Ahmadinejad’s Visit to Iraq

February 28, 2008 at 7:36 pm | Posted in Ahmadinejad, Iran, Iraq, USA | Leave a comment
Tags: , , ,

The significance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Iraq this Sunday cannot be overstated. It is the first such visit by an Iranian president to Iraq since the 1979 Islamic revolution. Moreover it is the first visit since the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, under the tutelage of Washington and Moscow, mounted an invasion of Iran’s Khuzestan province, which resulted in the eight year Iran-Iraq War. The visit both serves as a reminder of that victory of Islam over western colonialism and underscores the relative power and influence of Iran in Iraq vis-a-vis the United States.

Whilst the United States will no doubt wish to underplay the significance of the visit, the Iranian president will be feted Shiite and Sunnite politicians alike. The United States may accuse Iran of attacking U.S. troops and destabilising Iraq but this accusation does not find favour amongst those that matter in Iraq, the lever’s of power in Iraq now rest in the hands of Iran’s allies and co-religionists, whether the United States cares to admit it or not. Were this not the case the visit would not be taking place.    

Ahmadinejad, more so than any other Iranian president, holds enourmous popular support on the Arab Street. Thus it is hoped that this visit will be a show of unity, as much as a show of strength; the aim is to dispel fears that Sunnite Iraqis may have that Iran supports Shiite secession and to visibly endorse the Iranian brokered truce between Saadah al-Sadr and al-Hakim.

British Forces Flee Basra

September 2, 2007 at 7:24 pm | Posted in Basra, Britain, Iraq | 7 Comments

British forces are at present withdrawing from Saddam’s place, or more accruately, they are fleeing Basra; a city that they could no longer hold.

The troops stationed in the airport are, to use the military parlance, marking time. There can no longer be any military justification for their continued presence, since they are doing little more than defending themselves.

The United States has ceased to be relevant

August 25, 2007 at 3:53 pm | Posted in democracy, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Shia, Sunni, USA | 4 Comments

The relationship between Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki and the U.S. dictatorship in Iraq, which has always been tempestuous, has now deteriorated further. Much to the annoyance of his U.S. overlords; al-Malaki rubbished the preposterous claims that Iran is destabilising Iraq as the U.S. Government likes to claim.  In fact al-Malaki pointed out the reverse is true and thanked Iran  for its “positive and constructive” role in “providing security and fighting terrorism in Iraq”.

The comment not only earned rebuke from the beleaguered U.S. President, they also led to the following threat:  “my message to him is, is that when we catch you playing a non-constructive role there will be a price to pay.” 

A rebuke that Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki is not going to heed.  His response the U.S. President criticism of his administration was even more assertive. He said:    

“No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people. Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution, and can find friends elsewhere.” 

This statement represents a recognition in the Iraq government of the now irrelevance of the United States: the ignominious defeat of British forces in the South and the failure of the U.S. surge to quell the rise of factional violence or the insurgency has left al-Malaki government in no doubt that the U.S. forces have to all intents and purposes already been defeated and that there is no appetite in the United States to reverse that outcome:  troop withdrawal is inevitable.    

Thus al-Malaki is looking to the future; a future in which the United States’ role in Iraq will be limited; he is no doubt also aware that should Hillary Clinton win the U.S. presidency he would not be able to count on her support. She said this week that Iraq needs a “less divisive and more unifying figure.”

In fact whilst politicians in the United States make much of the Iraq’s sectarian divisions and urge a national unity government, this is fundamentally undemocratic and quite fraudulent, it is not for Iraq’s sake that they wish a pluralist government. An estimated 63% of the population are Shia. However, that is only if one includes Kurdistan, which is effectively a separate entity from Iraq. Certainly the main Kurdish parties are separatists. Thus if the Kurds are discounted, and properly they should be, since they do not consider themselves Iraqis; Shia constitute nearly 79% of the Iraqi population and Sunnis only 21%. Thus the sectarian divisions in Iraq are overplayed; in truth Iraq is a Shia country.

