Posts
A few weeks ago, Iran charged Miss Nebraska, Roxana Saberi, with being a spy and imprisoned her for eight years in what was, by all accounts, a kangaroo trial. This is par for the incredibly repressive and brutal theocracy - it is nothing that they have not done repeatedly, in one form or another, since coming to power in 1979. One would expect a Brit to be particularly sensitive to this, as Iran held UK sailors hostage two years ago. Enter the misguided David Blair of the Telegraph, who sees in the release a conciliatory gesture from Iran. In the absence of any formal contact, the [U.S. and Iran] communicate by sending signals. This may be the best way of understanding the release of Roxana Saberi, the Iranian-American journalist who was freed from jail in Tehran this week. I hate to disabuse Mr. Blair of his view, but Iran's release of Ms. Saberi is hardly a gesture of conciliation. What Iran did in subjecting Ms. Saberi to criminal sanction was a lawless and outrageous act in the first place. To credit Iran now with a "conciliatory gesture" that should earn good will for ending this outrage would be ludicrous. It would be nothing less than rewarding Iran for their lawlessness in the first place.
By reducing her sentence for alleged espionage, and allowing her to leave prison immediately, Iran may be sending a conciliatory signal to America. This move could be designed to deliver a message that not every member of Iran’s regime is interested in total confrontation with the West.
If Mr. Blair is unfamiliar with the power centers in Iran, there is really only one that matters when it comes to dealing with the U.S. - it is with the Supreme Guide, Ayatollah Khamenei. To suggest either that Ms. Saberi could have been tried for spying without Khamenei's approval or that she was released without his approval speaks of a fundamental lack of appreciation for how Iran is governed. And it also projects a Western style rationality to Iranian decision making that has no basis in fact. Mr. Blair wants to see a rational Iran, and therefore looks for even the remotest sign in lawless acts. But to be honest, Mr. Blair, if the theocracy in charge of Iran had the remotest of such leanings in their make-up, Ms. Saberi would not have have been charged and tried on a bogus charge of spying in the first place.
To the contrary, Iran's acts as regards Ms. Saberi are designed to establish the theocracy's lack of respect for the U.S. and a demonstration of its ability to act against Americans in any way it sees fit. The treatment of Ms. Saberi was not an act of conciliation, it was a shot across the bow. They are prepping for unconditional talks with Obama.
Showing posts with label Khamenei. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Khamenei. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Dhimmi's Eye View Of Iran's Release of Roxana Saberi
Monday, July 28, 2008
Collision Course With The Mad Mullahs
A total of 3,000 centrifuges is the commonly accepted figure for a nuclear enrichment program that surpasses the experimental stage and can be used as a platform for a full industrial-scale program that could churn out enough material for dozens of nuclear weapons. Iran on Thursday signaled it will no longer cooperate with International Atomic Energy Agency experts investigating for signs of nuclear weapons programs, confirming that the probe — launched a year ago with great expectations — was at a dead end. Read the entire article. Recent talks the United States held with Iran are aimed at creating legitimacy for a potential attack against Iranian nuclear facilities, defense officials speculated on Sunday as Defense Minister Ehud Barak headed to Washington for talks with senior administration officials. Read the entire article. If we are going to go to war with Iran over the nuclear issue - and I think it is inevitable - the sooner the better. Waiting will only benefit Iran, much like waiting through the mid-30's allowed the Nazi's to go from extreme weakness to a war machine of sufficient size that it cost tens of millions of lives to defeat. The problem is exponentially more dangerous when the topic under discussion is a nuclear arsenal. We forget the lesson of Nazi Germany at our peril.
The Iranian theocracy's dash towards a nuclear arsenal as picked up speed as they make no attempt now to engage in even the motions of cooperation on the nuclear issue. The U.S. changed its policy and met as part of unilateral negotiations with Iran to no avail. Ahmedinejad has announced a near doubling in centrifuge capacity at Natanz, turning out enriched uranium on an industrial scale. There are many meetings going on between U.S. and the Israeli government. The immediate question is whether President Bush will deal with this problem while he is still in office or whether he will kick it down the road. The former is seeming more likely.
_________________________________________________________
The mad mullahs race towards a nuclear weapon grows ever apace. On Saturday, Ahmedinejad announced that Iran had doubled the enrichment capacity of its Natanz plant to 6,000 centrifuges. Iran has no use for this nuclear fuel in any sort of civilian energy program. Nonetheless, as Fox reported:
Moreover, Iran has announced a complete halt to cooperation with the IAEA and their probe of the nature of Iran's nuclear program. This also from Fox News:
Iran says it plans to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment that ultimately will involve 54,000 centrifuges.
Coming from Iranian Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, the announcement compounded international skepticism about denting Tehran's nuclear defiance just five days after Tehran stonewalled demands from six world powers to suspend activities that can produce the fissile core of warheads.
Besides demanding a stop to uranium enrichment — which can create both fuel and the nuclear missile payloads — the international community also has been pressuring Tehran to cooperate with the IAEA in its probe of allegations that Tehran hid attempts to make nuclear arms.
That investigation was launched a year ago under a so-called "work plan" between the Vienna-based agency and Tehran.
Back then, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei hailed it as "a significant step forward" that — if honored by Iran — would fill in the missing pieces of Iran's nuclear jigsaw puzzle; nearly two decades of atomic work, all of it clandestine until revealed by dissidents nearly six years ago. And he brushed aside suggestions that Iran was using the work plan as a smoke screen to deflect attention away from its continued defiance of a U.N. Security Council ban on enrichment.
But the plan ran into trouble just months after it was put into operation. Deadline after deadline was extended because of Iranian foot-dragging. The probe, originally to have been completed late last year, spilled into the first months of 2008, and then beyond.
Iran remains defiant, saying evidence from the U.S. and other board members purportedly backing the allegations was fabricated, and on Thursday Aghazadeh appeared to signal that his country was no longer prepared even to discuss the issue with the Vienna-based IAEA. . . .
And a month ago, Bush radically reversed U.S. policy and took part directly in a meeting with Iran on its nuclear issue. The meeting, which also involved the EU-3, China and Russia was a joke, with Iran refusing to discuss nuclear enrichment then or in the future. Was that meeting designed to justify a U.S. attack on Iran? That is certainly looking more plausible as time goes on. This from the Jerusalem Post:
Barak will travel to Washington and New York and will hold talks with his counterpart Robert Gates, Vice President Dick Cheney, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Michael Mullen, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.
. . . IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi returned to Israel on Sunday from a week-long visit to the US as Mullen's guest. Ashkenazi held talks with Cheney, Hadley and other senior officials with a focus on the Iranian nuclear program.
"There is a lot of strategic thinking concerning Iran going on right now but no one has yet to make a decision what to do," said a top IDF officer, involved in the dialogue between Israel and the US. "We are still far away from the point where military officers are poring over maps together planning an operation."
In recent weeks, Mullen has said publicly that he is opposed to military action against Iran which would open a "third front" for the US military which is currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . .
Barak's talks in the US come a little over a week after the Bush administration sent its number three diplomat to Geneva to participate in European Union talks with Iran over its nuclear program.
The move led to reports that the US was changing its isolation tactic vis-Ã -vis Iran but Israeli defense officials speculated Sunday that the move was really a ploy to buy international support in the event that Bush decides to attack Iran in his last months in office.
"This way they will be able to say they tried everything," one official speculated. "This increases America's chances of gaining more public support domestically as well as the support of European nations which are today opposed to military action." . . .
Diplomatic officials have speculated that the Iran-US talks were also connected to the presidential elections.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Iran & The Threat To Civilization
The men who ordered the destruction of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie and the bombings of the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon, the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia are pursuing the nuclear program in Iran and with one goal in mind: to obtain The Bomb. Read the entire article. If you are not terrified, you are not paying attention. I had long hoped that Iran's theocracy would fall from the inside. Given time, that would be inevitable. But time is not on the side of civilization on this one. I am coming ever more to believe that we must act with force, and sooner rather than later.
It sure feels like 1937. That was the time frame when the world sat idly by (when not appeasing, at least) watching the growth of a malignant Nazi movement that would engulf it. Before 1938, it was a growth that could have been stopped in its tracks at minimal cost. It wasn’t – and the cost in lives and gold was on a scale unimaginable. This is not a history we can morally or ethically allow to repeat. Yet here we sit and watch as the Iranian theocracy, every bit as dangerous, bloodthirsty and immoral, grows in threat on a daily basis.
Reza Khalili is the alias of an Iranian who worked as a CIA agent while serving in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. He has written an article at PJM that bangs the drum on many of the key points regarding the existential threats the Iranian theocracy poses to the Middle East and civilization at large.
