|
People are so intent on prophesizing that this war will spread to Syria and Iran, and I just wanted to post a few interesting articles I read with respects to Iran:
| quote: |
War Sirens Herald Iran's Hour of Revenge
By Khairallah Khairallah
(London) Financial Times
March 24, 2003
Financial Times; March 24, 2003, Monday Usa Edition 1; Section: Comment & Analysis; Pg. 17; Headline: War Sirens Herald Iran's Hour Of Revenge; By Khairallah Khairallah
========================================================
It may be part of George W. Bush's axis of evil; some predict it will be next on the list for US pre-emptive action; but Iran is the only one of Iraq's neighbours that wholeheartedly supports regime change in Baghdad, even if via a US-led invasion.
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his government is one of the few objectives on which the various factions of the Tehran regime agree. Since becoming convinced that the Bush administration is indeed determined to effect forcible change in Iraq, Tehran has been egging on Washington, albeit in private. Whenever the US has needed Tehran's help, the Iranians have been more than happy to oblige.
Take last December's London conference of Iraqi opposition groups. That gathering would not have been possible had Iran not encouraged its Shia cats-paw, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), to attend. Iran strong-armed Abdulaziz al-Hakim, the Sciri representative, to adopt positions similar to those espoused by Zalmay Khalilzad, the US government representative. In exchange for its efforts, Iran was rewarded with a political statement from the conference that - for the first time in modern Iraqi history - spoke of a "Shia majority" in Iraq. This meant the US was no longer able to ignore the sectarian reality of Iraq. Iran, keen for change in Iraq, realised early on that this could be achieved only with US military involvement.
Iranian interference angered many liberal Shia who warned Washington that, by supporting Sciri, they would be committing the same mistake they made when they encouraged Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to back the Taliban not that many years ago. They warned the Americans that Sciri would cause even more damage to Iraq's relatively open, multicultural and multi-ethnic society than the Taliban managed to inflict on Afghanistan. America, they predicted, would regret having backed Sciri, just as it now regrets helping the Taliban.
Liberal Iraqi Sunnis, meanwhile, protested that the Iranians had succeeded in hijacking the Iraqi opposition by entering into a secret alliance with the Kurds and the Americans. One of the main reasons Tehran wants the Hussein regime out of the way is because it has realised it is the biggest obstacle standing in the way of Iran's attempts to increase its influence in the region; especially in Iraq proper, which cannot conceivably retain its old character after the US is done with it.
Any new regime in Iraq - whatever its character - will have to take the country's Shia majority into consideration. Should the US fail to reshape Iraq into a prototype for neighbouring countries, Iran (which would in this case become one of the biggest operators in Iraq) would then succeed in sowing more confusion and forcing Washington to involve itself even more in Iraq. As a result, the Americans would increasingly need Iran.
Even the hardline conservative faction in Iran believes there are benefits in the US war on Iraq. This faction calculates that by having the US army on Iran's border, it would be able to justify its repressive domestic policies. What better reason for maintaining a hardline stance than having the "Great Satan" on your doorstep?
Overthrowing the Ba'athist regime in Iraq has been an Iranian objective since the days of the Shah. Yet Iran's attempts to change the regime have failed despite its support for various Iraqi opposition movements, including the Kurds, for more than 30 years, the 1980-1988 war between the two countries and more than 12 years of sanctions.
Tehran therefore came to the conclusion that the only way it could get rid of its old enemy would be through a third party - in this case, the US. Contrary to popular belief, the Iranians have learnt how to co-exist with the Americans, as the experience of Afghanistan has demonstrated.
Whether Iraq manages to remain whole, or civil war breaks out, Iran has been preparing itself for some time to play a role in both the US-led war and in post-Hussein Iraq.
In fact, the only unanswered question is whether Iranian military intervention will be direct or indirect. Will the Badr brigade, Sciri's military arm, which includes large numbers of Iranian Revolutionary Guards, cross over into Iraq in military or civilian garb?
In either case, it seems that the hour of revenge is at hand for the Iranians. Tehran believes it is time to redraw the political map of the Middle East, giving the Shias a bigger role everywhere, from Afghanistan to the Gulf to south Lebanon.
