this man was privy to the most secret of meetings, the most delicate of circumstances. He was entrusted with information that could completely destroy US-Saudi relations. He must have been very important in Al Qaida. He must have been Osama Bin Ladin's right hand man! What a joke. A BILLION riyals? And he just handed him the check? Not bloody likely.

The article goes on to talk about more suspicious charitable giving on the part of the Saudi government, but honestly, I doubt anyone's still reading this post. I think I've said enough to prove that this article from the NY Times is nothing short of ridiculous.

Oh, and one more thing. There's a number of pages in the 9/11 report that reportedly speaks to Saudi finances, and the Bush administration (pure evil, as all readers of the NY Times know) chose to keep it classified, even though the Saudis themselves said they wanted it made public. Well, again, it's classified because of the source. The Saudis didn't give the US permission to obtain this information. Pretend the US has a James Bond type guy working in a Saudi bank who managed to get this information. If this information is released, then it'll be easier for the Saudis to find the US agent and...execute him...or at least send him back to the US, his career ruined, never able to work undercover again. If the Saudis themselves want it public they've got nothing to hide. It's no smoking gun.

The fact is, Saudi Arabia is probably our greatest ally in the Arab world. They EXILED Osama Bin Ladin. They kicked him out of the country. Osama Bin Ladin HATES the Saudis and is constantly plotting to remove them from power. He thinks it's deplorable that there's a secular government in control of the country that contains Mecca, the Islamic holy city. Al Qaida and Saudi Arabia are not friends. They're sworn enemies. Saudi Arabia will tell you this. Osama Bin Ladin will tell you this.
.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Iran Crisis: Just Beginning

Some (e.g., Stratfor) are saying that the crisis in Iran is petering out. The protests are dwindling, they say. This is all overblown anyway, because Mousavi is really no fan to the US. He would be almost the same as negotiating with Ahmadinejad, and since he's a "reformer" it might actually be even more difficult.

Is this correct? Not bloody likely. Gary Sick, member of the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan (that's 3 US Presidents, and also spans the time when the 1979 Iranian Revolution took place) says that this has just begun.

Now it's tempting to want to root for the protesters, to cheer them on. And therefore it's tempting to wish very hard that the protests have not come to an end. So at first glance, when the protests are smaller on one day than they were before, it looks level headed and wise to admit that our dreams of a free and democratic Iran will never come to fruition. Skepticism is often mistaken for wisdom, because skepticism is often the wise course.

Yet skepticism for skepticism's sake is not wisdom anymore than predictions of revolution in Iran driven by intense desire to see it happen is.

In that vein, just what is the National Security Council? Well, it's a body, appointed directly by the President, that advises him on matters of national security. Simple, right? It's supposed to be somewhat non-political, because appointees don't have to be approved by Congress. The President can appoint whoever he wants, according to his own wisdom, instead of according to who he can get Congress to approve.

So the fact that Gary Sick managed to serve on this President appointed body advising the President under 3 Presidents of differing political parties is...well...impressive to put it mildly. Mr. Sick did not get that position by letting dreams carry him away on a cloud of analytical bliss, prognosticating the future he longed to see. In other words, Gary Sick is not telling us that what we want to happen WILL happen. He's trying to be realistic.

So what does he say will happen? He has no idea. That's how you know you can trust him. He said, "If anyone tells you that they know how this will turn out, treat their words with the same regard you would have for any fortune teller peering into a crystal ball." He has no ulterior motive when he says that.

Now some might have ulterior motives in their predictions. For example, let's say that I really, really want to believe that the government of Iran will collapse. I may read my desire into all the evidence, and this will result in my thinking that all the evidence points to my desired outcome. Conversely, I might become obsessed with the fact that no one in Iran is really pro-West or pro-US, and that might also taint my view of the evidence, and thus I might predict that the protests really don't mean much and in fact are petering out.

Gary Sick, however, says that he has no idea what's going to happen. He has no desired outcome. He doesn't have a horse in this race. He just wants us to understand the situation. And he really only wants us to understand one thing. It ain't over till the fat lady signs, and she's not even warming up yet.