Far and away the key point is that the theocracy’s overriding goal is to export its revolution throughout the Middle East and world. The theocrats and the loyalists holding power in the IRGC see this as a theological necessity. Ultimately they want to bring about the 12th Imam. Their vision of hastening the 12th Imam’s return involves slaughter on a grand scale, chaos and nuclear war. They will not be dissuaded from that path without force.
Another major point is that Iran desires the U.S. to completely withdraw from Iraq. When that occurs, Iran plans to dominate Iraq just as it dominates Lebanon. For a host of reasons, that would be a "catastrophe for the Free World."
The key issue for us is, will we defeat this insane theocracy now, while the price in gold and blood is still low, or we will invite Ahmedinejad around for tea and chat while the stakes rise to the level of existential? The answer to that question lies between our electorate in November and the Knesset.
_______________________________________________________
This from Mr. Khalili writing at PJM:
And they want to destroy you.
After the Iranian Revolution, I was an officer in the Revolutionary Guards. I was also a spy working for the CIA, code name Wally. My position in the Guards gave me access to the Khomeini regime’s deep secrets and a firsthand look at the unfolding horror: torture, rapes, executions, assassinations, suicide bombers, training of terrorists, and the transfer of arms and explosives to other countries to support terrorist attacks. I risked my life and my family’s trying to expose this regime because I believed it should be stopped. Once again I incur such risks to bring awareness that lack of action endangers the world.
. . . I believed then, as I do now, that the mullahs would never abandon their ambitions, and that after 29 years of negotiations by Europe and world powers, the world has yet to understand that the mullahs will not change direction or behavior. In the early ’90s, the senior Bush administration and the CIA finally realized they were being duped — the mullahs’ promises never materialized. The CIA asked me to look for an Iranian who could testify that Iran was in the process of making a nuclear bomb. That request was later withdrawn.
Iran remains the main sponsor of terrorism around the world. Iranian consulates, embassies, airlines, and shipping line offices are the main hub for terrorist activities. Money, arms, and explosives are transferred through these centers to fund terrorist groups and jihadists. Quds Force units of the Revolutionary Guards use the Iranian consulates as their command and control centers to plan and carry out assassinations, kidnappings, and terrorist activities. The mullahs even transferred money and arms in state visits using their high-ranking officials, knowing full well that because of diplomatic immunity they would not be subject to search during such visits. As I reported to the CIA, these activities were closely coordinated through Iran’s foreign ministry, the ministry of intelligence, and the Revolutionary Guards.
And then there is the Syrian connection, which facilitates the Revolutionary Guards in training and arming Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, and Hamas, based in the Palestinian Territory. Syrian facilities and political channels are at the Revolutionary Guards’ disposal, expanding their terror network. The mullahs not only support Syria with massive financial aid in hundreds of millions of dollars but also share missile-delivery technology and other military armaments. The Quds Force leadership is in close contact with Syrian military leaders, coordinating terrorist activities throughout the Middle East.
As Iran pursued its nuclear ambitions over the past few years, it needed to keep U.S. forces on the defensive in Iraq so Washington would not think of invading Iran. Tehran’s strategy was to use the mullahs’ connection to the Shiite clergies and population in Iraq that had been built up years before the U.S invasion. The Guards had established Badr brigades that had been expanded into a division with Iraqi recruits during the Iran-Iraq war and had helped Ayatollah Hakim in establishing the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, currently one of Iraq’s most powerful political parties. Its goal is to put as much pressure on U.S. forces through terror attacks as it can so the U.S. administration won’t think of expanding the Iraq war, giving Iran time to accelerate its nuclear research and development.
Tehran knows full well it is in a race, and if it is able to perfect the technology, the West will have no choice but to live with a nuclear Iran. It also believes that after the current President Bush, the next U.S. administration (if led by a Democrat) will most likely reduce forces and slowly move out, leaving it for the Iraqis to sort things out, which ultimately will result in Iran’s domination of the region, with catastrophic consequences for the Free World. . . .
. . . The most radical Islamists control the government in Iran. The Revolutionary Guards’ reach is all-encompassing: they control the vital industries in Iran, serve as ministers in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s cabinet, are members of the Parliament, control events in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territory through their Quds Force, and expand their terror network throughout the world, all the while making inroads in nuclear enrichment and missile-delivery technology.
It is not an exaggeration to claim that the radicals belonging to the secretive society called “Hojjatieh,” who are devoted to the 12th Imam, have taken control of all vital positions in Iran. Ayatollah Janati, the head of the Guardian Council in charge of interpreting the constitution, supervising elections, and approving of candidates running for public office, has been very vocal about his opposition to the West: “We are anti-American and we are America’s enemy,” and “Non-Muslims are animals roaming the planet.” They believe that the 12th Imam supports their agenda of obtaining nuclear weapons and destroying Israel in order to start the chaos necessary for the final destruction of what they see as American imperialism and Israeli Zionism.
The Revolutionary Guards, with the help of North Korea, are making advancements in their ballistic missile program by expanding the reach of its Shahab missiles and the successful launch of its long range Kavoshgar 1 missile on February 4, 2008. These missiles are capable of reaching Europe. At the same time, they are moving full speed ahead with their nuclear enrichment activity by installing the new IR-2 centrifuges which can enrich uranium at a faster speed than the P1 model. Iran has installed 3,000 P1 centrifuges with the goal of expanding that number to 50,000 within five years. It is estimated that it will take 1,200 of the new centrifuges to produce enough material for one nuclear weapon in one year as opposed to 3000 units of the P1 model that does the same job. The Guards always believed in a dual process in their operations for their military projects, so if one failed or was sabotaged, the other would carry on. They are doing just that. There is word that in the mountainous region of Mazandaran province, in the north of Iran, the Guards are pursuing nuclear arms underground.
Mostafa Najjar, the current defense minister, is overseeing the enrichment process and the missile-delivery advancements, and his deputy, Ahmad Vahidi, is overseeing the proliferation of arms and missiles to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas in coordination with Syria.
Today, trying to fool the world, the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has publicly declared that pursuit and acquisition of atomic bombs are against Islam. But it was Khamenei himself, along with Hashemi Rafsanjani, Rezaei, and others in the leadership, who ordered the start of research and development of nuclear technology in the mid-80s.
Khamenei put out a statement to the world in 2008 that God would punish Iranians if they did not support the country’s disputed nuclear program, and any stop in the continuation of the nuclear work would be against God’s will. Ahmadinejad, in a recent 2008 speech, told the audience that the “enemy” (referring to the U.S. and Israel) and their superficial power are on a path to destruction, and that the countdown to their total destruction has begun.
The rulers in Iran believe it is their duty to prepare the circumstances for the reappearance of the 12th Imam. “Our Revolution’s main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, Imam Mahdi,” Ahmadinejad said during a speech in 2005 to leaders from across the country. Shiites believe the reappearance of the 12th Imam will bring justice and peace to the world by establishing Islam throughout the world. They believe he will reappear when the world has fallen into chaos. It is believed the chaos will start in Afghanistan and then move into Iraq, where there will be blood and destruction everywhere (already in the works) and from there to the world with burning dark clouds (nuclear war). The 12th Imam will then come to destroy the “Dajjal,” the False Messiah, free the world from oppression and aggression, and then bring justice where it will be heaven on earth for many years to come. It is said Jesus will reappear at the same time and fight alongside Mahdi.
Members of the Iranian leadership say they have a “signed contract” with the 12th Imam and are doggedly pursuing nuclear weapons to bring on that catastrophe. Iran’s president, Ahmadinejad, has said that Israel must be destroyed (2005 “World without Zionism” speech, “Israel must be wiped off the map”). This is no idle threat.
If the mullahs’ true intention is to provide electricity through nuclear energy for the Iranians (which they claim) — the same Iranians whose women, students, teachers, writers and union workers are being flogged, beaten, tortured and stoned to death, the same Iranians who are denied a free election or freedom of speech — then why wouldn’t they accept the comprehensive incentive package offered by the world leaders in full, scrap the enrichment process, and bring peace and prosperity to their nation?
The reason is that their belief in Islam’s conquest of the world through the coming of the 12th Imam mandates their actions, and — just as a suicide bomber — they are not even interested in their own survival and cannot be diverted from their chosen path. The question is: Can the world afford to sit idly by and wait for Armageddon
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Corruption and the Mullahs
'A BUNCH of turbaned thieves": So a member of the Iranian General Audit Office described leading Islamic Republic figures in a speech two weeks ago. On Wednesday, that official, Abbas Palizdar, was arrested by the secret police, ostensibly on orders from "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei.