The writer is a London-based Lebanese political analyst
(C) 2003 The Financial Times Limited Financial Times (London)
Posted for educational use only
|
And this interesting theory that reads between the lines:
| quote: |
Regarding your article, “Iran Works with the US in Iraq,”
It seems to me you have missed the obvious. Iran is not supporting the US attack. Revolutionary Iran has always been a victim of the U.S. Isn’t that obvious? Patrick Seale told the simple truth when he wrote:
“… Iran may have an interest in weakening the U.S. forces as much as they can so as not to be the next targets of an American attack.”[1]
Not helping the US. Weakening it.
T. Hillbut,
Dear Mr. Hillbut,
Alas, the truth is not simple.
I read Mr. Seale’s article in the Gulf News and also several similar pieces, such as Gwynne Dyer's article, in the Toronto Star, entitled, "Shia militants await their turn."[2]
Mr. Dyer agrees with you. He wrote:
[Start Toronto Star excerpt]
"Iran's Islamist government is split between the moderate reformers around President Mohammad Khatami and the radical mullahs around Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but it is the mullahs who control the army and foreign policy.
They are terrified by the imminent arrival of the U.S. army on Iran's western frontier, only a couple of hours' drive from the country's biggest oil fields, especially since President George Bush has put Iran on his "axis of evil" hit list. So the more trouble the United States has in Iraq, the better."
[End Toronto Star excerpt]
The evidence given to support such assertions is that US and Iranian leaders have recently made some negative *statements* about each other.
But such statements can be deceptive. For one thing, these officials are playing to different audiences, and their respective audiences *want and expect* them to verbally attack each other.
Moreover, Iran and the U.S. have been trading the same hostile statements for years. Indeed, the mutual attacks seem to get hottest precisely when Iran and the US are working together on some covert project. Perhaps this is intended to divert us, just as members of a gang of pickpockets may stage a loud argument and then, while the onlookers are absorbed watching the show, steal their wallets.
In upcoming articles I will show how this worked during the US-coordinated, Iranian and Saudi terrorist campaign in Bosnia during the early 1990s.
But for now, let us take up your argument, as expounded by Mr. Dyer, the illustrious writer for the Toronto Star and writer-producer for the BBC and CBC.
Dyer says, the "radical mullahs" who "control the army and foreign policy" are shaking with terror "since President George Bush has put Iran on his 'axis of evil' hit list. So the more trouble the United States has in Iraq, the better."
Nicely put. But is it true? This question is important because if Mr. Dyer is wrong, that is, if I am right in saying that Iran welcomes this war because it will inevitably increase Iran's power, and if the ayatollahs are taking concrete steps *on the ground* to support this war, then the implications are enormous. To start with, if the Iranians are helping the US, there would have to be an understanding between them. Everything points to this conclusion (as we shall see in this and future articles).
And, if so, what does that mean? That the whole US stance - that this war is intended to *weaken* terrorist forces - is exposed as preposterous. Because whatever one thinks of the US establishment or Saddam Hussein, it is clear that the Iranian regime is one of the strongest supporters of Islamic fundamentalist terror.
========================================================
The facts on the ground show Iran wants to help the US-led war.
========================================================
Going by existing news reports (and, of course, such reports may be inaccurate or incomplete) Mr. Dyer is quite wrong.
The Iranians, it appears, are actually quite anxious to help the US side.
For example, consider the following from The Australian. The important part is in the fourth paragraph (emphasis mine).[3]
[Start excerpt from The Australian]
Saddam Hussein's personal coterie of suicide bombers and a new generation of fundamentalist Islamic terrorists pose a serious threat to coalition forces, including Australian navy sailors and divers, patrolling Iraq's southern waterways.
Chief of navy Vice-Admiral Chris Ritchie said yesterday the transport ship HMAS Kanimbla and frigates HMAS Anzac and HMAS Darwin had been on alert since the discovery of Iraqi boats packed with explosives.
Meanwhile, a leading Australian defence analyst warned that so-called Islamic fundamentalist "volunteer" fighters from Syria, Russia, Iran and Indonesia could join Iraqi terrorist groups in launching attacks on coalition forces.
*The alert came after Iranian gunboats intercepted an Iraqi speedboat packed with 500kg of explosives at the mouth of the Shatt-al-Arab River, the border between the two countries. Three other boats got away.*
Vice-Admiral Ritchie said yesterday that all ships in the Gulf were on alert for the speedboats.