It is this reality that the United States government continues to supress:  were they ever serious about installing democracy, they would support Shia majority rule and an Iranian style Islamic democracy; instead of doing all they could to prevent it. Yet it is clear that the United States cares little for Iraqi democracy; preferring anarchy and civil war to another autonomous Shia state in the region. 

As ineffectual as al-Malaki has been as premier, the fact that he was willing to publicly chastise the U.S.A. and actively court Iranian and Syrian influence, despite incurring Washington’s displeasure, is significant since it reflects the mood on the street. 

Saudis Funding and Supporting the Iraqi Insurgency

July 15, 2007 at 5:14 pm | Posted in Bush, Iraq, Monafiqeen-e-Khalq, Saudi Arabia, Terrorism, USA | 2 Comments

Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan the former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. and architect of Saudi and Zionist cooperation, stands accused of funding the terrorist group Monafiqeen-e-Khalq Organization, al-Qaeda in Iraq, Ansar al-Sunna and Fath al-Islam. Baztab Internet site reported that the Saudi terrorist financier attended a MKO congress in the groups Ashraf military camp and donated $750,000 to the outlawed terrorist group. 

This comes at a time when the U.S. government has released a report that states that 45% of all foreign fighters in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia, as are over half the foreign fighters in U.S. custody. Thus pouring scorn upon Bush’s claim that Iran is aiding the insurgency; in fact it is Saudi Arabia, with the implicit support of the United States government.  

     

Iranian Propaganda

April 2, 2007 at 1:07 am | Posted in Britain, Iran, Iraq, IRGC, Media, Propaganda, UK | Leave a comment

The Western MSM is incensed by Iran’s blatant use of the captured Royal Marine commandos and Royal Navy sailors for propaganda purposes. The occidental chauvinism and hypocrisy is astounding. one would never have thought that it was in fact the British media who first sought to use their personnel for propaganda purposes; that the British media, without any evidence, followed the British Foreign Office line that the prisoners were detained illegally in Iraqi territorial waters, failing to accurately report that Iraqi territorial waters have yet to be established and consequently the British claims have no merit in international law; the Royal Navy acknowledged that the waters they were detained in are claimed by Iran.

Instead the British media ran stories about Faye Turney and vilified Iran for holding a mother hostage. Of course, forgetting to mention that had an Iranian mother been on the crew of a fully armed Commando team entering British water, she too would have been detained. Iran’s response was a calculated quid pro quo. Iran is on the one hand showing how these prisoners are unharmed and well treated, yet on the other how vulnerable and helpless they are. Knowing that this places pressure on the British government to resolve the issue.

However, having seen that despite being obviously scripted the World’s media would eagerly report what they said, Iran has adeptly used the prisoners to convey messages to the World public. As much as the Western media will never admit it; it own anti-Iranian propaganda has been shamelessly, thus it is hardly surprising that Iran would respond in this way. Moreover, despite Western claims there is no treaty that prevents it. They are not prisoners of war, and whilst the environment they are in is coercive, there is no evidence of physical coercion. I imagine that Iran will continue to exploit the prisoners for propaganda purposes, whilst the British government continues to do the same.

Brinkmanship Unwise in Uncharted Waters

April 2, 2007 at 12:51 am | Posted in Blair, Britain, hostage-taking, Iran, Iraq, IRGC, Propaganda, UK | Leave a comment

Consortiumnews.com has published a rather good article on the eight RM Commandos and seven RN sailors detained by Iran for illegal entry into Iranian waters questioning the sense of the British strategy.

The frenzy in America’s corporate media over Iran’s detainment of 15 British Marines who may, or may not, have violated Iranian-claimed territorial waters is a flashback to the unrestrained support given the administration’s war-mongering against Iraq shortly before the attack.

The British are refusing to concede the possibility that its Marines may have crossed into ill-charted, Iranian-claimed waters and are ratcheting up the confrontation. At this point, the relative merits of the British and Iranian versions of what actually happened are greatly less important than how hotheads on each side—and particularly the British—decide to exploit the event in the coming days.

Call that humiliation?