The mad mullahs of Iran have been the greatest beneficiaries of the ever increasing oil prices, allowing them to keep their mess of an economy afloat. Iran's economy was in deep trouble in 2005. Even with high gas prices since, endemic corruption and a centralized economy where the rich wear turbans - or an IRGC uniform - have kept the economy on the edge of imploding. It is an economy made all the worse by Ahmedinejad, with inflation running above 25% and unemployment hitting new double digit highs each month.
The incredible corruption of the mullahs is no secret. What is unusual, however, is to hear it announced publicly and the turbaned ones named by a member of the Iranian General Audit Office - now jailed.
_____________________________________________________________
This from Amir Taheri writing in the NY Post:
Read the entire article. This seems to be part of the struggle ongoing between Ahmedinejad and the various other factions vieing for power and a big slice of the corruption pie. Much more on this by Mehdi Khalaji writing at Policy Watch.
Speaking at a university in Hamadan, west of Tehran, on May 27, and later on June 3, Palizdar claimed that "a mafia-style group of mullahs" is "plundering the country and sending the proceeds to foreign banks." He also said that the same "mafia" had assassinated two prominent officials who had stood in its way.
That the mullahs are filling their pockets hasn't been a secret for more than two decades. Iranians know which businesses are controlled by the turbaned heads and their "front men." What's new is that a senior official actually named names.
Palizdar claimed that former President Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani controls more than 300 businesses, making him the richest man in Iran. A small building contractor before the mullahs seized power, Rafsanjani has built an empire on government contracts that's now estimated to be worth several billion dollars.
Palizdar denounced many others:
* Ayatollah Muhammad Imami-Kashani, Tehran's Friday-prayer leader, and Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Nateq-Nuri, a former speaker of the Islamic parliament - who he called "leeches sucking the blood of our nation."
* Nasser Makarem-Shirazi, a pro-regime mullah from Qom, known to Iranians as "Sugar Ayatollah." Since 1995, he has controlled sugar imports through his son-in-law, Muhammad Moddallal.
* Ayatollah Muhammad Yazdi, a former chief justice, who holds agency rights for several German and French firms and is a silent partner in more than 100 businesses, some with offices in Europe.
* Ayatollah Ali Fallahian, a former minister for security and intelligence, who is wanted by the Criminal Court in Berlin for his alleged involvement in the 1992 assassination of Iranian dissidents there. Palizdar said Fallahian won "juicy government contracts" in exchange for a promise "not to spill the beans."
* Ayatollah Abbas Va'ez-Tabassi, who heads the Imam Reza Foundation, Iran's largest business conglomerate.
* Ayatollah Alam al-Huda - who Palizdar called the head of "a ring of corruption and money laundering" that includes hundreds of lesser-known clerics.
* Chief Justice Muhammad Hashemi-Shahroudi, a mullah of Iraqi origin - who Palizdar said had turned the Islamic Supreme Court into "the nerve center of corruption."
Palizdar charged that the mullahs are involved in smuggling, money laundering, bribery and influence peddling. Their business interests include airlines, transportation, hotels, mines, petrochemicals and arms factories. Rafsanjani reportedly holds a monopoly on trade with China while Vaez-Tabassi controls trade with Central Asia.
Palizdar's potentially most serious charge concerns the 2002 deaths of Gen. Ahmad Kazemi, a commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the minister of transport, Ahmad Dadman. The air crash that killed them, he said, may not have been accidental: "They had closed two airports used by mullahs to smuggle goods without paying customs duty."
When Palizdar first made his allegations two weeks ago, Tehran circles assumed he was acting for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who came to power promising to "clean the stables."
Ahmadinejad promised in an April speech to expose "a mafia-style organization" that he said dominates the nation's economy. And Palizdar had been a member of Tehran Mayor Ahmadinejad's faction in 2005.
. . . But as Palizdar was being sent to jail this week, Ahmadinejad's faction seemed anxious to disown him. "Palizdar has attacked and accused some clerics and simultaneously supported the government's anti-corruption campaign to put clerics and respectable figures at odds with the government," the pro-Ahmadinejad daily "Iran" editorialized.
The hardline daily Kayhan, controlled by the "supreme guide," went even further: "Palizdar was chosen by counterrevolutionaries as the right vehicle for propaganda," it said.
Clearly, the stage is being set for a new power struggle. Ahmadinejad is out to frighten his opponents by threatening to expose their corruption. The Revolutionary Guard is trying to force the mullahs to give it a bigger share of lucrative businesses. And Ahmadinejad's opponents want to clip his wings in case they have to make a deal with the Western powers. . . .
Monday, June 9, 2008
Eye On Iran
The boom of explosions swept across the high-walled compounds and minarets of this ancient Arab capital before dawn one day last week, as Shiite rebels battled for control of a mountain overlooking the city and its airport. . . . Read the entire article. This is wholly in keeping with the pronouncement of Sec. Def. Gates a few months ago, that "[e]verywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents - Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. . . ." When I traveled through the south on a last couple of visits, what I heard – and this is again on the point of militias being increasingly discredited, and this is from Iraqi Shiite leaders who were saying things like Iran is the true occupier of Iraq. They would say jokingly that the Iranians are now all Iraqi nationalists, which is a thinly-veiled swipe at some of the militias in some of these areas. Iran is doing all that it can to turn Iraq into Lebanon - both to export its revolution (the raison d'etre of the theocracy) and to end the single biggest threat to Iran's theocracy - a Shia dominated with real democracy on its boder that follows the traditional Shia school of quietism. The granite wall standing in between Iran and its goal to dominate Iraq is the U.S. military. Thus Iran is conducting propaganda offensive aimed at insuring that Iraq does not consumate a SOFA agreement. A SOFA agreement would establish the legal framework for the U.S. to maintain forces in Iraq after the end of the UN mandate in January. This from the WaPo today: Ahmad Zeidabadi, a journalist for the Tehran-based magazine Shahrvand-e Emrooz (Today's Citizen), said Iran is trying to sabotage the U.S.-Iraqi agreement. "The Iranian authorities want this pact not to be signed and to fail to prevent Iraq from turning into a fortress for anti-Iranian forces." The propaganda offensive and "carrots" Iran's Supreme Guide Khameini and his sidekick, Ahmedinejad, are dangling are none too subtle. Indeed, it is almost as if they are trying out for open mike night at a comedy club. The Washington Post is reporting that Iran is offering Iraq a military cooperation agreement as an alternative to the American presence. One would be hard pressed to imagine non-Sadrist Iraqis, facing no military threat other than from their east, containing their laughter over that Trojan horse. And there are several other side busters. Ever since World War II, we have been driven by a passionate desire to understand how mass genocide, terror states and global war came about – and how we can prevent them in the future. Read the entire article. We have to deal with Iran's theocracy. It is a true force for evil in the world. Doing so today will likely cost us. Doing so tomorrow will only cost us more, and more dearly Time is our enemy while Iran is the enemy of civilization.
It pays to always keep one eye on Iran - and this is an update of observations of late. Iran's theocracy is continuing its efforts to bring mayhem and death throughout the Middle East. Recent reports show Iran is behind the civil war in Yemen. In Iraq, Iran's proxies are feeling the heat as Iraqi and U.S. operational tempo has accelerated. Supreme Guide Ali Khameini and his sidekick, Ahmedinejad are waging an almost humorous propaganda offensive to sabotage the SOFA agreement being negotiated between the U.S. and Iraq. Lastly, Michael Ledeen writes a thought-provoking article on the nature of Iran's theocracy and the inexcusability of our failure to squarely meet this existential evil.
_____________________________________________________
In the post Next Moves In An Existential Chess Match, I listed many of the ongoing acts of mayhem, war and destruction being committed by Iran's theocracy as it seeks to export its revolution throughout the Middle East and the world. To add to that list is Iran's role in Yemen. This from the Washington Post:
"I believe this war is a proxy war," Yemeni lawmaker Ahmed Saif Hashed said in Sanaa, where civilians of the same Shiite sect as the rebels say they are facing increasing detentions, beatings and surveillance.
The rebellion is being mounted by Yemen's Hashemite Shiites, who ruled the country for more than a 1,000 years until an alliance of Shiite and Sunni military officers deposed them in 1962. Yemen's president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, belongs to the country's larger Shiite community, known as the Zaidis.
Giving the conflict a sectarian cast, his forces have been joined by Sunni tribesmen and extremists in battling the Hashemite rebels, whom the government says are supported by Iran. The rebels say they want only their share of development, resources and power.
