Friday, September 28, 2007

An interesting conversation - recorded via transcript by Hugh Hewitt and Tim Weiner.
The writer of "on the Legacy of Ashes", a book about the history of the CIA.


Here is the relevant snippet:

"HH: Their great claim to success if, of course, the coup that removes Mosaddeq, the Iranian prime minister, and restores the Shah to his full authority. Do you, in retrospect, view that as a good action on their part, and a wisely calculated move?

TW: Well look, President Eisenhower authorized it. The operation was not quite as smooth as the CIA represented. It was quite a chaotic business. But in the end, a willing partner of American foreign policy, the Shah of Iran, was installed in power. And you can argue that 25 years of stability resulted. But 29 years of bitterness and instability has followed that. And the Iranian people, the people that we as Americans don’t know a lot about, are not unaware that the United States overthrew their prime minister. And that breeds resentment and fear and hostility.
"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which means that Iran has a level of distrust in regards to the USA because of the overthrow of Mosaddeq ~1953.

The point everyone needs to remember is that the middle east has a very long memory of historical events.

This has to rank as another one of the US short term thinking maneuvers...

I.e. get some more stability out of the Shah's regime for a little while. While in the long term Iran will not trust USA



Thursday, September 27, 2007

Here is http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/ blog - -- Yes, the President of Iran has a blog in Farsi and is also translated into English. (click on English).


"In the aforementioned meeting, it was again proven to me that the actual reason for the failure of the U.S. policy in its political field and international relation is their lack of information regarding the world%q%s realities and also enclosure of the decision making people of that country in their own fabricated and false political propaganda."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very interesting - as if there is no propaganda in his country???


The whole site has not useful information except for another seeming attempt to humanize the President of Iran.

If he is human after all why would he want to do evil?

Has anyone ever heard of the wolf in sheeps clothing?
Iranian Blogs -

One about regime change Iranianvoice.org.

"The mullahs saw all this as a confirmation of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s notorious dictum: “America cannot do a damn thing!” Emboldened, they next tried to disrupt the flow of Arab oil through the Persian Gulf by firing at Kuwaiti oil tankers in 1987. With that, the Reagan administration finally moved onto the offensive. Kuwaiti tankers were put under American flag, and a naval task force was dispatched to deal with the Iranian threat. At the next round of probing attacks, the American task force sank nearly half of the Islamic Republic’s navy and dismantled over $1 billion worth of Iranian offshore oil installations. Promptly ordering a halt to his offensive, Khomeini also announced his acceptance of a United Nations Security Council resolution ending Iran’s eight-year war with Iraq. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran has a history of attacking American interests.

This blog goes over several past conflicts.

Including during the Clinton administration:
"Next came the Clinton administration, which, at first adopting a policy of benign neglect vis-à-vis the mullahs, was shocked out of its torpor by the attack on the U.S. base at Khobar, Saudi Arabia, in which nineteen American servicemen were killed in an operation designed by Iran and carried out by Lebanese and Saudi Shiite militants."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hard to substantiate this attack to the Iranian Shiite, but plausible.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To this day, Ahmadinejad has never lost an opportunity to reiterate that the Islamic Republic is as committed to fighting Western democracies as it was when it came to power almost three decades ago. Claiming that he is preparing the ground for the return of the Hidden Imam, a messiah-like figure of Shiite lore, Ahmadinejad considers a “clash of civilizations” to be both inevitable and welcome. Of course, he is ready to talk—so long as the Islamic Republic is not required to make any concessions. In a speech in Zanjan over the summer, Ahmadinejad assured his listeners that the United States would never be permitted to create “an American Middle East.” “The new Middle East,” he told the cheering crowd, “will be Islamic.” Nor is Ahmadinejad a lone wolf. Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Meshkini, president of the Assembly of Experts and thus, after the “Supreme Guide,” the regime’s second most senior clerical figure, further clarified the extent of Tehran’s ambitions in a September speech to the assembly. The only legitimate government on earth, proclaimed the ayatollah, is the Islamic Republic, and the entire world, starting with the Muslim nations, must be put under the rule of the “Supreme Guide." "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a definite underecurrent within the mullah leadership to flex its muscles and grow its powerbase.

What better way to do it than to fight the United States?

Friday, September 21, 2007

Charles Krauthammer article

Re: the Israeli Syrian raid...


"Circumstantial evidence points to this being an attack on some nuclear facility provided by North Korea.
Three days earlier, a freighter flying the North Korean flag docked in the Syrian port city of Tartus with a shipment of "cement." Long way to go for cement. Within days, a top State Department official warned that "there may have been contact between Syria and some secret suppliers for nuclear equipment." Three days later, the six-party meeting on dismantling North Korea's nuclear facilities scheduled for Sept. 19 was suddenly postponed, officially by China, almost certainly at the behest of North Korea."


Why would North Korea and Turkey be the only nations to complain in UN about the air raid?


It is interesting to note the complaint, because North Korea is supposed to be doing the non-nuclear proliferation ...


It is almost like water erosion channels - water goes downhill and does its damage...

When one has dictatorships in different parts of the world, they gravitate together to try and survive and accomplish their goals. (eliminate neigbors etc.)

