West Asia News and Discussions

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 16 Aug 2011 20:59

Shyamdji congratulations. Please keep propogating the truth and Indian interests even while sailing in the muddy waters of CNN-IBN.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 16 Aug 2011 21:51

^^ Thanks, will need everyones support.

---------------------
Big development

Fear of Iran prompts 'rapid reaction force'

Weapons to come from China, funds from Saudi Arabia
Posted: August 15, 2011
9:56 pm Eastern

© 2011 WND

Saudi Arabia is developing a Sunni rapid-reaction military of soldiers from Central and South Asian Muslim nations to confront the expansion of Iranian influence and Tehran's nuclear threat in the Arab world, Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin reports.

The effort, which has been under way for months, according to informed sources, will include participants from Pakistan, Indonesia and the Gulf Arab countries. Training will be held in facilities the Saudis will finance in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

According to sources, Pakistan and Jordan will provide the instructors for the new mobile force. The Saudis are looking to China to help supply weapons. In exchange, some sources say that Riyadh will offer Beijing naval facilities in the Saudi kingdom to access the Red Sea and Persian Gulf.

Such a development would be a big boost to China's plans to expand its forces and give it bases from which to combat pirates attacking Chinese and other ships in the Arabian Sea.

The sources say that Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud, who heads the Saudi National Security Council, quietly has been visiting China, Pakistan and the Asian Muslim nations to finalize plans to implement the mobile force.

The trained forces will remain in their respective countries, subject to call in the event of a crisis. Sources say that the initial force will consist of some 5,000 soldiers.

The intention, they say, is to have a force totaling up to 15,000 battle-ready troops. The rapid reaction force is expected to be ready by 2014.

The troops from their various locations will be on call at all times and will be transferred on short notice to countries in the protective umbrella. They will be airlifted by standby aircraft located in the Central Asian countries.

Saudi Arabia is part of the Gulf Cooperation Countries, or GCC, which also includes Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. The Saudis recently reinvigorated the GCC's military council, called the Peninsula Shield Force, in response to what Riyadh and the other GCC members perceive as a growing military threat from Shia Iran.

Analysts agree that Tehran's military is greater than the combined military of all of the GCC countries. In addition, they are convinced that Iran's nuclear enrichment program is aimed at developing nuclear weapons.

Sources say that Riyadh is adamant about halting Iran's development of nuclear weapons, even if it means an all-out Saudi-Iranian war.

------------------
Zardari due in Bahrain

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Aug 2011 22:03

shyamd ji,

Let's say Turkey creates a buffer-zone along Northern Syria. Would that trigger a regime change in Syria? Unlikely. That is just not a deep enough assault!

IMO, it is unlikely that the Sunni Coalition would allow the Alevis to remain in power. Instead of giving up power completely or in stages, would it not be prudent for them to retreat to the Mediterranean along Latakia, Hama and Homs and build their land there, bringing up a de-facto partition of Syria? Instead of spreading out their forces they should simply concentrate on retaining their power in the North-East Syria!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Aug 2011 22:21

Time for Iran to announce arrival of anu-Mehdi on sunni alliance.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 16 Aug 2011 22:27

RajeshA wrote:shyamd ji,

Let's say Turkey creates a buffer-zone along Northern Syria. Would that trigger a regime change in Syria? Unlikely. That is just not a deep enough assault!

IMO, it is unlikely that the Sunni Coalition would allow the Alevis to remain in power. Instead of giving up power completely or in stages, would it not be prudent for them to retreat to the Mediterranean along Latakia, Hama and Homs and build their land there, bringing up a de-facto partition of Syria? Instead of spreading out their forces they should simply concentrate on retaining their power in the North-East Syria!

The idea is that Turkey will protect itself from armed kurdish groups. Then the next point is that the Turks will support the protesters by linking them up with the defected military units... This is going to be a long war. I didnt believe the initial reports. But it will happen,.

Intel cooperation is in place,tanks in place, US&EU ships in place, Some German & Spanish a/c are in Turkey, diplomatic support is now slowly getting against Asad. He needs to stop killing people, otherwise no one can save him.