"I think there is kind of a settling of accounts here against Iran," Hashed said.
This week, 22 clerics in Saudi Arabia published a statement equating the Hashemite rebels with the Shiite movement Hezbollah in Lebanon. "If they have a country, they humiliate and exert control in their rule over Sunnis," the clerics said, citing Iran and Iraq. "They sow strife, corruption and destruction among Muslims and destabilize security in Muslim countries . . . such as Yemen."
Last year, Yemen's defense minister published what was widely interpreted as a fatwa, or binding religious decree, sanctioning Sunnis to use force against the northern Shiite rebels. The largely impoverished nation of 23 million is majority Sunni. . . .
Iran's proxy forces are under extreme pressure in Iraq of late. The pace of U.S. and Iraqi attacks against Iran's proxy forces in Iraq have accelerated with the capitulation of Sadr's two main bases in Basra and Sadr City.
As to Iran's increasing agitation over the SOFA agreement, first some background. If you have not read Col. H.R. McMaster's speech on Iraq and his comments on Iranian actions in Iraq, you will find it here. Some of the highlights include:
. . . In the case of what Iran is doing in Iraq, it is so damn obvious to anybody who wants to look into it, I think, that is drop the word “alleged” and say what they’re doing, which is, we know for a fact organizing and directing operations against the government of Iraq and against our forces – the government of Iraq forces and our forces – we know they have done that, certainly in the past. We know that they are supplying them with weapons and the most effective weapons that they used to attack the Iraqi people and our forces and these include the long-range high payload rockets that have been coming in from Iraq as well as the explosively formed projectile roadside bombs that come from Iran.
We know that they have trained forces in the employment of these munitions - and in pretty large numbers. . . .
We know for a fact that they have directed assassination operations. . . .
We know that they ostensibly have supported this government but have armed, equipped and trained a militia that has been attacking the very government they ostensibly support. And this is not just something in Basra, this is last year. This is in Nasariyah, this is Samwa, this is in Diwaniyahm, this is in Amarah and it was in Karbala in August 26th and 27th of last year. And now again in Basra. . . .
Mahmoud the Mouth has stated that the SOFA agreement is meant "to turn the Iraqis into American slaves." That is projection on a scale that our own far left ought to recognize. And from Supreme Guide, a little more honesty, at least - "Occupiers who interfere in Iraq's affairs through their military and security might ... are [Iraq's] main problems. . . . That a foreign element gradually interferes in all Iraqi affairs and expands its domination on all aspects of life is the main obstacle in the way of progress and prosperity of the Iraqi nation." Now that is honesty. I am sure many a non-Sadrist in Iraq was nodding their head at that one also, just not in agreement with Khamenei's identification of whom the "occupier" might be.
Lastly, Michael Ledeen wrote a very thoughtful article, "Iran and the Problem of Evil" in the WSJ several days ago. He believes, as do I, that Iran's theocracy is the true and modern embodiement of evil, no different in threat or determination than the Nazis and other murderous movements of the twentieth century that saw murder, mayhem, war and genocide as acceptable tactics to attain their end. This from Michael Ledeen:
Above all, we have sought answers to several basic questions: Why did the West fail to see the coming of the catastrophe? Why were there so few efforts to thwart the fascist tide, and why did virtually all Western leaders, and so many Western intellectuals, treat the fascists as if they were normal political leaders, instead of the virulent revolutionaries they really were? Why did the main designated victims – the Jews – similarly fail to recognize the magnitude of their impending doom? Why was resistance so rare?
Most eventually accepted a twofold "explanation": the uniqueness of the evil, and the lack of historical precedent for it. Italy and Germany were two of the most civilized and cultured nations in the world. It was difficult to appreciate that a great evil had become paramount in the countries that had produced Kant, Beethoven, Dante and Rossini.
How could Western leaders, let alone the victims, be blamed for failing to see something that was almost totally new – systematic mass murder on a vast scale, and a threat to civilization itself? Never before had there been such an organized campaign to destroy an entire "race," and it was therefore almost impossible to see it coming, or even to recognize it as it got under way.
The failure to understand what was happening took a well-known form: a systematic refusal to view our enemies plain. Hitler's rants, whether in "Mein Kampf" or at Nazi Party rallies, were often downplayed as "politics," a way of maintaining popular support. They were rarely taken seriously as solemn promises he fully intended to fulfill. Mussolini's call for the creation of a new Italian Empire, and his later alliance with Hitler, were often downplayed as mere bluster, or even excused on the grounds that, since other European countries had overseas territories, why not Italy?
Some scholars broadened the analysis to include other evil regimes, such as Stalin's Russia, which also systematically murdered millions of people and whose ambitions similarly threatened the West. Just as with fascism, most contemporaries found it nearly impossible to believe that the Gulag Archipelago was what it was. And just as with fascism, we studied it so that the next time we would see evil early enough to prevent it from threatening us again.
By now, there is very little we do not know about such regimes, and such movements. . . .
Yet they are with us again, and we are acting as we did in the last century. The world is simmering in the familiar rhetoric and actions of movements and regimes – from Hezbollah and al Qaeda to the Iranian Khomeinists and the Saudi Wahhabis – who swear to destroy us and others like us. Like their 20th-century predecessors, they openly proclaim their intentions, and carry them out whenever and wherever they can. Like our own 20th-century predecessors, we rarely take them seriously or act accordingly. More often than not, we downplay the consequences of their words, as if they were some Islamic or Arab version of "politics," intended for internal consumption, and designed to accomplish domestic objectives.
Clearly, the explanations we gave for our failure to act in the last century were wrong. The rise of messianic mass movements is not new, and there is very little we do not know about them. Nor is there any excuse for us to be surprised at the success of evil leaders, even in countries with long histories and great cultural and political accomplishments. We know all about that. So we need to ask the old questions again. Why are we failing to see the mounting power of evil enemies? Why do we treat them as if they were normal political phenomena, as Western leaders do when they embrace negotiations as the best course of action?
No doubt there are many reasons. One is the deep-seated belief that all people are basically the same, and all are basically good. Most human history, above all the history of the last century, points in the opposite direction. But it is unpleasant to accept the fact that many people are evil, and entire cultures, even the finest, can fall prey to evil leaders and march in lockstep to their commands. Much of contemporary Western culture is deeply committed to a belief in the goodness of all mankind; we are reluctant to abandon that reassuring article of faith. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, we prefer to pursue the path of reasonableness, even with enemies whose thoroughly unreasonable fanaticism is manifest.
. . . None of the democracies adequately prepared for war before it was unleashed on them in the 1940s. None was prepared for the terror assault of the 21st century. The nature of Western politics makes it very difficult for national leaders – even those rare men and women who see what is happening and want to act – to take timely, prudent measures before war is upon them. Leaders like Winston Churchill are relegated to the opposition until the battle is unavoidable. . . .
Then, as now, the initiative lies with the enemies of the West. Even today, when we are engaged on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is little apparent recognition that we are under attack by a familiar sort of enemy, and great reluctance to act accordingly. This time, ignorance cannot be claimed as an excuse. If we are defeated, it will be because of failure of will, not lack of understanding. As, indeed, was almost the case with our near-defeat in the 1940s.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Taheri On Talking With Mullahs
In a report released this week, the International Atomic Energy Agency expressed "serious concern" that the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to conceal details of its nuclear weapons program, even as it defies U.N. demands to suspend its uranium enrichment program. Read the entire article.
I wrote a post several days ago (see here) on the many naive aspects of Obama's "new" plan to unilaterally and unconditionally - but with preperation - engage Iran's theocracy. Iranian columnist Amir Taheri weighs in on the same topic today, making many of the same points.
_______________________________________________________
This from Amir Taheri in the WSJ today:
Meanwhile, presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama – in lieu of a policy for dealing with the growing threat posed by the Islamic Republic – repeats what has become a familiar refrain within his party: Let's talk to Iran.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with wanting to talk to an adversary. But Mr. Obama and his supporters should not pretend this is "change" in any real sense. Every U.S. administration in the past 30 years, from Jimmy Carter's to George W. Bush's, has tried to engage in dialogue with Iran's leaders. They've all failed.
Just two years ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice proffered an invitation to the Islamic Republic for talks, backed by promises of what one of her advisers described as "juicy carrots" with not a shadow of a stick. At the time, I happened to be in Washington. Early one morning, one of Ms. Rice's assistants read the text of her statement (which was to be issued a few hours later) to me over the phone, asking my opinion. I said the move won't work, but insisted that the statement should mention U.S. concern for human- rights violations in Iran.