His evidence? History, the best evidence. The fact that Iran just had a revolution relatively recently in 1979 is actually enormously helpful in analyzing the current situation. What happened in 1979? Well, the protests ebbed and flowed. Sometimes things got quiet for a while, but then they'd come back to life. The protests began in Jan 1978, and the Shah was not overthrown until Jan 1979. So if this revolution, if indeed it becomes a revolution, happens just like the revolution of 30 years ago, which is actually a fairly safe assumption, it will take a year. Even if it ultimately isn't a revolution, we can still expect the protests to continue for that long before things come to a head.

Gary says we should be thinking marathon, not sprint. So get comfortable, put your feet up, pop some popcorn, and watch history unfold on TV before your eyes. The clash of the titans in Iran is just beginning.
.

More on Iranian Perception of the USA


Iranian Clerics Upping the Ante

This just in from the Huffington Post:

10:34 AM ET -- Clerical association releases aggressive statement. The NIAC has the full statement [scroll to 10:24] by the Organization of Combatant Clergy released today. A reader notes, "The reference to 'moghuls' is very very harsh. The Mongols invaded Persia/Iran and basically killed every single person in plenty of cities at that time -- basically eradicating whole populations. Comparing the current regime to the Mongols - very strong statement - more than someone in the west would think."

Millions of informed and decent people who believe that their votes have been tampered with, and that their intellect has been insulted, and for the defence of their rights and dignity have in a spontaneous manner come into the streets to express their pain and sense of oppression. You (the regime) insult them, and have stolen thousands of them from the streets and from their homes and taken them to unknown places. You have attacked the students and to these people who call out God is Great or Ya Hossein - you attack them like Moghuls.

You dare to blame these attacks on the people themselves.

We strongly support Mr. Mousavi - especially against the accusations that all the unrest and damage is due to his actions. This damage is the responsibility of those who turned our city into a barracks. They should be identified, arrested and charged.

We Killed Your Son - Now You Owe Us $3,000

It's not a joke.

Iranian security forces killed a 19 year old boy. When his father went to the morgue to collect his body, he was ordered to pay $3,000 as a bullet fee, yes, a bullet fee, which is exactly what it sounds like. He couldn't pay, of course, because he lives in Iran, so they made an exception, but wouldn't let him bury his son in Tehran.

Read the story here, from the Wall Street Journal.
.

Bill Oreilly and Tony Blair Getting the Point

In last night's talking points - a brief segment at the beginning of his show - Bill Oreilly of Fox News criticized Obama's critics who think he should take a harder stance in favor of the protesters, citing Henry Kissenger. Hooray! Perhaps now radical neo-con Republicans will be alienated and seen for the political opportunists that they are.

Meanwhile, Tony Blair said: "[This is an] extraordinary and exciting moment... It's difficult because you want to stand up for people you sympathize with, but President Obama is right, you've got to be careful because your intervention could be used against the people protesting. ... [We can help] by focusing on it, by letting people know that the world is watching and is, in many senses, in solidarity with the people there." (H/T Huffington Post)

Be quiet now Captain America.
.

Understanding Shia Islam: Why Violence Won't End Protests

This is fascinating: "
The Shia, as we collectively know them, began life as a political protest over who should succeed the Prophet Muhammad after his death."

If you can understand what that means, then you can understand why the government crackdown in Iran is not going to end the protests in Iran like it did in China in 1989 at Tiananman Square.

So what does it mean? Well, basically, Islam was founded by a guy named Muhammed. Everyone knows that, right? Well, he wasn't just a prophet, but he was kind of a king too of all Muslims. They called this the Caliph. When he died, there was a question of who should succeed him. This accounts for the difference between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims.

The Shia thought that only the descendants of Muhammed ought to succeed him as Caliph. The Sunni disagreed. That's an over simplification and a bit anachronistic though. At that time, there weren't Sunni and Shia, there were just Muslims, some of whom had very strong opinions about who should be Caliph.

Well, the Shia didn't get their way, and a usurper (in their opinion) became Caliph. During the turbulent 50 years or so following the death of Muhammed in 632, there was an important descendant of Muhammed who was killed, and the Shia have been exalting martyrs ever since.

How does this fit in to what's going on in Iran? Well, Ahmadinejad has now found himself in the unfortunate position of being seen as an illegitimate usurper in a religious context where that is paradigmatic for everything that defines the Shia as a division of Islam. The reason why they are Shia is because they are standing against someone who usurped the rightful Caliph over a millennium and a half ago. This political/religious protest runs very, very deep in the blood of the Shia.