He said it was believed a suicide speedboat had been responsible for the October 2000 attack on USS Cole in Yemen, which killed 17 US sailors.
[End excerpt from The Australian]
Does this report suggest that the Iranian Mullahs, who, Mr. Dyer informs us, control the military, are doing everything they can to make things harder for the U.S. side?
In this instance, the Iranians wouldn't have needed to *do* anything to make things a *lot* worse for the US side. The Iranian coastal patrol could simply have failed to notice the Iraqi suicide boats. Or the Iranian patrol could have seen them too late and fired after they were out of range. And missed.
If one of those speedboats had hit the HMAS Kanimbla - a transport ship - and killed a lot of Australian troops, it would have been a disaster for the U.S. side.
Note also that according to the article, Australian ships have gone "on alert since the discovery of Iraqi boats packed with explosives."
"The discovery"?
But this "discovery" was not made by the Australians.
It was made by the Iranians.
The Australians would not have known they needed to go on alert unless the Iranian military had contacted them and told them they had intercepted the suicide boats.
Doesn’t this suggest that the Iranian and Australian navies are in close contact, with a previous agreement that the Iranians would patrol these (for them) familiar coastal waters to protect Australian ships from suicide attacks?
I could not find any mention of this important incident in the British or American media. Why not? Why doesn't the media want us to know that the Iranians saved the day - indeed, heroically saved the day. (Remember, these were *suicide* boats, loaded with explosives…)
Even The Australian downplayed the incident. Thus, rather than put it on Page 1, where it belonged, they put it on page 2. And instead of giving the article a logical headline, such as:
"Iranian Navy Saves Australians from Suicide Boat!"
they gave it the innocuous title:
"Navy frigates on alert for suicide speedboats - War On Iraq: Day Eight"
And the article did not mention the most newsworthy item - namely, that it was *the Iranians* who saved the day for the US-led coalition - until the fourth paragraph.
Most people don't read more than the headline of an article. Among the minority that do read past the headline, most drop away before the fourth paragraph. So even among the small group who noticed this article, the great majority never learned about the Iranian role.
But at least The Australian *did* report this remarkable incident. Which is more than can be said for the rest of the English-speaking media.
========================================================
US and Iran cooperate to destroy a former Iranian ally.
========================================================
Here is another example.
According to the March 31st Australian Financial Review, the US and Iran have been coordinating actions in northern Iraq where Iran has, reportedly, sacrificed an old ally, the better to cozy up to the Great Satan.[4]
[Start excerpt from Australian Financial Review]
The weekend capture of the Ansar al-Islam enclave in northern Iraq shows the eve-of-war agreement between Washington and Tehran is holding despite major differences between the two over issues such as Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
"Ansar al-Islam is an extremist group with suspect objectives, and there is no link between this group and Iran," a Foreign Ministry spokesman said last week in Tehran.
Yet Iran had been quietly backing Ansar for two years, right up to the outbreak of war.
Tehran was rewarded for its abandonment of Ansar with a grudging aside from US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
"Thus far Iran has not done things that are making our life more difficult in Iraq," he said…
Washington and the PUK …say that until recently Iran allowed Ansar to cross its border freely, including trips to take munitions into Iraq.
This stopped after the opening US attack on Ansar, the March 21 cruise missile strike on its enclave.
At a Geneva meeting on March16, Zalmay Khalilzad, US President George Bush's envoy to the Iraqi opposition, reportedly obtained agreement from Iranian officials that US pilots shot down over Iran would be handed back to Washington.
Iran also agreed not to send any military forces across the border including those of the Iran-based Arab Shia opposition group, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
This was an easy thing for Tehran to agree to. Some months back, with the consent of the PUK, it had already established a reported 5000 soldiers of the Badr Brigade, SCIRI's armed wing, in an enclave in Iraqi Kurdistan in the same region as the Ansar enclave.
But if the Geneva deal suited Washington at least in the short term it seems Iran is also benefiting under its terms.
Just as Tehran has for decades hosted SCIRI, Baghdad has hosted a countervailing Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq.
The second Gulf War and the Geneva deal appear to have spelt the end for the Mujahedin, a longstanding thorn in Tehran's side.