"We don't wish to set preconditions," was the answer. "We could raise all issues once they have agreed to talk." I suppose Ms. Rice is still waiting for Iran's mullahs to accept her invitation, even while Mr. Obama castigates her for not wanting to talk.
The Europeans invented the phrase "critical dialogue" to describe their approach to Iran. They negotiated with Tehran for more than two decades, achieving nothing.
. . . The Islamic Republic does not know how to behave: as a nation-state, or as the embodiment of a revolution with universal messianic pretensions. Is it a country or a cause?
A nation-state wants concrete things such as demarcated borders, markets, access to natural resources, security, influence, and, of course, stability – all things that could be negotiated with other nation-states. A revolution, on the other hand, doesn't want anything in particular because it wants everything.
. . . The problem that the world, including the U.S., has today is not with Iran as a nation-state but with the Islamic Republic as a revolutionary cause bent on world conquest under the guidance of the "Hidden Imam." The following statement by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the "Supreme leader" of the Islamic Republic – who Mr. Obama admits has ultimate power in Iran -- exposes the futility of the very talks Mr. Obama proposes: "You have nothing to say to us. We object. We do not agree to a relationship with you! We are not prepared to establish relations with powerful world devourers like you! The Iranian nation has no need of the United States, nor is the Iranian nation afraid of the United States. We . . . do not accept your behavior, your oppression and intervention in various parts of the world."
So, how should one deal with a regime of this nature? The challenge for the U.S. and the world is finding a way to help Iran absorb its revolutionary experience, stop being a cause, and re-emerge as a nation-state.
Whenever Iran has appeared as a nation-state, others have been able to negotiate with it, occasionally with good results. In Iraq, for example, Iran has successfully negotiated a range of issues with both the Iraqi government and the U.S. Agreement has been reached on conditions under which millions of Iranians visit Iraq each year for pilgrimage. An accord has been worked out to dredge the Shatt al-Arab waterway of three decades of war debris, thus enabling both neighbors to reopen their biggest ports. Again acting as a nation-state, Iran has secured permission for its citizens to invest in Iraq.
When it comes to Iran behaving as the embodiment of a revolutionary cause, however, no agreement is possible. There will be no compromise on Iranian smuggling of weapons into Iraq. Nor will the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps agree to stop training Hezbollah-style terrorists in Shiite parts of Iraq. Iraq and its allies should not allow the mullahs of Tehran to export their sick ideology to the newly liberated country through violence and terror.
As a nation-state, Iran is not concerned with the Palestinian issue and has no reason to be Israel's enemy. As a revolutionary cause, however, Iran must pose as Israel's arch-foe to sell the Khomeinist regime's claim of leadership to the Arabs.
As a nation, Iranians are among the few in the world that still like the U.S. As a revolution, however, Iran is the principal bastion of anti-Americanism. Last month, Tehran hosted an international conference titled "A World Without America." Indeed, since the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, Iran has returned to a more acute state of revolutionary hysteria. Mr. Ahmadinejad seems to truly believe the "Hidden Imam" is coming to conquer the world for his brand of Islam. He does not appear to be interested in the kind of "carrots" that Secretary Rice was offering two years ago and Mr. Obama is hinting at today.
Mr. Ahmadinejad is talking about changing the destiny of mankind, while Mr. Obama and his foreign policy experts offer spare parts for Boeings or membership in the World Trade Organization. Perhaps Mr. Obama is unaware that one of Mr. Ahmadinejad's first acts was to freeze Tehran's efforts for securing WTO membership because he regards the outfit as "a nest of conspiracies by Zionists and Americans."
. . . The Islamic Republic might welcome unconditional talks, but only if the U.S. signals readiness for unconditional surrender. Talk about talking to Iran and engaging Mr. Ahmadinejad cannot hide the fact that, three decades after Khomeinist thugs raided the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, America does not understand what is really happening in Iran.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
A Step Closer To A First Strike Against Iran
The nation's top military officer said yesterday that the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" as one of several options against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government's "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq. The government of Iran continues to supply weapons and other support to extremists in Iraq, despite repeated promises to the contrary, and is increasingly complicit in the death of U.S. soldiers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Friday in a stark new assessment of Iranian influence. Read the entire article.
Iran is arming, training and funding a proxy war in Iraq with the goal of driving out the U.S. and "Lebanizing" Iraq. Recently I wrote a post, The Next Moves In An Existential Chess Match, stressing that we need to conduct at least a limited attack on Iran and forecast that such a course of action was well into the planning stages. Yesterday, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Sec. of Defense raised the spectre of military operations against Iran and a Pentagon briefing on the degree of Iran's malign and deadly involvement in Iraq is planned for Monday. Iran's Qods force appears squarely in the crosshairs.
________________________________________________________
This from the Washington Post:
Read the entire article. The smoking gun question is pure leftist dissimulation nearing the degree of dislocation from reality displayed by 9-11 truthers. The Qods Force and IRGC report directly to Iran's Supreme Guide, Ali Khamenei. To suggest that Iran's proxy war in Iraq is occurring without the theocracy's knowledge and approval is simply ludicrous.
Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a conflict with Iran would be "extremely stressing" but not impossible for U.S. forces, pointing to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force.
"It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," he said at a Pentagon news conference. Speaking of Iran's intentions, Mullen said: "They prefer to see a weak Iraq neighbor. . . . They have expressed long-term goals to be the regional power."
Mullen made clear that he prefers a diplomatic solution and does not expect imminent action. "I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the immediate future," he said.
Mullen's statements and others by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently signal new rhetorical pressure on Iran by the Bush administration amid what officials say is increased Iranian provision of weapons, training and financing to Iraqi groups that are attacking and killing Americans.
In a speech Monday, Gates said Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." He said war would be "disastrous" but added that "the military option must be kept on the table, given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat."
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who was nominated this week to head all U.S. forces in the Middle East, is preparing a briefing soon on increased Iranian involvement in Iraq, Mullen said. The briefing will detail, for example, the discovery in Iraq of weapons that were very recently manufactured in Iran, he said.
"The Iranian government pledged to halt such activities some months ago. It's plainly obvious they have not," Mullen said. He said unrest in the Iraqi city of Basra had highlighted a "level of involvement" by Iran that had not been clear previously.
"The Iranian government pledged to halt such activities some months ago. It's plainly obvious they have not," Mullen said. He said unrest in the Iraqi city of Basra had highlighted a "level of involvement" by Iran that had not been clear previously.
But while Mullen and Gates have said that the government in Tehran must know of Iranian actions in Iraq, Mullen said he has "no smoking gun which could prove that the highest leadership is involved. . . .
And the International Herald Tribune adds to the story:
The chairman, Admiral Michael Mullen, said he was "extremely concerned" about "the increasingly lethal and malign influence" by the government of Iran and the Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, a special force that aids and encourages Islamic militants around the world. The Quds Forces in Iran were created during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and report directly to the leadership of Iran's theocratic government.
Pentagon concerns about Iranian influence in neighboring Iraq is nothing new, but the content and tone of Mullen's remarks left the impression that far from abating, the worries about Iran have intensified in recent months.
"The Iranian government pledged to halt such activities some months ago," Mullen said. "It's plainly obvious they have not. Indeed, they seem to have gone the other way."
The discovery of weapons caches in Iraq, with devices bearing stamps that indicate they were manufactured quite recently, run contrary to the Iranian promises not to interfere in Iraq, the admiral said. He conceded that he had "no smoking gun" to prove direct involvement by the very highest echelons in Tehran, but he said he found it hard to believe that all the top leaders were ignorant of recent developments.
The Pentagon is sufficiently concerned about Iran's apparently deepening involvement in Iraq that it plans a briefing in the near future by General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, to publicize the caches of weapons, some of which are believed to have been used against U.S. troops in the recent fighting in Basra, in southern Iraq. . . .
"I believe recent events, especially the Basra operation, have revealed just how much and just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability," Mullen said.
. . . Mullen acknowledged that the U.S. military was being stretched thin by the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, he said, "it would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability." As for Iranian motives, Mullen said he believed the leadership in Tehran hopes for a weak Iraq, so that Iran can increase its influence in the region.
. . . Mullen said Iranian influence in Iraq goes beyond shipment of weapons. "They continue to train Iraqis in Iran to come back and fight Americans and the coalition," he said. Reiterating earlier accusations, he asserted that Iranian leaders "continue to broadly support terrorists in other parts of the region," including the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas.
"And in fact, we're seeing some evidence that they're supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan," Mullen said.