Furthermore, Shia glorifies martyrdom, because the rightful heir to the Caliphate was martyred. They pray to him as Roman Catholics pray to Mary. In fact, Khamenei in his sermon last Friday prayed to him. To invoke the martyr is to glorify martyrdom. Shia regularly practice self flagellation. Read this quote:

Those adults who engage in self-flagellation with knives, chains or blades, do so with a consciousness of the ceremonial nature of the act, keenly watched by onlookers, children and adults alike, who, though they have seen it all before, continue to be mesmerised by the sheer spectacle of it – the display. This excitement is, for most, mixed with an actual sense of profound identification with the suffering of Imam Hussain, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. Islamic history tells us that Hussain, a venerated saint in Shism, stood up to the tyrant of the day, Yazid, 14 centuries ago in order to save Islam and humanity from despotism and oppression, and to make the ultimate point about justice. During the 10-day siege, Hussain's camp suffered unimaginable trials and tribulations, which, to many Muslims, not just Shias, has no equal.

As you can see, martyrdom is more than just important in Shia Islam. They idealize martyrdom and even flagellate themselves as a matter of religious devotion. Furthermore, for Shia Muslims, there is no line separating church and state. Politics is religion is politics. Ahmadinejad is a heretic because he is a usurper to the rightfully elected President. Khamenei is a heretic as well because he is the one who allowed the election to be rigged and endorsed the usurper, making him a usurper himself. Thus the crowds have been chanting "Death to Khamenei".

The government can crack down all it wants, it can shed blood in the streets of Tehran all it wants, but the Shia Muslims of Iran will keep coming back for more, crying out, "Allah-o Akbar!" (God is great) the whole time.

The other day I was watching a video of the protesters, and it occurred to me that they looked like worshipers. It seemed just by watching them that what they were doing was a matter of religious devotion. Turns out that's very, very true.

When they cry out "Ya Hussein!" this is what they are referring to; all of it. Hussein is the name of the martyr, the grandson of Muhammed.
.

Monday, June 22, 2009

A History of US - Iran Relations

Irony in Iran: A new article today from the Guardian gives us a proper perspective on how Iranians view the US:

Iranians began their painful and bloody march toward democracy with the constitutional revolution of 1906. Only after the second world war did they finally manage to consolidate a freely elected government. Mossadeq was prime minister, and became hugely popular for taking up the great cause of the day, nationalisation of Iran's oil industry. That outraged the British, who had "bought" the exclusive right to exploit Iranian oil from a corrupt Shah, and the Americans, who feared that allowing nationalization in Iran would encourage leftists around the world.

In the summer of 1953 the CIA sent the intrepid agent Kermit Roosevelt – grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, who believed Americans should "walk softly and carry a big stick" – to Tehran with orders to overthrow Mossadeq. He accomplished it in just three weeks. It was a vivid example of how easy it is for a rich and powerful country to throw a poor and weak one into chaos.

With this covert operation, the world's proudest democracy put an end to democratic rule in Iran. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi returned to the Peacock Throne and ruled with increasing repression for a quarter-century. His repression produced the explosion of 1979 that brought reactionary mullahs to power. Theirs is the regime that rules Iran today.

Carrying a picture of Mossadeq today means two things: "We want democracy" and "No foreign intervention". These demands fit together in the minds of most Iranians. Desperate as they are for the political freedom their parents and grandparents enjoyed in the early 1950s, they have no illusion that foreigners can bring it to them. In fact, foreign intervention has brought them nothing but misery.

The US sowed the seeds of repression in Iran by deposing Mossadeq in 1953, and then helped bathe Iran in blood by giving Saddam Hussein generous military aid during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Militants in Washington who now want the US to intervene on behalf of Iranian protesters either are unaware of this history or delude themselves into thinking that Iranians have forgotten it. Some of them, in fact, are the same people who were demanding just last year that the US bomb Iran – an act which would have killed many of the brave young protesters they now hold up as heroes.

America's moral authority in Iran is all but non-existent. To the idea that the US should jump into the Tehran fray and help bring democracy to Iran, many Iranians would roll their eyes and say: "We had a democracy here until you came in and crushed it!"
.