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.

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.  

     

The Missing American

April 3, 2007 at 9:23 pm | Posted in Iran, USA | Leave a comment

The U.S. media is reporting that a former unnamed FBI agent has disappeared in Iran on the island of Kish. FBI spokesman Rich Kolko suggested, “at this time, there are no indications that this matter should be viewed other than as a missing-person case,” and U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, “we have been monitoring this situation for a couple of weeks now.” Citing privacy concerns, McCormack declined to divulge the man’s name, age or occupation.

However what is curious, is that the U.S. State Department has also not divulged this information to the Iranian government, the U.S. would be obliged to providing his name, flight details, passport number if they wished Iran to try and locate him. They have thus far failed so to do. Another curious aspect is that it is admitted that this mystery man has previously served in the FBI, which would have precluded him entering Iran, without U.S. approval and would be grounds for arrest and detention if discovered by the Kish authorities.

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.

Coming to Terms with Iran’s Nuclear Programme

March 4, 2007 at 1:06 am | Posted in Britain, EU, Germany, Iran, Israel, Nuclear, USA, Zionism | Leave a comment

Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons and less still of using them
Michel Rocard, the former prime minister of France, leader of the Socialist Party and member of the European Parliament writing in Haaretz contemplating military action on Iran, states:

“First, resorting to force is simply not realistic. A nuclear strike would have incalculable consequences, and the Muslim world would in this case stand together. Nor is a conventional attack possible, as Israel has no common border with Iran and most of the American army is tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

He further opines:

“The only possible framework for negotiations is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), concluded in 1968. Iran was one of the first countries to sign and it cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for more than 30 years – a relationship that deteriorated only in the last three years. But the current climate of mutual wariness between Iran and the self-proclaimed triad of Germany, Great Britain and France (with sporadic U.S. support) is not propitious to effective negotiations.

The West’s aim, announced by the U.S. and adhered to by the triad, is to force Iran to give up uranium enrichment. Yet the NPT is clear: Any signatory that gives up nuclear weapons and accepts the IAEA’s absolute and unconditional control is entitled to produce electric energy from civil nuclear sources, and to receive technical and financial support from the international community, if necessary. Iran’s oil resources are not infinite and it wants to have complete control over the civil nuclear field – a basic right as an NPT signatory.

I cannot see how a negotiation aimed at getting Iran to unilaterally renounce a right recognized for all NPT signatories simply in order to build confidence in the West could be successful. Uranium enrichment is certainly the first condition for making bombs, but the level of enrichment must reach about 95 percent, compared to the 3.5 percent needed for energy production.”

The solution to the current nuclear dispute is remarkably simple: the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany need to put aside their Zionist foreign policy agendas and look at the situation logically: Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons and less still of using them. Iran does however have a legitimate need and desire to produce its own nuclear energy. Thus the U.S. and the European troika could end this crisis, which is entirely manufactured, by simpling accepting Iran’s nuclear energy programme. To do so would no doubt involve some loss of face, however there is no appetite in the United States or Europe for a war with Iran, therefore any deal that ends the crisis and averts this possibility would be widely welcomed as a victory for diplomacy.

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.

State sponsor of terrorism

February 20, 2007 at 1:50 am | Posted in Iran, IRGC, Terrorism, USA | Leave a comment

Deputy chairman of the Iranian parliament’s National Security Commission, Mohammad Nabi Roudaki said of Wednesday’s terrorist attack in Zahedan, which martyred eleven and injured thirty-one members of the Pasdaran (IRGC), “the arsenals used in the criminal act were US-made, while the documents and proofs show that the terrorists were supported and led by the US.”

The Security Operations chief in the Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchestan, Brigadier general Mohammad Ghaffari had previously stated that three of the terrorists have admitted under questioning links to the United States and British intelligence services.

Nasrollah Shanbe-Zehi one of the principle perpetrators was publicly hanged in Zahedan on Monday morning, after he confessed on national television and admitted to British and U.S. involvement.

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.

Iran demonstrates ability to sink US warships

February 16, 2007 at 3:16 am | Posted in Iran, IRGC, Pasdaran, USA | Leave a comment

President George W. Bush would have done well to heed the advice of the old British proverb, “talk of the devil, and he is bound to appear”.