April 2, 2007 at 12:45 am | Posted in Britain, hostage-taking, Iran, Iraq, IRGC, Pasdaran, UK | Leave a comment

Terry Jones writing in the Guardian quips,

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this – allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world – have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God’s sake, what’s wrong with putting a bag over her head? That’s what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it’s hard to breathe. Then it’s perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can’t be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

Iraqi General confirms that Royal Navy were in Iranian waters when captured

March 26, 2007 at 12:17 am | Posted in Blair, Britain, Iran, Iraq, Pasdaran, UK | Leave a comment

IRIB reports

The Commander of Iraq’s Coastal Guard Brigadier General Hakeem Jassem, in an interview with al-Alam News Network Saturday, condemned the illegal entry of British forces into Iran’s territorial waters and said the 15 British troopers were detained outside Iraq’s waters by Iran’s naval border guards.

The Iraqi Commander termed the intrusion of British forces into Iran’s coastal regions as questionable, making it clear that his forces cannot support the British claims that their forces were captured by the Iranians in the Iraqi side of the waterway.

He disclosed that British marines and sailors stopped a commercial ship inside Iran’s territorial waters and boarded it, forcing the Iranian border guards to interfere and arrest the British troopers.

The detained British forces have confessed to their illegal entry into Iran’s territorial waters.

15 Royal Navy and Royal Marines Captured in Iranian Waters

March 23, 2007 at 3:52 pm | Posted in Britain, Iran, Iraq, IRGC, Pasdaran, UN | 3 Comments

15 Royal Navy sailors and Royal Marines from the frigate HMS Cornwall have been arrested by the Pasdaran for illegally crossing into Iranian territorial waters when they boarded a merchant vessel in the Arvand rud.

The Royal Navy routinely encroaches into Iranian territorial waters without incident. Thus the capture of these servicemen – given that the incident is set to coincide with tomorrow’s UNSC vote on a resolution against Iran and President Ahmadinejad’s speech before that body – was undoubtedly preplanned, set to serve as a timely reminder of the vulnerability of Occupation forces in the region. The Pasdaran etched their symbol into an U.S. warship on the 15 February 2007, a symbolic act to demonstrate their ability to sink the vessel.

Much of the Western MSM are already reporting that the incident occurred in Iraqi territorial waters, without acknowledgement that Britain dispute Iranian territorial waters in the Arvand rud, or explanation as to why the Royal Navy would be patrolling that water. They are certainly not there to prevent smuggling operations or cross border infiltration.

Iran may be prepared to trade the British servicemen for the Iranian diplomats illegally taken hostage by the United States, however I think that doubtful.

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.

British Surrender of Basra

February 21, 2007 at 7:38 pm | Posted in Basra, Britain, Iran, Iraq, IRGC, Pasdaran, Propaganda, UK | Leave a comment
The announcement of the British surrender of Basra to Iraqi forces and the announcement of a phased troop withdrawal serves as a timely refutation of the U.S. claims that Iran is arming the insurgency and the much touted prospect of a U.S. military attack on Iran. If either was true, then it would be pure insanity for British forces to scale down or hand control of Basra over to Shia militias, when the city is situated on the Arvandrud – the easiest cross-way for Iran’s Pasdaran (IRGC) to enter into Iraq.

US fails to prove Iran is Arming Iraq Militias

February 12, 2007 at 12:00 am | Posted in Iran, Iraq, Propaganda, USA | 2 Comments

The United States pledged to produce evidence that Iran was arming Iraqi militias fighting the US and British Occupiers: yesterday they risibly failed so to do. However, they produced ample evidence of how divorced form reality the claims of the United States government have become in the “war on truth”.

The Price Of Posturing

January 21, 2007 at 4:29 pm | Posted in Iran, Iraq, Mahdi army, Sadr, Shia, USA | 1 Comment

The abduction of Sheikh Abdul-Hadi al-Darraji, a spokesman for Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr, was more evidence of US posturing; al-Darraji has no military role, as well the US knows, however he is a visible face of the Mahdi army and Sayyed al-Sadr. Thus the United States saw some propaganda capital in taking him and his two cousins (since released) prisoner; a move which was not sanctioned by the Iraqi government. However, unlike earlier posturing in Um al-Maalef where the Mahdi army were prepared to play along, this incident, which led to the death of a bodyguard, caused real annoyance.

