Ahmadinejad to respond to UNSC in person

March 16, 2007 at 12:42 am | Posted in Ahmadinejad, Imperialism, Nuclear, UN, USA | Leave a comment

The draft resolution of sanctions against Iran agreed by the five permanent members of the UNSC and Germany, that has been submitted to the non-permanent members for consideration, will no doubt be approved. To say the additional sanctions are weak is an understatement. The resolution ammounts to little more that an unenforceable restriction on Iran exporting arms yet no ban on the sale of arms to Iran; an asset freeze on Bank Sepah, which will have little impact; an utterly meaningless call on nations to end all financial assistance and loans to Iran, save “for humanitarian and developmental purposes”, which will be promptly ignored; and in the event that Iran refused to forgo its legal right to rich uranium (which of course Iran will) the matter will be returned to the UNSC for possible further “non-military” sanctions.

Yet as weak as this document is, there is every sign that Iran will reciprocate robustly, President Ahmadinejad responded thus:

“They have created a body named the Security Council and they say that it is responsible for defending world security. But thanks God, the curtains of lie were unveiled and everyone saw this council has no role but trampling upon nations’ rights and voicing support for the crimes and policies of certain arrogant powers, and all nations have now found out that this council is just a tool.”

“They say that they want to impose sanctions on us. But when have we asked them for anything. Have you ever rendered any help to us that you want to take it back? You must know that we will never seek your help and assistance. You boycotted us and we gained nuclear technology, now if you impose sanctions on us, you will see the Iranian nation taking the next steps of progress.”

“You must know that every resolution you pass, you create more problems for yourselves and move away from the settlement of the issue.”

“What Iran is doing is 100 percent legal. The Iranian people will continue their path with much power and might and no one can backtrack from this path even for an inch.”

Furthermore, President Ahmadinejad has submitted a formal request to be heard in person at the UNSC meeting when the resolution is passed. There is no doubt that his intent is to respond to the resolution; such a response is likely to be significant. It is certainly not inconceivable that he plans to announce Iran’s intent to withdraw from the NPT and thus hasten the inevitable. It would be advantageous to do so, when the likely consequence is an escalation in economic and political sanctions; not the use of military force.

The Arrest of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim

February 24, 2007 at 2:13 pm | Posted in Britain, Hakim, Imperialism, Iran, Iraq, IRGC, Kurd, Pasdaran, Propaganda, SCIRI, Shia, UK, USA | Leave a comment

Commenting on Friday’s arrest and 11 hour detention of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim – the son of SCIRI president and United Iraqi Alliance leader, Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim – spokesman for the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Lou Fintor said:

“What I can tell you is that at this point we understand that Mr. Hakim was arrested by soldiers who were doing their duty. He was not singled out, and we understand the soldiers were following standard procedure since the border was closed.”

This is simply untrue. Sayyed Mohsen Al-Hakim, said that his older brother was unlawfully arrested and detained along with several bodyguards in Badre, located in the border between Iran and Iraq on the pretext that his passport had expired, even though it expires in September 2007 and that in any event, it is not the responsibility of the Occupation forces to check passports at entry points; that responsibility belongs to the Iraqi police. Moreover, both the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and President of the Kurdistan Regional Government Massoud Barzani, have denounced the arrest as illegal.

Talabani’s office issued a statement declaring:

“President Talabani judges that the treatment of Seyyed Al-Hakim was uncivilized and indecent, and he has demanded that the American leadership hold those behind it responsible”.

Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim said of his arrest and detention: “Senior (U.S.) officials intended to arrest me, and these officials gave instructions to personnel at the site.” He also asked: “Is this the way to deal with a national figure? This does not conform with Iraq’s sovereignty”.

This was undoubtedly a deliberate preplanned act of aggression against the SCIRI, the United Iraqi Alliance, the Iraqi government (including the PUK and KDP), Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and the Shia. The United States has publicly accused Iran of interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs and supporting the insurgency. A claim that was dismissed on Saturday by Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim as “unfounded and mere propaganda,” and has never been supported by the Iraqi government, President or Prime Minister. Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim also stated that Iran is a friend of the Iraqi people and a benevolent country.

In fact, the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has previously accused the Occupation forces of destabilising region, saying: “If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition”.

Moreover, if there was ever any question as to the United States implacable hostility towards Shia Islam and the Islamic Republic Iran, President George W. Bush, spelt it out in his State of the Union Speech 2007 when he stated: “In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East.” Bush also attributed much of the blame for this too the Islamic Republic of Iran, notwithstanding that the elected Iraqi government is predominately Shia and pro Iranian, hence the very people whom Bush refers to as “Shia extremists”. In fact, not only is the United Iraqi Alliance pro-Iranian, so too are the main Kurdish parties, the PUK and KDP.