Yesterday the commander of the Pasdaran Ground Forces, Nur Ali Shushtari, announced that the Pasdaran emblem was etched onto US warship stationed in the Persian Gulf by the crew of a submarine that had managed to reach the warship undetected. The purpose of which is to demonstrate the capacity to sink the US vessel had Iran so desired.

Commander Shushtari also stated that in the event of a confrontation, all US forces in the gulf as well as targets inside the United States would be subject to reprisals.

US and Britain behind terrorist attack in Iran

February 16, 2007 at 2:43 am | Posted in Britain, Iran, Terrorism, UK, USA | Leave a comment

It was confirmed that the bombing of a Pasdaran (IRGC) bus in Zahedan, which resulted in 11 deaths and 30 other casualties, was carried out by the Jundullah terrorist group. The Security Operations chief in the Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchestan, Brigadier general Mohammad Ghaffari said that three of the perpetrators were arrested in a raid on one of the groups safe houses. The three have admitted under questioning links to the United States and British intelligence services. British SIS have previously orchestrated terrorist attacks in Khuzestan.

Iran and nuclear proliferation

February 14, 2007 at 2:04 am | Posted in Ahmadinejad, Iran, Media, Nuclear, Propaganda, USA | Leave a comment

George Carty:

How would you respond to those who oppose a nuclear Iran because it might lead to further nuclear proliferation?

There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon programme and even were Iran to develop one in the future, Iran still would be a long way off from being able to produce a nuclear warhead and even further away from reaching nuclear polarity with the Pakistanis and Israelis, let alone the United States. Hence Iran does not present a nuclear threat to regional enemies.

Were Iran to develop several nuclear reactors, Iran would be in a position to realise Ahmadinejad’s stated aim of supplying domestic energy consumption whilst significantly reducing petroleum and gas production. Moreover, it is also Iran’s stated intention to share nuclear knowledge with other NAM countries. Iran is not alone in it assessment that the possession of a nuclear energy programme will be a strategic necessity in the future. None of theese indicates an intent to acquire a nuclear arsenal.

Furthermore, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are de facto US military outposts, which would be transformed into launch pads for US nuclear missiles in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack; in fact, Israel already has a nuclear arsenal. Moreover, neither Turkey nor Saudi Arabia would acquire nuclear weapons without the express consent of the United States.

Therefore, I view the argument as based on three false premises: namely, that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme; that US vassals are without a considerable nuclear deterrent; and that the United States would permit these vassals to acquire an independent nuclear arsenal in any event.

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”.

Bush declares Shia are the enemy

January 24, 2007 at 11:14 am | Posted in Iran, Islam, Shia, USA | 4 Comments

President George W. Bush, State of the Union Speech 2007:

“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.

Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbullah -a group second only to al-Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat.

But whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent, they have the same wicked purposes.

They want to kill Americans… kill democracy in the Middle East… and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.”

There are an estimated 215,959,328 Million Shia Worldwide, there are over 80 million in Iran and Iraq alone and over another 30 million in the Middle East. Shia certainly wish to have political power proportionate to their numbers: a concept known as democracy and self-determination, both of which the United States is adamantly opposed to. If the Shia are a threat to the United States it is so due to the latter waging war on the former. It is the United States that is a threat to democracy and financing terrorism in the Middle East.

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.

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.

USA forced to relase Iranian hostages

December 27, 2006 at 12:28 am | Posted in hostage-taking, Iran, Iraq, SCIRI, USA | 1 Comment

The United States Government was exposed making fraudulent claims about Iranian interference in Iraq, when it was itself guilty of violating Iraq’s sovereignty and hostage-taking.

Following a raid on a SCIRI compound, without the Iraqi Government’s approval, the United States announced that it had captured senior Iranian military officials who were “meddling” in Iraq. The two senior Iranian military officials were in fact diplomats and thus had diplomatic immunity so could not be detained by the United States. Moreover far from meddling in Iraq, they were official State guests; personally invited over by President Talibani.

President Talbani furiously denounced the hostage-taking and demanded his guest immediate and unconditional release. The United States has been forced to concede that the abductions were illegal and has stated that the Iranian diplomats have been released, which is yet to be confirmed.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.