It would seem likely that this is the first shot in the media war to prep the homefront and Iraq for an action against Iran. I would suspect that the trigger will not be pulled on even a limited attack on Iran until the U.S. is reasonably sure that it has the Mahdi Army elements under control, in particular in Baghdad. With operations ongoing to take control of Sadr City from the Mahdi Army and with both Petraeus and Odierno scheduled to appear before Congressional hearings prior to assuming their new commands, I would expect American raids on Iran, if they are to occur, to wait until the end of June. And I would imagine that if Iran strikes back, we will see a full scale attack on Iran's nuclear program.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Taheri on Sadr's Closing Gambit
RIAD al-Noori liked to boast that a "host of angels" protected him, along with his 250 heavily armed bodyguards. Yet, he has just been gunned down in his home in Najaf, Iraq's principal "holy" city, by a three-man hit team that managed to get away without any of the angels or bodyguards making a move. Read the entire article.
The Iraq government is pushing quickly ahead to capitalize on its gains against the militias, and particularly Sadr's, in the wake of the Basra offensive. Sadr has taken a dangerous turn in asking the Iranian clerics of Qom for a fatwa on whether the Mahdi Army should disband, refusing acknowledge the primacy of Iraq's elected government and refusing to rely on Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani - who has already publicly announced his support for the government to disarm all militias. And in a further blow to Sadr, his right hand mand - and brother in law - is assassinated in Najaf, quite possibly in revenge for earlier murders he himself had masterminded against other Shia clerics.
_____________________________________________________
This today from Iranian columnist Amir Taheri:
Noori was a bad man but an important player in the dirtiest corner of Iraqi Shiite politics. He headed the special bureau of Muqtada al-Sadr, the maverick mullah sponsored by Tehran. Himself a mullah, Noori was also married to Muqtada's favorite sister. The two were as thick as thieves. More importantly, perhaps, Noori distributed a good part of the Iranian money in Iraq.
Noori's removal from the scene leaves Muqtada without his eminence grise and his Mahdi Army without its ideologist.
Noori, whose family hails from the Iranian province of Mazandaran, earned notoriety in April 2003 when he organized the murder in Najaf of two prominent clerical opponents of Saddam Hussein just as the Ba'athist regime was collapsing everywhere. The two were Majid Mussawi Kho'i and Heydar al-Rufaii, moderate and reform-minded theologians who had welcomed the US-led Coalition's war of liberation.
A few months later, the transitional authority under Ambassador Paul Bremmer issued an arrest warrant for both Noori and Sadr. But an attempt at arresting the two men led to an armed showdown in Najaf, and Bremmer was asked by his Washington bosses to back down. Nevertheless, Iraqi police managed to arrest Noori and prepared a strong case to try him on a charge of multiple murders.
Soon, however, the case was put on the backburner by Ibrahim Jaafari, the first elected prime minister of new Iraq, in a bid to placate the Sadrists and their Iranian backers. Noori was allowed to escape from prison and join Muqtada in starting the Mahdi Army.
The fact that Noori died on exactly the same day that he and his cohorts had killed Khoei and Rufaii five years ago makes the episode look like an execution.
Having allied himself with the mullahs of Tehran in their bid to seize control of Basra, Iraq's second largest city and most important port, Sadr is clearly on the run. The latest rumors claim that his Iranian masters have asked him to leave the "holy" city of Qom and return to Iraq.
To muddy the waters, Sadr has announced that he has written to senior ayatollahs in Najaf and Qom seeking fatwas with regard to the fate of his Mahdi Army. If the ayatollahs rule that it must disband, it will, Sadr promises. If, to the contrary, they rule that it should stick around, it will, keeping its illegal weapons.
Sadr's move is clearly designed to undermine Iraq's still-fragile democracy.
. . . The fact that Sadr included the mullahs of Qom, including two of his Iranian teachers there, shows that he doesn't regard Iraq as a sovereign state whose affairs ought to be decided within its borders.
In the Khomeinist system, "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei is designated as "leader of the Islamic ummah" as a whole. One must assume that the Qom mullahs to whom Sadr wrote wouldn't issue a fatwa on Iraq without clearing it with their "supreme guide."
That means that Sadr is trying to transform Iraq into a de facto province of the Islamic Republic, just as Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and his associates are seeking a similar fate for Lebanon.
Sadr may argue that such concepts as nation state, democracy and constitutional rule are Western inventions not binding on Muslims. Most Iraqis, however, don't wish to be ruled even by the mullahs of Najaf, let alone Qom and Tehran.
. . . Sadr may be trying to replicate the move of Lebanese Hezbollah, which wants its bread buttered on both sides - having seats in the parliament and the Council of Ministers while maintaining a private army financed by a foreign power. So far, none of the ayatollahs has responded to Sadr's letters. Let's hope none will.
The Iraqi parliament has decided to disband the militias. Its writ must be obeyed. Any attempt by the ayatollahs to second-guess the parliament and the Council of Ministers could provoke a crisis that would harm Iraq.
In rule by fiat, as was the case under Saddam Hussein, a single despot exercised power. In rule by the gun, a few thousand militiamen and other criminals project power through violence. In rule by fatwa, half a dozen mullahs claim the power of life and death over a nation. Only in a system based on free elections does everyone have a share of power.
Iraq has said goodbye to rule by fiat and is in no mood to succumb to rule by fatwa. The militias must be disarmed so that the new Iraqi state can grow.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Sadr Calls For Attacks On U.S. Troops & Endorses A Theocracy
Muqtada Al-Sadr: . . . It is the duty of the Al-Sadr movement and of the Iraqi people to strive to gradually liberate Iraq. The liberation of Iraq does not mean only bearing arms. There is also cultural liberation, social liberation, military liberation, and so on. The assault against Islam is not only military. It is both cultural and military, and it requires, at any given period, diversification of the resistance. But the liberation of Iraq remains a national duty, and a primary goal of the Al-Sadr movement. . . . Read the entire transcript and watch the video.
Moqtada al Sadr, leader of the Mahdi Militia movement in Iraq, has given an interview on al Jazeera that aired Friday, March 28 and in which he called for his followers to attack U.S. and coallition soldiers. This certainly sounds like the end to the ceasefire, at least in so far as U.S. forces are concerned. And Sadr states that he shares the same ideology as Iran's theocratic rulers.
_______________________________________________________
Sadr has given an interview justifying the continued existence of his Mahdi milia as an armed organization on the presence of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and called upon his followers to attack the U.S. This certainly sounds like the end of any cease-fire, at least as far as we are concerned. Sadr says that expects the U.S. will be "vanquished as it was in Vietnam."
And if there was ever any doubt that Sadr wants to see theocratic rule in Iraq, his interview should dispel it. He states that he shares the same ideology as Iran's theocratic ruler, the Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei. This from a MEMRI translation of the interview aired on al Jazeera March 28, 2008:
"It is true that Saddam was occupying Iraq with his dictatorship and his reckless policies, which were hundreds of miles removed from reason - policies that were, in fact, devoid of any reason. However, the military intervention of the occupying forces of all nationalities does not constitute liberation. The proof is that we did not get rid of Saddam or the Ba'thists. They are still around and still have a negative influence in Iraq.
"The second thing is that the American influence on the Iraqis is even more negative than that of the former Ba'th Party. The Iraqi people still suffers as it did in the days of the Saddam - there are no services, there is a lack of security, and we still suffer from all the things we suffered from in the past. Therefore, this was occupation, not liberation. I call it occupation. I have said in recent years: Gone is the 'little Satan,' and in came the 'Great Satan.'"
Interviewer: "After five years of war, do you still believe that Iraq is occupied?"
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "Bush used to say that his picture would hang in all the Iraqi homes. No, sir. His picture is now trampled underfoot by the Iraqis."
Interviewer: "But is Iraq still occupied by the American forces?"
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "Yes, it is, and American popularity is dropping daily - why daily? It is dropping by the minute." . . .
Interviewer: "Do you consider acts of resistance to be legitimate when directed against these forces, which you call 'occupying forces?'"
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "No one can deny [the right] to conduct resistance. No human mind would deny it. Resistance is the legitimate right of all peoples. Resistance automatically appears wherever there is occupation. Allah willing, the U.S. will be vanquished, just like it was in Vietnam."
Interviewer: "Do you support any armed resistance against these forces, which you label 'occupiers?'"
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "This is the reasonable right..."
Interviewer: "Do you support it? Do you support armed resistance against the forces you call 'occupiers?'"
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "Against the occupiers - yes, but not against others."
Interviewer: "Since you claim that Iraq is now occupied, and that the occupiers are the Americans, do you support conducting acts of armed resistance, in order to liberate Iraq from the occupying American forces, as you call them?"
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "On condition that these acts do not harm the Iraqi people."