Erdogan met 3 forces chiefs yesterday, and news that retired military officials are being called in. You know that the military threat is being taken seriously. Iran is worried and is making official statements and talking to the press. You know they are worried. Iranian officials are now in constant touchwith TURKEY. Lots of lobbying going on, US Ambassador met with Deputy PM followed by Iranian amb. Lots of diplomacy going on. Iran has agreed to provide Syria military support - remember the great prophet 6 exercise. They are wwarning the west and turkey, also further statements that Iran wll back up Syria. Iran announced a port ionvestment in Latakia - this is mainly for transfering troops, arms etc. So GCC will be in touch with Israel to conduct raids onthese ships. This is going big.

Assad can still pack a punch, arab intelligence services have estimated that he has around 160k+ mil, militias, state apparatus that will be loyal to him. He is still outnumbered but he will hunkerdown somwhere. Only international intervention can help.

US will not get involved directly, neither will europe. The bills will be foot by the GCC. The west don't have appetite to fight in a long war.

Turkey will start with a buffer zone and wait till after ramadan (september beginning)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Aug 2011 23:17

Good job ShyamD-ji, may you carry BRF's message far and wide.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Aug 2011 23:42

Yes ShyamD ji, congratulations. Please add some nationalism to media.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Aug 2011 00:52

The clipping of Iranian wings is very good! It is good because the Shi'ite led Mullahcracy in Iran has de-facto promised the Iranian masses, that they can pack a punch, and bring the Muslim world under their leadership. The siege and defeat of Israel was going to bolster their claim as the leader of Islam. The Shi'ite Crescent was going to be their arm, reaching all the way to the borders of Israel.

Now that is coming undone!

By pushing Iraq into the Shi'ite Column, the West had bolstered the Shi'ite power. Now bringing down the Alevi leadership in Syria, they are tilting the power equilibrium back in the other direction.

It is a typical scenario of monkey dividing the bread between the 2 cats!

Iraq turning Shi'ite had the effect of bringing Shi'ite revolution too close to Saudi Arabia for comfort, so there is a sword at the Saudi throat! Taking away Syria from Shi'ite influence has the effect, that the West is taking away that sword from Israeli throat.

So the net effect is turning the sword of Shi'ism away from Israel towards Saudi Arabia.

Since the Shi'ite Mullahcracy in Iran proved to be implacable, and was determined to attain its leadership position in the Islamic World over the body of Israel, there was no other way than this. Iran has been constantly trying to paper over the sectarian differences in Islam by making Israel the common foe. That is why Iran was willing to fund and support Hamas, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and even some Taliban factions in Afghanistan. That is why Iran has not really reacted to the Shi'ite killings in Pakistan.

Now if Israel goes out of reach of Shi'ite power in Iran, the only other way for the Shias to assert their leadership is through a direct showdown with the Sunnis. Either Iran picks up the gauntlet and confronts the Sunnis, or Iran would have to refashion itself.

The first option would see, Iran (and Iraq) asserting its full might in the Gulf - Bahrain, Kuwait, and in the Al Ahsa province of Saudi Arabia, making the Gulf countries even more dependent on the West and Turkey. Should the Shias succeed it would mean, all money for Pakistan would dry up. That is good for India, making taking control of Pakistan much easier.

Should however the Iranians fail, one could see, Iran even rejecting Islam altogether, as their Islamic sect looks more and more defeated versus the Sunnis. If Iran is sufficiently weakened by then - broken up with Azeris, Kurds, Baloch having left Iran, then it is possible for Iran to fall into India's lap like a ripe mango. Then it is possible for Iran to reject Islam and to again look for its Aryan roots. Again it would become much more easy then to squeeze Pakistan between the Aryan resurgence on its two flanks.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 17 Aug 2011 07:42

what the hell with the "Aryan roots?" what is this nonsense? is not the biological evidence enough to put to rest the propaganda?

also, Iran winning against the Sunni block is not necessarily good for India. Islam's affect on the Persian psyche is unique and also predictable. ever since the fall of the Mughals, Shia Iran has backed every Islamist group in the Indian subcontinent. they have calculated that Islamic rule (Shia or Sunni) is better than Kafir rule.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 17 Aug 2011 07:58

Saudi Arabia vs. the Arab Spring

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Aug 2011 10:51

devesh wrote:what the hell with the "Aryan roots?" what is this nonsense? is not the biological evidence enough to put to rest the propaganda?