As early as February, a Mujahedin delegation was touring Europe seeking a refuge for their leader, Masud Rajavi, should a US invasion drive him out of Iraq, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported. And late last week, Iranian officials said the US had attacked and destroyed Mujahedin bases in eastern Iraq.
The departure of the Mujahedin from the scene is a tangible benefit to Iran of co-operating with the US.
But the Geneva deal also included a commitment by Tehran to cut off support for Ansar. According to the leader of another Kurdish faction that has its own enclave nearby, Ansar cadres wounded in the initial US strikes who sought refuge across the border were turned away by the Iranians.
"They went inside one kilometre, but then the Iranians made them go back," said Muhammad Hagi Mahmud, head of the Kurdistan Socialist Democratic Party…
[End excerpt from Australian Financial Review]
And finally, consider the following letter, which we received a few days ago, regarding an interview in the left wing German publication, Junge Welt.
It appears that Junge Welt, a former Communist newspaper, is ideologically inclined to portray Iran as part of a supposed uniform Muslim opposition to the war, despite the evidence of their own interview. But here is the letter, so you may judge for yourself:
****
Dear EC,
Today the ex-communist Junge Welt has published an interview with Safaa Mahmoud, representative of the Iranian controlled Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq or SCIRI, in Vienna. As you know, SCIRI is comprised of Iraqi Shi'ites exiled from the Hussein regime. It is said that they are armed and trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, that is, by the regime in Iran.
The headline is "Why don't Shiites support the US?"
But the content of the interview however is quite the opposite [i.e. it suggests that the Shiites *are* supporting the US]. Mahmoud contradicts the rumours of about 6000 pro-Iraqi volunteers being enrolled by Hussein's government; he openly ridicules the call to jihad issued by Saddam Hussein.
I will translate some of it for you:
[Start excerpt from Junge Welt article]
"'Iraqis do not accept that call. It's ridiculous. After the liberation of the big Iraqi provinces and cities like Basra and Nasiriya you will see the gladness in the faces of ordinary Iraqis on TV. The Iraqis will greet the US and British troops as liberators, and the world will change its opinion on this war.'"
[End excerpt from Junge Welt article]
Your readers may read the original at:
www.jungewelt.de/2003/04-03/020.php
Best regards and please continue your work.
A reader in Germany
****
I find the Junge Welt interview remarkable. In the past, the US and Iran maintained a front of extreme hostility even when (indeed, *especially* when) they were engaged in the closest covert cooperation. This was true during the Iran-Contra affair and during the US-Iranian collaboration in Bosnia; the public statements they made about each other were uniformly hostile.
These days, Iran and the US are also trading insults. But, in addition, spokesmen for SCIRI, the Iraqi exile group sometimes say very positive things about the American invasion. SCIRI, as our reader correctly states, is armed and trained and financed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, that is, by the Iranian mullahs. So, these positive statements about the American war, made by SCIRI, represent Iranian policy.
Are Mr. Dyer and other commentators simply mistaken when they say Iran wishes to hinder the US invasion? Or are they deliberately misinforming us? It appears that at least one newspaper, the Washington Post, has deliberately lied to give readers the impression that Iran is fiercely opposing the US in Iraq.
I will present the evidence for this charge in my next article, entitled, reasonably enough, "Washington Post Apparently Lies to Create Impression of Iranian-US Hostility."
[1] Mr. Hillbut is quoting from the following article:
Headline: Imperial America’s Dangerous Adventure; Byline: Patrick Seale; Gulf News; April 4, 2003; Copyright 2003 Al Nisr Publishing Llc
[2] Toronto Star; April 4, 2003 Friday Ontario Edition; Section: Opinion; Pg. A25; Headline: Shia Militants; Await Their Turn; Byline: Gwynne Dyer
[3] The Australian; March 28, 2003 Friday Tc Edition; Section: World; Pg. 2; Headline: Navy Frigates On Alert For Suicide Speedboats - War On Iraq: Day Eight; Source: Matp; Byline: John Kerin
[4] Australian Financial Review; March 31, 2003 Monday; Section: News; International News; Pg. 11; Headline: Iran Comes In From The Cold; Byline: Nick Hordern.
|
Ahhh I love an article that doesn't forget sources  . It's only speculation but since everybody else's arguments here are based on pure speculation I thought I would just add to the mix.
|