Interviewer: "I will get to that. We will talk later about your general political position. Do you openly support these acts?"
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "Yes, I do."
Interviewer: What do you mean when you say 'on condition that they do not harm the Iraqi people?'"
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "For example, that the battles should not be waged within the city. This is just one example of how to avoid harming the Iraqi people. The targets should be hit accurately, so that others will not be harmed. The people who conduct resistance know these things better than me."
Interviewer: "What we abroad understood was that you disbanded the Al-Mahdi Army, because you had lost control over it."
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "The Al-Mahdi Army is under control, or at least most of it. They are obedient, loyal, and faithful. They are even capable of gradually liberating Iraq, Allah willing, along with some other resistance forces." . . .
"This will be the army of the Reformer [the Mahdi], Allah willing. At the end of time, the Mahdi will appear, and if by that time, we are still around, and if we are capable mentally, physically, militarily, and in terms of faith, we will all be his soldiers, Allah willing. Hence, the Al-Mahdi Army is a matter of faith, and it cannot be disbanded."
Interviewer: "What is the strategic goal of the Al-Mahdi Army?"
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "At present, it is to liberate Iraq, and to defend the Iraqi people in times of crisis, and at the moment Iraq is in a crisis - it is occupied - and should be liberated."
Interviewer: "So you state clearly that the goal of the Al-Mahdi Army is..."
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "To defend Iraq. I never have and never will deny this."
Interviewer: "So you continue with this?"
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "Of course, and if I’m not around - if I am killed, if I die, retire, or whatever - the goal of the Al-Mahdi Army will remain the liberation of Iraq."
Interviewer: "Let me say that this comment might sound peculiar to many..."
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "It will sound peculiar only to the Americans." . . .
"There are plans to divide Iraq - to divide what has already been divided, if I may say so. The Al-Sadr movement must oppose this, and strive to maintain the unity of the Iraqi land and people under any circumstances. Another important goal is to make society religious, rather than secular. People keep talking about an 'Islamic government' and so on. What is more important is to make society, not just the government, Islamic. An Islamic government without an Islamic society cannot..."
Interviewer: "You mentioned your opposition to the division of Iraq. What exactly did you mean? Did you mean the partitioning of Iraq into independent countries, or do you consider federalism and decentralization to be part of this division? People talk about a district in the south, another in the north, the center, the west... What do you mean?"
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "If federalism does not entail the division of Iraq, it is fine. The important thing is that the occupation is an obstacle to federalism. There can be no federalism as long as there is occupation. As long as there is occupation in Iraq, federalism will constitute the partitioning of the country, even if it is centralized."
Interviewer: "You say this unequivocally?"
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "Yes. If there was no occupation, my answer would be different. Then there would be room for discussion." . . .
Interviewer: "Do you fear there will be more sectarian violence in Iraq in the near future? I am not talking about the resistance, but about internal violence."
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "Sectarian violence? It’s possible, because the Americans are in Iraq, and they are constantly touching on this sensitive spot - Shiites against Sunnis, Kurds against Arabs... They are always... I have seen this on TV or somewhere... The Americans are responsible even for the car bombs. . . .
"The Al-Sadr movement is Islamic even more than it is Iraqi. An attack against any Islamic country or people will mean that the Al-Sadr movement will become an interested party."
Interviewer: "In what way?"
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "It will defend Islam however necessary. It will do whatever it can at the time. If any Islamic or Arab country is attacked, the Al-Sadr movement will be an interested party." . . .
Interviewer: "How do you view Iran’s role in Iraq, and what are your relations with the Iranian leadership?"
Muqtada Al-Sadr: "First of all, I don’t do anything in secret. It is all out in the open. I try to maintain good relations with everybody. With regard to the Iranians and the Iranian Republic... In a previous meeting with Khamenei, during a pilgrimage, I told him that we share the same ideology, but that politically and militarily, I would not be an extension of Iran, and that there were negative things that Iran was doing in Iraq. I mentioned to him a few things that Iran needs to rectify with regard to Iraq. Iran committed mistakes that it should not have made."
Sadr is dangerous. We made a tremendous tactical error by not dealing with him in 2004, as there is little doubt that there will be a day of reckoning. Even with support for Sadr waning substantially in Iraq, he is being propped up by Iran to use in their own game of chess for influence in Iraq - whatever the cost in blood.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Taheri Sees An Iranian Hand In Basra
It was bound to happen and may well be happening right now: a war between the Islamic Republic in Iran and the new Iraq. Read the entire article.
Iranian columnist Amir Taheri opines on the influence in Basra and their extensive support for the rebels in Basra.
____________________________________________________
This today from Amir Taheri writing in the NY Post:
Much of the media have portrayed the latest battles for Basra, and attempts by armed groups to undermine the recently improved security in Baghdad, as a power struggle among rival Shiite factions.
In this analysis, three Shiite factions - the Fadila (Virtue), the Dawa (The Call) and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq - that support Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's coalition government are trying to disarm the remnants of the Mahdi Army of the elusive mullah Muqtada Sadr.
But that explanation has several problems.
To start with, it is the regular Iraqi army - not any Shiite armed faction - that is doing the fighting in Basra. To underline that point, Maliki went to Basra to supervise operations personally.
And the kind of fighting witnessed in Basra is different from the usual militia operations.
This is a war of position, with units acting as detachments of a regular army trying to deny the Iraqi government forces control of specific territories. The fighters defying the Iraqi army may be Iraqi irregulars, even nominal members of the Mahdi Army - but those leading them are acting as textbook regular-army commanders.
At least some of the officers in charge of the rebel units may be seconded from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as part of a broader plan to control the Basra region, and thus the lifeline of the Iraqi economy.
. . . The type of weapons used in both Basra and Baghdad also suggests at least some outside involvement. The rebels in Basra are using a large number of armored vehicles to move men and materiel around - something no other Shiite militia, and certainly not the Mahdi Army, had ever done. They're also using heavy artillery, mobile rocket launchers and a sophisticated communications system unavailable to militias.
Elements of the Mahdi Army may provide the visible face of the rebellion, but there is no evidence that the militia (supposing it even still exists as an organized force) is the sole star of this show.
Sadr, after all, has extended the ceasefire he declared six months ago - and, in a recent letter, admitted that he had failed to "liberate" Iraq and create an "Islamic society." Last week, he issued another statement calling for a political settlement in Basra - a far cry from the bellicose noises made by these rebels with the help of Iranian state-owned media.
Spending most of his time in Iran, Sadr is now preparing to claim a theological position within the Shiite hierarchy - an ambition that cannot be realized through gunfights in the streets of Basra and Baghdad.
One other notable fact: Whoever is running the show on the rebel side has been able to devise a battle plan that included simultaneous attacks along a north-south axis that includes Baghdad, al-Amarah and Basra. No other Iraqi militia group, Shiite or Sunni, has had the resources to stage such a campaign before.
The rebels are trying to retain areas that connect Basra, a vast urban sprawl, to the Shatt al-Arab, an estuary that forms part of the border between Iran and Iraq. If the Iraqi government is kept out of these areas, Iran would control both banks of the strategically vital waterway. Iran has already occupied several islands in the waterway facing Basra, using them as advance observation posts.
. . . Visitors to Basra since Saddam's fall have often been struck by the massive "Iranian" presence there. Much of this consists of large numbers of Iraqi Shiites, known as mua'aweddin (returnees), who have come home after years of exile in Iran. There are also those who hold both Iranian and Iraqi nationality. Known as muzdawajun (double nationals), they are often accused of being loyal to Shiism rather than any secular concept as a nation state.
Why has Basra, a relatively calm place for the last five years, heated up now?
One reason may be the British decision last year to withdraw from the city. This left a vacuum that the new Iraqi army and police were unable to fill immediately. Iran may have seized the opportunity to try to grab as much influence and presence as it could - both via Shiite militias (including the Mahdi Army) that it has financed for years and by sending large numbers of operatives across the border.
. . . Both sides may simply be interested in testing the waters at this stage. But the war over who will shape the future of Iraq, indeed of the Middle East as a whole, is in its early stages.
Sadr Criticizes Iran, the ISCI Meets Iran, & Maliki Continues The Offensive
One day after Muqtada al Sadr, the leader of the Mahdi Army, called for his fighters to abandon combat, the fighting in Basrah has come to a near-halt and the Iraqi security forces are patrolling the streets. While Sadr spokesman said the Iraqi government agreed to Sadr's terms for the ceasefire, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki has said the security forces will continue operations in Basrah in the south. Meanwhile, the Mahdi Army took heavy casualties in Basrah, Nasiriyah, Babil, and Baghdad over the weekend, despite Sadr's call for the end of fighting. Read the entire article, there is much more. Feeling the heat of the recent offensive against his forces around Iraq, Muqtada Al Sadr, who has long been suspected of receiving support from the Iranian government, decided to publicly condemn the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Read the entire article. The more the situation in Iraq clarifies, the murkier it becomes. That said, this appears mostly positive from the U.S. standpoint.