As we know, "Aryan roots" in Indian context, have far more to do with history, culture and linguistics. But all this offers India and Iran a common context, and in fact, that context has also been at play for some time, in our relationship with Iran, even in the Shi'ite Theocratic period.

And sometimes, even false propaganda can be useful for establishing associations where otherwise there would have been none, if it helps in geopolitics!

I spoke of "Aryan roots" meaning, that Iran breaks away with Islam altogether, and looks for its pre-Islamic past for succor. With Iran reconnected with its pre-Islamic past, Dharmic India can build her relations without too much ideological baggage.

devesh wrote:also, Iran winning against the Sunni block is not necessarily good for India. Islam's affect on the Persian psyche is unique and also predictable. ever since the fall of the Mughals, Shia Iran has backed every Islamist group in the Indian subcontinent. they have calculated that Islamic rule (Shia or Sunni) is better than Kafir rule.

Priority is the break up of Pakistan and a drying up of funds for Pakistani groups, who are waging Jihad against India. At the moment all those groups happen to be Sunni.

Secondly, an Iran win against Saudi Arabia does not mean, that the revenue from all those Oil Wells would flow to Iran necessarily. Look at the Ralph Peters map. The major beneficiary of a geographical realignment may be an Arab Shia State centered in Basra. And they may not necessarily have the same historical priorities as Persians to influence the Indian Subcontinent in the same way! I have discussed this scenario earlier as well.

It seems to be the case, that the West is acting as the monkey, and Sunnis and Shi'ites are the two cats. West is not interested in seeing Iran strengthened to a degree, where it controls the Gulf. In fact, Iran may have to part with its Oil Fields as well, e.g. in Khuzestan!

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 17 Aug 2011 10:59

UAE has offered Asad an exit plan.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 17 Aug 2011 11:21

Any thoughts on post-Assad Syria? What is the impact on Israel? Will it increase Turkey/AKP's sense of triumphalism (of retrieving some victory from jaws of disaster) or get them to be more sensible in re Israel? Will that mean comprehensive isolation of Iran or will Iran hit back elsewhere? If so where? Given the mullah-mahdi (nutjob) conflict in Iran, what is the impact on that? Are the Iranian reformers bystanders again or beneficiaries?

Of course, what is the impact on India given the influence of all these players on TSP, either positively or negatively..both of which end up being negative to us of course..

Oh my god, so many questions! No doubt time will provide answer..

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 17 Aug 2011 20:33

Sanku, thanks

RamaY, will do

------------
Suppiah ,
Post assad: iran hopes for multi party reforms to save his skin and allow to keep the iranian trump card.
Iran will lebanonise syria. So the GCC will back the sunni's (not MB from the sounds of things), iran will back the baathists in elections and use the alawites to transfer weapons etc to hezbollah and a continuation of the status quo.
However, GCC is pushing for Assad to completely leave syria. As I have said UAe has already guaranteed a safe passage out for Assad.
So Syria will be under sunni control, the GCC or Turkey share an interest in making sure syria is not divided into east and west because of the kurdish problems.
So make no mistake, this is going all the way to damascus and will be a long war. With many people dieing.

So the GCC want a sunni government that will kick out theiranian intel and military from syria and also cut funding and links with hezbollah. Hezbollah has several syrian army officiers embedded and soo much infrastructure invested in hezbollah. Asad kept hezbollah as anothr division of the syrian army in defence against israel.

Israel's position for now: kick out assad, thereby kicking out the palestinian terror groups from their HQ in damascus. So for the next few years israel can tighten the noose around hezbollah and hamas.
So israel will have the upper hand.
However, if israel chooses not to accept peace - 2 state solution in the future, the GCC will back armed groups. This time it won't be a pretty sight for israel, it will be at war in every border.
So I think israel will give up part of the Golan once Syria installs a new govt. Fight hzblla and hamas.

GCC no longer views israel as a threat as of 1990, since GCC became a US protectorate. They did come close to war in the past. But let's see what happens. But if things go wrong in the future for israel, I.e it conducts some bad operation in gaza or west bank, then expect trouble from every neighbour. Also, jordan is now part of gcc, so if jordan has a problem then gcc will have to support jordan militarily.

So some good, some bad for israel.

Iranian regime will fall from within eventually. After syria iran will start to fight in the gulf directly with gcc.