Falah Shanshal a Sadrist legislator reminded the Government that it was in breach of the deal to halt “attacks targeting Al-Sadr’s movement,” and demanded al-Darraji’s immediate release. Following which, 19 US servicemen were killed in Karbala and Eight British troops were injured in Basra injured in reprisal attacks by the Mahdi army.

It is also noteworthy, that since the United States illegally abducted five Iranian diplomats, over 30 US soldiers have been killed by forces the US claimed that Iran was supporting. The US justification for taking this diplomats hostage was to prevent attacks on US soldiers, even though the Iraqi government recognises that the Iranian diplomats were not involved in any such activity.

Thus this US posturing has resulted in the forfeit of more Occupation forces and further weakened the US Government’s already untenable position in Iraq. I said in an earlier post:

“This is little more than posturing and ill-advised: posturing has not served the United States well in Iraq – it has resulted in the death of over 3,000 US military personnel.”

Crackdown on the Mahdi army or posturing?

January 21, 2007 at 2:45 pm | Posted in Iraq, Mahdi army, Sadr, Shia, Sunni, USA | Leave a comment

“The first causality in war is the truth”
On Wednesday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said 400 fighters from the Mahdi Army army had been arrested over the past several weeks. Although, Yassin Majid, a senior al-Maliki adviser, denied earlier reports that dozens of senior militia leaders had been detained were incorrect.

In fact, US Occupation forces and the Iraqi army raided Um al-Maalef, a Shiite neighborhood in south Baghdad, on Tuesday and, detained every man who was able to carry weapons – about 400 people in all – nearly all who have been subsequently released. The Mahdi army did not respond under orders from Sayyed al-Sadr and no weapons were recovered. US troops did not enter civilian houses during the raid. No one was killed during this raid. Compare this with the raid in al Haifa street (a Sunnite stronghold) where over 50 were killed in one day.

Al-Tikriti and al-Bandar executed

January 15, 2007 at 9:39 am | Posted in Iraq, Saddam, Shia, USA | Leave a comment

Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, Saddam’s half-brother and head of the Mukhabarat and Awad Hamad al-Bandar, the chief judge of the Baathist revolutionary court were executed by hanging in the early hours of this morning. Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti was decapitated in the process.

The United States had initially refused to hand over the men seeking to prevent the execution, as they had done with Saddam. However, the United States, aware of al-Malaki’s low standing in Da’wa let alone with the rest of the United Iraqi Alliance and mindful that the Iraqi government has strongly protested the US abduction of five Iranian diplomats, relented and handed them over to the Iraqi government, who immediately executed the two men.

The Martyrdom of Ayatullah Sayyed Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr

January 14, 2007 at 12:57 pm | Posted in Iraq, Islam, Saddam, Sadr, Shia, tyrant | Leave a comment

This is a translation from the account given by one of the security officers present during Saddam’s execution of Shaheed (martyr) Ayatullah Sayyed Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr and Shaheeda (martyr) Sayyida Bint ul Huda:

“They brought Sayyid Al-Sadr to the office of National Security in Baghdad and they bound him in chains, then Saddam arrived and said in Iraqi slang ‘Muhammad Baqir, are you trying to make a government?’ and then he started hitting his face and head with a strong rod. So the Sayyid said to him ‘I have left the government to you’ and then an argument broke out between them about this and about the Islamic revolution in Iran, which led Saddam into a fit of rage, so he ordered his henchmen to torture Sayyid Al-Sadr severely. Then he ordered the lashing of martyr Bint Al-Huda – after she had been tortured in another room – they brought here in unconscious and they were dragging her, so when the Sayyid saw her, he became upset and angry at her plight. He said to Saddam ‘If you are a man, then undo my restraints’. But Saddam took a rod and began hitting the martyred Sayyida and she was senseless, then Saddam ordered for her breasts to be cut, which caused the Sayyid anger and he said to Saddam ‘If you were a man, you would have faced me face-to-face and let my sister go, but you are a coward, between your bodyguards’. Saddam flew into rage and took out his gun and fired on the Sayyid and then his sister and then left like an insane man cursing and swearing”