Far from supporting the elected Iraqi government, the Occupiers are actively undermining it. The United States is not interested in stabilising Iraq; quite the reverse, the United States is opposed to an autonomous Shia government of Iraq – much of the anarchy in Iraq can be attributed to this. Thus General Sir Richard Dannatt statement, “we can’t wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the army both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life”, applies not only to the insurgents in Iraq but also to the elected “Islamist” Iraqi government.

Over eighty percent of the popular vote in Iraq’s last national election went to political parties with close political connections to Iran and the Shia constitute over sixty percent of the electorate and even more of the population – individuals of Iranian descent were denied Iraqi citizenship under Saddam Hussein, a policy that has been continued by the Occupiers. Conversely the United States is regarded as a colonial occupier, which has fermented ethnic and sectarian factionalism.

Recent U.S. allegations that Iran’s Pasdaran Qods force has supplied EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) to Iraqi insurgents, which have been flatly rejected by the Iraqi government, are part of a concerted propaganda campaign to demonise Iran. The United States has used these allegations as a pretext to carry out illegal raids on an Iranian diplomatic mission in Arbil, in which five Iranian diplomats were abducted, and on an SCIRI compound, in which two Iranian diplomats were abducted. Moreover, earlier this month, U.S. warplanes attacked a PUK guard post in Mosul killing eight Pesh Merga after President Talabani visited Iran. These acts were all clearly designed to serve as warnings to Iraqi politicians not to engage with Iran.

The arrest and detention of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim has to be seen in the same light: as a warning to his father, Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, vis-a-vis his strong political relationship with Iran. However, the United States massively underestimated the significance of abducting Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim. The reaction from within the Iraqi government has been robust and defiant. President Talabani demanding the culprits be punished and the SCIRI calling for the occupiers to leave Iraq has ended all pretense that the Iraqi government and the United States are on the same side. The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad was forced to issue a speedy apology and to preposterously claim that the United States did not “mean any disrespect to Abdel Aziz al-Hakim or his family”. It is very significant that Kurdish and Shia politicians have rejected the apology and explanation; the balance of power has now firmly shifted into Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim favour.

War with Iran

February 17, 2007 at 7:06 pm | Posted in Afghanistan, Crusade, EU, Imperialism, Iran, IRGC, Islam, Media, Monafiqeen-e-Khalq, Propaganda, Shia, UK, USA, Zionism | 19 Comments

Despite the Bush administration’s sabre rattling, it is far from certain that the United States will go to war with Iran; in fact, there is every indication that it will not be able to do so during George W. Bush’s presidency. For it is important to recognise that for this current U.S. administration, diplomacy is war by other means. Their belligerence is not incidental, it is intentional; this administration is fundamentally Zionist and hegemonic, and have repeatedly demonstrated a disinclination for diplomacy where they believe strategic or ideological objectives could be realised through force of arms alone. Furthermore this administration is committed to the overthrow of the legitimate and democractically elected Iranian government (Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005). From the Bush administration’s perspective, they are already at war with Iran; in fact, George W. Bush used his State of the Union Speech to emphasis that point, broadening the enemy to Shia Islam. Thus, this begs the question: why has this U.S. administration not already launched an attack against Iran?

If one sees the United States as already at war with Iran, as this administration does, then it is clear that they are losing. U.S. diplomacy and economic warfare has failed to prevent Iran from enriching uranium and will not stop Iran from continuing its nuclear fuel programme, as both the Bush administration and European Union have already conceded; in fact economic warfare has shown that Iran does not need European investment or European custom. Conversely, the European Union and Turkey are very venerable to an Iranian oil and gas embargo. Hence the avoidance of military action to date is very telling. It would be extraordinarily naïve to think that Bush has thus far been prevented from trying to emulate Alexander the Macedonian by the niceties of international law, which he ignored when he waged war on both Afghanistan and Iraq.

In fact, whilst the Bush administration has been able to manipulate a series of confrontations and fabricated confrontations with Iran to its advantage in the English speaking media – hence they have been able to present an image of Iran (and thus Islam) as inherently evil – there is still little domestic support in the United States for military action against Iran – U.S. public opinion is very much opposed to military action against Iran. Moreover, the speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi has stipulated, George W. Bush categorically does not have the legal authority to launch a military attack on Iran, without the House’s approval. Thus the likelihood of war with Iran during George W. Bush’s presidency is not a measure of his intent; it is a measure of the willingness of the House of Representatives to authorise such a course. The Iranian government does not believe that they would and with good cause: any attack would run contrary to the U.S. national interest unless it brought about regime change in Iran and regional stability to the Middle East, which even the most optimistic of Pentagon military strategists do not envisage.