That's all the time I have. I hope the explanation helps

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Aug 2011 20:53

If Syrian troops have started pounding Palestinian refugee camps in Latakia, then I presume they want to do some ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from predominantly Alevi areas like Latakia.

Could be an attempt of the Alevis to huddle down in the West, and allow a fragmentation of Syria. That is the only way Assad can really save his skin, to retreat back into an Alevi stronghold.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 17 Aug 2011 21:29

Thanks Shyamd-garu...interesting and seems logical...

If Syria, Jordan, Turkey all march to some similar music and if KSA is holding the carrot/stick and if west is forced to go along having taken their help in ousting Assad, Gadaffi etc., Israel seems to be running out of time....Frankly, even I have (being a strong supported, partly for the reason that anything pro-Israel is anti-TSP/ME and hence pro-India) been irritated by recent events, particularly the rigid attitude of this Liberman guy and Bibi using him to shift the position right. As some Palestinian pointed out, what Abdullah offered Israel is far better than what Israel itself offered Palestininans decades ago, before all this intfada. Somewhat similar to the Lankan tamil story..years of terrorism brings negative gains.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 17 Aug 2011 22:24

RajeshA wrote:I spoke of "Aryan roots" meaning, that Iran breaks away with Islam altogether, and looks for its pre-Islamic past for succor. With Iran reconnected with its pre-Islamic past, Dharmic India can build her relations without too much ideological baggage.

Any tendency of Iranians to hark back to an "Aryan" cultural paradigm is based not so much on their clarity of what it means to be "Aryan", but rather on their present grievances which they want to be freed from. I have seen that even among those who want the "Aryan" bit over the Islamic, they have no intention of "going back" to some historical forms or lifestyles or even philosophy. What they emphasize is a basic credo of living, as per their abstraction of an "Aryan" past.

IMHO we need to understand their aspirations and real orientation better in order to be able to engage the Iranian people. The problem in Iran as I see it is the majority's frustration with Shi'a Islamists' ideological necessity to do the following, which effectively crushes the human rights of people in general:

(a) Restrict people's freedom to explore lifestyle options, cultures, religions, etc. -- Here the regime's liberality is based on their threat perceptions. They're quite open to people checking out Hindu and Buddhist cultures, because they believe there's little chance brainwashed Iranians will ever actually adopt those identities at the cost of their basic Islamic identity, even if they dabble and borrow from those traditions. On the other hand, Sunni Islam and Zoroastrianism are seen with great suspicion. Baluchi migrants have been petitioning in vain for years to have an exclusive Sunni mosque and center in Tehran. Also, Judaism is seen with suspicion, because knowledge of Judaism seems to undermine some assertions made in Islam (and Christianity) about what the Judaic concept of God and spiritual life really was in practice. Iranians are not allowed to learn Hebrew. Mullahs rant about Sunni and Zoro conversion threats. But Iranians can buy and read Bhagavad Gitas, Buddhist literature is widespread, yoga is popular, and most Hindu baby names are legit in the Islamic Republic's book. Ordinary Iranians want to have the freedom to decide on their own. Most of them are quite happy being Persian Mohammedan, even the liberal, rebellious types. What they seem to want is a relaxation of Shari'ah, and a 'metaphorization' of all aspects of Islamic practice into pure philosophy and thought. For example, one of the most popular poets among youngsters in Iran from the recent past has been Sohrab Sepehri. Check out his "religious" orientation here. He spent years staying in India, Japan, the US and Europe, and absorbing the cultures and philosophies (India and Japan were admittedly his favourite; he didn't much like America). They prefer Sohrab's attitude and spirituality even over other more ideologically motivated popular contemporary poets like Ahmad Shamlou, and Shamlou wasn't Islamist at all. IOW, the people don't want ideological obligations based on social justice, etc., but a rather more open paradigm of self-discovery.

(b) Be very exclusivist and seek dominance over other sects and religions, and restrict their freedoms to operate and thrive -- Other sects are not allowed to proselytize or preach to society freely, effectively rendering them handicapped and unviable. Sharing and teaching is the essence of the social aspect of any culture. Moreover, courses in theology, philosophy, Islamic worldview (beenesh e Eslami), etc are part of regular high school and college coursework. In these courses, they not only teach Shi'a Islamic doctrine, but stereotype other doctrines and practices and fill people's minds with strawman arguments against all sorts of cultural influences. Most educated Iranians today, with their limited exposure to the outside world via satellite TV and more enlightened contemporary Persian literateurs, can see through the BS and the fact that their very opinions are manipulated and they feel patronized and insulted.