US Abduction of Iranian Diplomats Denounced as Illegal

January 13, 2007 at 12:22 am | Posted in hostage-taking, Iran, Iraq, Kurd, Terrorism, USA | 2 Comments

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zibari has described the abduction of five Iranian diplomats by The United States Occupation forces as “unacceptable” and stated that the government of Iraq is urgently working to secure the release of the five hostages and that the Iranian diplomatic mission was working with the full knowledge and support of the Iraqi Government, and had existed in the Kurdish region for over ten years.

The leader of the Iraqi Kurdish party and President of the Kurdistan Regional Government, Massoud Barzani has also condemned the US military raid on Iranian consulate building, denouncing all the US claims regarding the Iranian consulate as untrue. KDP spokesmen Shokat Bamerni said:

“The Brazani forces due to none coordination of this operation by U.S. forces have condemned this issue and prevented the air transfer of the detained Iranians. Therefore U.S. forces were forced to transfer the detained via road and the latest news is that they have been given in to Iraqi forces in Baghdad.”

The city of Arbil issued a statement accusing saying the Iranian building had diplomatic immunity and demanded the immediate release of the five hostages, adding that “Kurdish citizens will never accept such behaviours which jeopardise security in their province”.

The Russian Foreign ministry said, “it is absolutely unacceptable for troops to storm the consular offices of a foreign state on the territory of another state,” adding, “this is a flagrant violation of the Vienna convention on consular relations. It is also not clear how this fits in with American statements that Washington respects the sovereignty of Iraq.”

United States Posturing in Iraq

January 12, 2007 at 3:09 pm | Posted in Iraq, Kurd, Sadr, SCIRI, Shia, Sunni, USA | Leave a comment

The Sunni-Shia conflict in Iraq is peripheral to the real power struggle between Sayyed al-Hakim and Sayyed al-Sadr. The Shia are an estimated 63-66% of Iraq but that power struggle, should it become an open war, would not involve the Shia; all of Iraq would be drawn into the conflict. The Sunni Arabs would mainly supporting Sayyed al-Sadr whilst conversely the Kurds would support Sayyed al-Hakim.

Ayatullah al-Uzma al-Sistani has been trying to defuse this conflict and consequently flatly rejected the US plan. Last Sunday he summoned Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr to his Najaf residence and asked for his support, he had previously conveyed to Sayyed al-Hakim that Sayyed al-Sadr must not be sidelined.

A deal has been provisionally reached where the United States deploys an additional 21,500 troops in Baghdad and Anbar province, whilst there is a redeployment of Iraq troops to Baghdad. Hence, the United States is withdrawing and despite its bravado about taking on the Mahdi army in a finally push, this is unlikely; the US cannot possibly hope to take on Sayyed al-Sadr with a positive result, nor would al-Malaki have the support to do so.

It is likely that the US will do as it did this week in in Hafia, concentrate on the Sunnite areas and leave Sadr city ostensibly to the Iraqi army but in reality it will remain firmly in the grasp of the Mahdi army. There may be some limited token clashes to give the appearance of even handedness, however it is preposterous to think that the United States envisages being able to destroy the Mahdi army with these reinforcements; there are two-and-half million in al-Sadr city, so an additional 17,500 US troops (4,000 are to be deployed in Anbar province) is not nearly enough. This is little more than posturing and ill-advised: posturing has not served the United States well in Iraq – it has resulted in the death of over 3,000 US military personnel.