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Israel's silence on raid in Syria

The important snippet:
"Why Israel apparently chose to route its attack through Turkey is a nice question, given that it means a detour of more than 1,000 miles. Damascus claims the fuel tank was discarded after the planes came under Syrian anti-aircraft fire, which could be true. But if Israel is contemplating an attack on Tehran's nuclear installations--and it is--it makes no sense to advertise the "Turkish corridor" as its likely avenue of attack.
As for the North Korean theory, evidence for it starts with Pyongyang. The raid, said one North Korean foreign ministry official quoted by China's Xinhua news agency, was "little short of wantonly violating the sovereignty of Syria and seriously harassing the regional peace and security." But who asked him, anyway? In August, the North Korean trade minister signed an agreement with Syria on "cooperation in trade and science and technology." Last week, Andrew Semmel, the acting counterproliferation chief at the State Department, confirmed that North Korean technicians of some kind were known to be in Syria, and that Syria was "on the U.S. nuclear watch list." And then there is yesterday's curious news that North Korea has abruptly suspended its participation in the six-party talks, for reasons undeclared."




Turkey allowed Israeli planes to overfly for a live ordnance mission. This is certainly a potential prelude to an Iranian mission.


The region is readying itself for another major flare-up.

The Jerusalem Post has noted that Turkey gave information to Israel which was used to bomb a Syrian installation. Whether it was a WMD installation is impossible to tell from here.


Israel mixing itself into Iran versus other Arabs is never an easy thing, but they also cannot just sit on the sidelines while Iran and Syria receive nukes (from North Korea).



My personal prediction is that Iran will have to be dealt with politically. Either from the inside out or from the outside in.

And as you know - Von Klausewitz has said: War is the ultimate political instrument.

So it will be.

the players:

Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Israel. Jordan will try to stay out of anything/everything.

The kurds will try to stay alive somehow.

It will be a Sunni-Shia alliance versus Israel


While the Persian Shia will try to gain some power over the Iraqi Shia.

The Syrian sunni will try to ally itself with Iraqi Sunni, but this is doubtful to succeed with the American influences.

It will depend on when the Iranians actually receive or create their own nukes.

After this event everything will happen.

Thursday, September 06, 2007

Interesting article re: partitioning of Iraq by Charles Krauthammer:
Real clear politics link

Relevant section:

1. The Sunni provinces. The essence of our deal with the Anbar tribes and those in Diyala, Salahuddin and elsewhere is this: You end the insurgency and drive out al-Qaeda, and we assist you in arming and policing yourselves. We'd like you to have an official relationship with the Maliki government, but we're not waiting on Baghdad.

2. The Shiite south. This week the British pulled out of Basra, retired to their air base and essentially left the southern Shiites to their own devices -- meaning domination by the Shiite militias now fighting each other for control.

3. The Kurdish north. Kurdistan has been independent in all but name for a decade and a half.

Baghdad and its immediate surroundings have not yet been defined. Despite some ethnic cleansing, the capital's future is uncertain

------------------------------------------------------


Charles is not taking into account the ipso facto meaning of a Kurdistan "in everything but name" Both Iran and Turkey would have a big problem with an independent Kurd-Iraq region.

This volatile mixture means only future strife and conflict by the regional powers.

Interesting to note that Charles mentions the WW1 mesopotamian carve up:

"What's happening today is not geographical line-drawing, colonial-style. We do not have a Mr. Sykes and a Mr. Picot sitting down to a map of Mesopotamia in a World War I carving exercise. The lines today are being drawn organically by self-identified communities and tribes. Which makes the new arrangement more likely to last."


The partition may be from the bottom up but it still has top-down problems.
Republican Presidendial Primary Debate Published June 5, 2007-

There were some Iran points:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13549/republican_debate_transcript_new_hampshire.html (transcript)

Rudy Giuliani had Iran interposed in an Iraq question:
MR. BLITZER: Mayor Giuliani, same question to you. Was it — knowing what you know right now, was it a good decision?
MR. GIULIANI: Absolutely the right thing to do. It’s unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror. And the problem is that we see Iraq in a vacuum. Iraq should not be seen in a vacuum. Iraq is part of the overall terrorist war against the United States.
The problem the Democrats make is they’re in denial. That’s why you hear things like you heard in the debate the other night, that, you know, Iran really isn’t dangerous; it’s 10 years away from nuclear weapons. Iran is not 10 years away from nuclear weapons, and the danger to us is not just missiles, the danger to us is a state like Iran handing nuclear weapons over to terrorists, so it has to be seen in that light, and we have to be successful in Iraq.




So, the question is when will Iran have nuclear weapons?

How can we tell? Saddam befuddled inspectors, and had a UN payoff scheme.

So, the reality is - Iran will get nukes at some point - what will they do with them?

They claim to want to wipe Israel off the map, is this sabre rattling or a real threats?


When Hitler was taking Austria and then Czechoslovakia - who knew he would not stop there?


Hitler could have been stopped well before WW2 - around 1935 (or when it was) when the rhineland was reoccupied. The German army was not ready for war then and were on orders to retreat if the French made movements towards the border.


I hate to bring up Hitler, but there is a correlation as to stopping something before it gets out of control.

Although in 1935 it was not easy to see that Hitler would be a megalomaniac.

Just like today it is difficult to see the future.


I think the thing to do is to prepare - as the boy scouts say - "Be Prepared".


So that we will not get a Pearl harbor or a 9/11 again.


If you see the region in the limelight of history the Iran/Iraq region has been meddled with as early as 1900 in a small fashion.

After WW1 the region was cut up by the western powers (Great Britain/France).

To us this is long ago, but if you are living in the region, this is still on your mind.

Tony Z