To call Iraqi politics byzantine is an oversimplification. Maliki's Iraqi government appears the clear winner at this point, as Sadr has backed down in Basra and elsewhere in Iraq. This matter is far from over as Maliki continues to demand that the militias in Basra hand over their weapons and appears ready to force the issue. And now Sadr has lashed out at Iranian intervention in Iraq.
_____________________________________________________
PM Maliki welcomed the unilateral ceasefire called by Sadr (see here) and there is some indication that he is considering or has agreed to calls for at least a partial amnesty of Mahdi Army members currently being held by the government. Nonetheless, Maliki is moving more forces into Basra and fully intends to disarm the militias in Basra to the extent possible. Further, members of the rival Shia party, ISCI, met with the head of Iran's Qods force to ask them to stop supplying Sadr's Mahdi militia. This from Bill Rogio at the Long War Journal:
Maliki was clear that operations would continue in the South. "The armed groups who refuse al Sadr's announcement and the pardon we offered will be targets, especially those in possession of heavy weapons," Maliki said, referring to the 10 day amnesty period for militias to turn in heavy and medium weapons. "Security operations in Basra will continue to stop all the terrorist and criminal activities along with the organized gangs targeting people."
The Iraqi military said it was moving in more forces into the south after admitting it was surprised by the level of resistance encountered in Basrah. "Fresh military reinforcements were sent to Basra to start clearing a number of Basra districts of wanted criminals and gunmen taking up arms," said Brigadier General Abdel Aziz al Ubaidi, the operations chief for the Ministry of Defense. "Preparations for fresh operations have been made to conduct raids and clearance operations in Basra... the military operations would continue to restore security in Basra."
The reasons behind Sadr's call for a cessation in fighting remain unknown, but reports indicate the Mahdi Army was having a difficult time sustaining its operations and has taken heavy casualties. "Whatever gains [the Mahdi Army] has made in the field [in Basrah], they were running short of ammunition, food, and water," an anonymous US military officer serving in South told The Long War Journal. "In short [the Mahdi Army] had no ability to sustain the effort.
TIME's sources in Basrah paint a similar picture. "There has been a large-scale retreat of the Mahdi Army in the oil-rich Iraqi port city because of low morale and because ammunition is low due to the closure of the Iranian border," the magazine reported.
McClatchy Newspapers indicated a member of the Maliki's Dawa party and the leader of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, traveled to Qom, Iran to lobby Qods Forces officers to get Sadr to halt the fighting. The trip "had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq." The two men met with Brigadier General Qassem Suleimani, the commander of Iran’s Qods Force, the foreign special operations branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.
The Mahdi Army has also taken high casualties since the fighting began on March 25. According to an unofficial tally of the open source reporting from the US and Iraqi media and Multinational Forces Iraq, 571 Mahdi Army fighters have been killed, 881 have been wounded, 490 have been captured, and 30 have surrendered over the course of seven days of fighting. . . .
The LWJ does not mention the Iranian response to the ISCI meeting, but it must have been positive as it appears that Sadr has now publicly denounced Iran. This from Meir Javedanfar at Pajamas Media:
His verbal attack was an unprecedented turn of events for the young Shiite, who for the last year has been traveling to Iran on several occasions to complete his theological studies in order to become an Ayatollah himself. Western security sources have long suspected that these trips have also been used in order to receive financial assistance from Iran, and to coordinate the Mahdi army’s military and political strategy with the leadership in Tehran.
There are important reasons behind his offensive against Khameini.
Primarily, Al Sadr is furious at the fact that members of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), have joined the Iraqi army’s offensive against his forces in important areas such as Baghdad and Basra.
ISCI, which is led by Ayatollah Abdul Aziz al-Hakim has the support of middle and upper class Shiites in Iraq, while Al Sadr’s Mahdi army has the backing of poor Shiites. Al Sadr is not only upset because ISCI has decided to turn its guns against fellow Shiites, but also at the fact that ISCI has been the recipient of a larger amount of aid from Tehran than his organization. This may lead Al Sadr to believe that ISCI has embarked on this adventure, with Tehran’s blessing. This belief would explain why, during his controversial interview with Al Jazeera on Saturday night, Al Sadr condemned what he called “Iranian intervention in Iraq’s security and politics.”
Presumably, his hope is that by condemning and distancing himself Tehran, he could get more local grass root support inside Iraq; something which he could use later on in order to stage a political and military comeback.
While its too early to declare victory and celebrate, nevertheless, Al Sadr’s recent move can be considered as an achievement for the US, in its ongoing struggle with Tehran over influence in Iraq.
Until now, Tehran has been masterfully controlling both Al Sadr and ISCI allies as a tool to increase its influence. Whether or not Washington sanctioned Maliki’s recent operations against the Mahdi army; the rift created between Iraq’s two major Shiite organizations is making Iran’s Iraqi adventure more cumbersome at least in the immediate future.
. . . For now, Washington and Al Maliki’s government must use the recent military setbacks for Al Sadr as an opportunity to reach out to poor Iraqis who form the basis of Al Sadr’s support. Unless economic assistance is provided to improve their lives, and security, Tehran could step in. . . .
It would not be the first time that Tehran has supported two opposing sides in a conflict, and it would not be the last either.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Iranian Threat - & Presidential Preferences
Iran may pose the greatest long-term threat to Iraq's stability, a U.S. general said on Tuesday, the day after Iran's president wrapped up a visit to Baghdad. Read the article.
LTG Ray Odierno calls Iran the greatest long-term threat to Iraq. We are in a shooting war with Iran inside Iraq, where Iraq seeks a weak government that it can influence and control. Beyond Iraq, Iran is an ever-growing apocolyptic threat as it speeds up its development towards a nuclear arsenal. And Iran has weighed in on U.S. politics, making clear who they do and do not want to see in the Oval Office in 2009.
_____________________________________________________
It's long been clear, including to the 300,000 Iraqi Shiites who in November signed a petition decrying Iran's deadly meddling in their country, that Iran poses the greatest long-term threat to Iraq. A few days ago, I wrote in a post that "Iran, long term, poses the most significant threat to Iraq." And yesterday, our second highest ranking general in Iraq, LTG Ray Odierno, stated the same opinion:
Army Lt. Gen Ray Odierno, who recently ended a 15-month assignment as the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, said Iran continued to train extremist militia groups in Iraq.
. . . The U.S. military has repeatedly accused Iran of training, supplying and funding Shi'ite militias in Iraq. Iran has denied the accusations.
Ahmadinejad's visit was the first to Iraq by an Iranian president since the two countries fought an eight-year war in the 1980s in which 1 million people were killed.
Iraq's Shi'ite-led government has sought good relations with Iran, another Shi'ite majority country.
But Odierno said he believed Iran wanted Iraq to have only a weak government.
. . . Odierno singled out Iran as a factor of particular concern.
Asked if he saw Iran as the greatest long-term threat to Iraq's stability, he said: "If you ask me what I worry about most, I do. I do worry about that as a long-term threat."
Odierno said he had mentioned Iran in discussions with President George W. Bush at the White House on Monday.
He said the United States had "pretty clear" evidence that Iran was still training Shi'ite "special groups."
He also said U.S. forces in Iraq continued to find many deadly armor-piercing munitions which the U.S. military says come from Iran, but he could not tell whether Iran had slowed the flow of those weapons. . . .
On the nuclear front, Iran is "redoubling" its efforts to enrich uranium, with the latest assessments being that Iran will be capable of producing an atomic by by 2010. Sanctions, even those with some bite, will simply not stop the Iranian theocracy. Despite the ridiculous assertions in our recent NIE to the contrary, Iran is hell bent on developing a nuclear arsenal seemingly at any cost.
And Iran is clear on its choice for President. It's Ministry of Intelligence has produced a bizarre video (pulled from YouTube but still available from the link at MEMRI) about dangerous John McCain - apparently in a conspiracy against Iran with George Soros. (H/T Gateway Pundit) As Gateway Pundit has noted, the theorcracy has already endorsed Obama for President.
If President Bush does not deal with Iran between now and January, 2009, to end their nuclear program, than it is a pretty safe bet that the first 3 a.m. to the White House will concern the mad mullahs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