The U.S. military is currently hampered by its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; even were this not so, any U.S. force invading Iran would be heavily outnumbered. Moreover, whilst 52% of the U.S. military consists of badly trained and poorly motivated reservists and National Guard (46% of the US army in Iraq in 2005), Iran conversely has a highly motivated and well trained army, Pasdaran (IRGC), and Basij (volunteers), as well as an armed civilian population, with nearly every man having served two years in the military. The recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon saw the Iranian trained Hezbullah guerrilla force, outnumbered 20 to 1, yet they defeated the U.S. armed Israeli army in the battlefield within 34 days. That is a good indicator of the utter infeasibility of a U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran – the United States simply does not have the military capability.

Moreover, not only would the United States need exponentially more men under arms to occupy Iran than it presently has to commit, the likely reduction in Iranian oil and gas production on its own would send the energy markets spiralling out of control, however the consequences of an invasion are likely to lead to anarchy and insurgency throughout the Middle East. There are 200M Shia in the World over 100M situated in the Middle East, as the map indicates Shia are sitting on the majority of the World’s oil and natural gas reserves. Even most Saudi oil is situated is the predominately Shia Eastern Province, in the Qatif and Abu Sa’fah oil fields. A Shia uprising would certainly disrupt Middle Eastern oil and natural gas exports – most the World’s natural gas reserves are held by Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan – and both the U.S. and European economies are utterly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. For this reason, any U.S. military attack on Iran that threatens Middle Eastern oil exports would be economic suicide.

Therefore the most likely scenario for a U.S. military attack would be an aerial assault against the nuclear facilities in Bushehr, Arak, and Natanz in the aim of destroying them. However, it is hard to see what strategic benefit this would be: at the most this would only set Iran’s nuclear energy programme back, although the Israeli attack on the Iraq nuclear facilities in Osirak in June of 1981 failed to set back Iraq’s nuclear programme. Iran would still have the technology and would be able to resume its nuclear energy programme unabated outside of the auspicious of the IAEA.

Moreover, Iran would almost certainly respond militarily. Iran has already demonstrated this week the ability to sink U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf at will and thus block off the passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. The situation in Iraq is precarious enough for the U.S. military, were the United States at war with Iran, the Shia population would rise up and the situation would be unmanageable. Furthermore, Iranian forces can easily cross the border into Iraq, should they so desire and U.S. military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan and Azerbaijan are venerable to Iranian missile attacks. Even were Iran only initially to target the U.S. military in Iraq, the potential for escalation is obvious. Thus once again raising the prospect of a conflict that would destabilise the entire Middle East, which the United States cannot afford. Hence it is more likely that the Bush administration will to continue to support terrorist attacks in Iran by groups like Monafiqeen-e-Khalq and Jundullah under the guise of the Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005, since these are deniable and unlikely to provoke a severe response.

Recalling the Bush administration’s view that diplomacy is war by other means – whilst attacking Iran would require an even greater degree of folly than the occupation of Iraq – the more unlikely it is, the keener they will be to inflate the possibility. This strategy is foolhardy and risks the law of unintended consequence. This said it is still hard to envisage the House of Representatives disregarding all reason and authorising a military attack on Iran during Bush’s presidency.

Iranian elections a rejection of the Western Imperialism

December 18, 2006 at 3:45 am | Posted in Ahmadinejad, Argentina, Imperialism, Iran, Islam, Reformist | 9 Comments

Unlike the Presidential elections, turnout for the Assembly of Experts and municipal council elections in Iran is usually low. In 2002, just 12% of the electorate voted in the municipal council elections. Therefore the 60% turnout last Friday is staggering. The record turnout in Iran undoubtedly was a response to the United States, whose President, George Bush, encouraged Iranians not to vote as a sign of protest against the Islamic Republic, as did the US sponsored MKO cult and Shahists. Thus the elections not only proved that Iran has a vibrant democracy, equal to any in the West, it was a rejection of Western imperialism: Iranians firmly demonstrated their continued commitment to the Islamic revolution and the Velayat-e faqih.

Early indications show that the pro Faqih (Ayatullah al-Uzma Khamenei) Conservative wing has trounced the Reformists. Despite the reformist wing forming a single coalition, they were still unable to take a single council. Conversely, the Conservatives, who were broadly divided into two factions dominated the municipal council elections. The Conservatives have won a massive majority on the Tehran municipal council, which is divided by supporters of the Tehran Mayor Qalibaf and President Ahmadinejad. In effect, President Ahmadinejad’s supporters are now the largest opposition to the Mayor on the Tehran council. The reformists have once again been pushed into the political wilderness.