British crocodile tears over Saddam

January 9, 2007 at 5:45 am | Posted in Iraq, Saddam, Sadr, Shia | 1 Comment

The recent criticism of the manner of Saddam’s execution by members of the British government are nothing short of a politically motivated fraud. Firstly, Britain is guilty of complicit negligence, since Blair implicitly endorsed Saddam’s death sentence, when he failed to secure a guarantee off Bush that Saddam would be tried in the Hague as the price for Britain’s participation in the invasion of Iraq. In failing so to do, it was not only foreseeable, it was inevitable that Saddam would be executed if captured alive.

The manner of the execution can come as no surprise, Saddam was led to the scaffold, where a noose was put around his neck. Several of the witnesses chanted “Moqtada” and Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowafaq al-Ruba’i, shouted, “Long live Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr,” then the trapdoor fell as Saddam was reciting the shahada, his neck broke and he died instantly. If this execution was undignified then it is because execution is undignified.

Secondly, the United States (through its client states Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt) has sought to exacerbate division in Iraq by presenting this as an Iranian Shiite execution of a Sunnite Arab leader. The Saudi media has claimed that the two hooded executioners flanking Saddam were Saadah al-Hakim and al-Sadr. The British criticism has been very much in keeping with this theme of Shia vengefulness.

Thirdly, the execution was brought forward after it was discovered that the United States was trying to ferment a deal with the Saddamis, which would have seen Saddam held in custody outside Iraq. Had Saddam not have been executed before Eid, the Mahdi army would have tried to lynch him in US custody.

Although such an assault would be easily repelled by the United States, al-Malaki’s position would have become untenable if he was perceived to have prevented Saddam’s execution.

Thus this execution was thrust upon the Occupation forces and signals their inability to control events. The compromise was that only the edited version of the execution be released to the World. Hence the Occupiers anger at the unedited version being put on the Internet, as British Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott’s remarks illustrate “To get this kind of recorded messages coming out is totally unacceptable and I think whoever is involved and responsible for it should be ashamed of themselves.” He does not express anger at the execution but at those who released the footage.

The Pope’s Crusade

January 8, 2007 at 11:43 pm | Posted in Christianity, Crusade, Iran, Iraq, Pope | 1 Comment

After a meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, the Pope was at pains to stress that the Holy See “not as a political authority but as a religious and moral one” and did not comment on the undoubtedly unconstitutional resolution passed by the UN Security council, which was drafted by three ostensibly Christian countries (Britain, France and German) and driven by another ostensibly Christian country (the United States). The pontiff could have but did not condemn Christian violence and occupation in Muslim countries; he could have but did not denounce Christian belligerence towards Iran and Syria. Instead he chooses today – Eid al-Ghadir – to engage in politics and rebuke Iran.

The Pontiff suggested that trust in the region will also improve if, “a country like Iran, especially in relation to its nuclear program, agrees to give a satisfactory response to the legitimate concerns of the international community,” despite the fact that the resolution has no legal basis in international law and not a scintilla of evidence has ever been produced that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme.

This is self-evidently not an apolitical statement and will no doubt be referred to by those who wish see a genocidal Crusade against Iran next. If he is suggesting that the “international community” (the 15 countries that sat on the UNSC as opposed to the majority of the nations of the World) have legitimate concerns about Iran nuclear programme, he is implicitly legitimising any response by the “international community” if Iran fails alleviate these concerns, which of course it will since they are bogus.

He also suggested that such action on Iran’s behalf “would surely help to stabilize the whole region, especially Iraq, putting an end to the appalling violence which disfigures that country with bloodshed.”

Iran would surely have preferred that he had just offered his felicitations; perhaps expressed a modicum of gratitude for Iran’s stabilising role in Iraq; and a mite of regret for the chaos caused by the Christian Occupiers. The linkage between the Iranian nuclear issue and the stability of Iraq is quite alarming: the obvious implication is that those opposed to the Iranian nuclear programme are destabilising Iraq. Hence he is suggesting the Occupiers and their allies in the region are opposing the Iraqi Shia at least partly due to their concerns over the Iranian nuclear programme – which is complete nonsense – yet even if it were true, he is not suggesting that those destabilising Iraq should desist; he is suggesting that Iran should give a “satisfactory response”.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.