Moreover, former President Ayatullah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was defeated by President Ahmadinejad in the 2005 presidential election was resoundingly elected to the Assembly of Experts, as was his rival Ayatullah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, yet both are conservatives, which demonstrates that Tehranis have rejected reformism. This is a stinging rebuke for Ganji, the current darling of the MKO and the West, and for the Argentinian Government that have both made unsubstantiated allegations of Ayatullah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani involvement in political assassinations and terrorism, whilst he was President of Iran.

Much to the consternation of the Western imperialists, the biggest winner of these elections was the Faqih and the conservative movement that now dominates Iranian politics. There are healthy political disputes within the conservative camp but the reformist movement has wilted. This is unsurprising, Ahmadinejad has achieved more in a year, than the reformist did in eight. Three years of negotiations with Western imperialists over the nuclear issue led to nothing but Iran’s three year voluntary suspension of its nuclear energy programme. Ahmadinejad’s rejection of appeasement has brought dividends; Iran has completed the nuclear cycle and is now enriching uranium.

Reality is not changed through its denial. Western support for regime change is as forlorn as it is insipid; Iran is not about to abandon the Islamic revolution or Velayat-e faqih and will resist Western imperialism.

The Cross and the Crescent

September 22, 2006 at 10:38 pm | Posted in Christianity, Crusade, Imperialism, Islam | Leave a comment

Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury, in his speech, “The Cross and the Crescent”, posits the following question:

“So allow me to ask an awkward question which I believe was hovering in the background of the Pope’s thesis and which many westerners are asking frequently these days: ‘Why is Islam associated with violence?’”

Had he rephrased his question, ‘Why are Christianity and Judaism associated with violence’, he would have his answer.

Islam is perceived as violent, when it reacts to Western (principally Christian and Jewish) aggression. Islam is the religion of the invaded, the occupied and the dispossessed; it is the religion of resistance; and the religion of the enemy. So long as Muslims are the victims and adversaries of Christian and Jewish imperialism, then this will remain the case. There is nothing very complicated here.

Lord Carey could look to his own statement:

“It is the firm view of most Muslims that the invasion of Iraq in 2004 is solely about oil. It is important to disabuse them of that notion by a rigid commitment to stand alongside Iraq until its infrastructure is rebuilt and there is a return to something approaching normality in that ancient land.”

Thus, Lord Carey, the former spiritual leader of the Anglican Church, is giving succour to a Crusade; for what else is it when Christian nations invade a Muslim country and try and impose their values and doctrine on it? He appears not to have considered that this is Christian violence.

He then addresses the issue of martyrdom in Christianity:

“I find it difficult to understand the argument that a person can be a blessed martyr if, in the cause of his conflict, he knowingly kills innocent people. Christian martyrdom is unlike this. We have no martyrology which honours people who kill innocent people. The martyr, for Christians, is one who does not kill but is killed for her or his faith. She or he suffers for God and his people and does so, not be fighting or killing, but by suffering. A terrorist by definition cannot be a martyr.”

The corollary here is startiling, if anyone who kills innocent is a terrorist, then this collectively applies to the British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is interesting since he reveals that at the age of 18 he too served in an occuaption of Egypt and Iraq.

Ahmadinejad Criticises Western Militarism

September 6, 2006 at 10:26 pm | Posted in Ahmadinejad, Bush, Imperialism | Leave a comment

During the second ‘International Conference on Mahdaviyat Doctrine’ in Tehran, Iranian President, reiterating the point he made on the 29 August Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said,

“those who claim to be harbingers of democracy and human rights and allege to represent the whole world do not enjoy even the minimum level of acceptability in their own nations. But they are wrong. They do not represent the world community, and we cry out our opposition to the current method of managing world affairs, as it is based on oppression, deceit and injustice. We are opposed to the looting of the world resources by the United States and Britain.”

President Ahmadinejad further asked,

“Why do you wish to resolve all the world issues through force and by deployment of weapons, why do and your nuclear arsenals form your characters?”

In reference to his recent offer to participate in an uncensored televised debate with the US President, George W. Bush, to present their respect viewpoints to the entire planet, President Ahmadinejad said,

“We have voiced our preparedness for attending a debate with those who allege to be the advocates or flag bearers of human rights, democracy and freedom in order to present our views about the world problems, but they refrained from presenting a proper response in this regard.”

Whilst such a televised debate might seem unlikely, the purported purpose of the UN is to provide a public venue where nations may debate and resolve their differences. Therefore it is entirely appropriate that such a debate does take place whether at the UN or elsewhere.

Yet, the Bush administration and the European troika have repeatedly shied away from an open debate of the Iranian nuclear energy issue. The Western powers have bemoaned Iran for its intransigence, when in truth Iran has only insisted on its exerting its minimal rights under international law. The reality of the nuclear crisis, is one of Western belligerence and bellicose, passing as a foreign policy. Hence the desire that to avoid a public debate, and the preference for sabre rattling.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.