(c) Base themselves on an explicit and implacable political enmity against Israel, the US and a lot of the West -- This is probably the most serious issue with most Iranians, even among those who seriously believe the US, UK and Israel are controlled by evil, scheming cabals, that 9/11 was an inside job, etc. Even these types want to have freer business and social intercourse with these countries. Even if they believe that the state of Israel was grabbed and imposed unjustly on the Mid-East, they still think it is mainly an Arab problem and Iran need not sacrifice so much for an Arab cause - and still put up with cultural slurs and suspicions from their Arab neighbors from time to time. Saddam went to the gallows cursing the "Majoosis" (word meaning Zoroastrian, applied by Arabs to Iranians), even under US occupation.

If the idea of an Aryan primary identity were to be sold to Iranians, it should take into consideration what they would be comfortable accepting, and what they would not be comfortable giving up. I think the Aryan identity for them means a Pax Zarathustriana, under which all different religious and cultural groups are protected and can thrive, and where common human rights are upheld irrespective of social affiliation. The basic slogan of Zoroastrianism is ethical consistency and goodness -- "humana (su-mana), hookhta (sookta), huvarashta (su-varishtha)", i.e. good thoughts, good words and good deeds. This overarching identity for them would also encompass the continued existence of Islam and devout Moslems within Iran.

Most "Aryanists" in Iran treasure their post-Islamic spiritual, philosophical, scientific and cultural heritage as well. They are not going to distance themselves from the likes of Ibn Sina, Rumi, Hafez, Sohrevardi, Molla Sadra, etc. A proponent of a Dharmic cultural paradigm would need to demonstrate to Iran that, far from jettisoning such a heritage into the dustbin of "jaahiliyyah", an Aryan society is liberal, accepting, and syncretic. In fact, it is their own Islamist society that historically murdered several other such great cultural icons because of conflicts over Islamic Law and doctrines, and cultural suspicions of non-Islamic Zoroastrian influences. If such an Islamist society can selectively tolerate some of these personalities and let them live and even use them to great social benefit, then surely an inherently liberal and progressive Aryan paradigm can carry along with it and celebrate this Islamic heritage as well! The counter-argument used by Mollah types that Zoroastrianism is "past expiry date", and "what about our Molana Rumi and Hafez" is bogus.

In demonstrating the above capacity of a Dharmic operating paradigm, India can provide a fine example -- provided we know how to articulate it with a robust understanding of, and strong conviction in, our real civilizational nationhood. Unfortunately at this point we don't really speak in one voice. Our nationhood is either articulated by weak, wishy-washy, ingratiating lefties, or Tejo Mahalaya eliminationist cases. But if we can understand the all round potential of our civilizational identity to absorb and abstract from past experience, and to spread peace, progressive values, ethical living and human rights in the present, then we just may be able to do something good for ourselves and others as well. Then the rise of India will be good for everyone, although there may have to be some "adjustment" pain.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 18 Aug 2011 00:53

TURKISH AIR FORCE CONDUCT RAIDS IN NORTHERN IRAQ

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Aug 2011 01:03

Carl, Are we mirroring our thinking on to the Iranains? IOW do they have such high funda thoughts of their own?

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 18 Aug 2011 01:09

^^^ Ramana garu, why "high funda"? These are normal human ways of thinking and aspiring, uncomplicated by excessive ideological imperatives. These are hopes and thoughts I've heard and read from ordinary Iranians (expats and also when I last visited), or from the intellectuals who have a popular following there. My only addition to the material was an opinion of how we Indians can understand the voices coming out of Iran, and what we can do to engage with them without putting-off too many factions there.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Aug 2011 01:13

So I would like you to gather the material in another thread and eventually write a book or two. I had expected the double normatization of Iranian mind by fall of Csteiphon and then Shia Islam would have killed off all such normal thinking.

Yes Cyrus is held as an example of multi-religious tolerance in Middle East.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 18 Aug 2011 01:33

shyamd wrote:TURKISH AIR FORCE CONDUCT RAIDS IN NORTHERN IRAQ

is it due to kurds who are in northern parts of Iraq.

edited got it- AFP: PKK says Turkey bombs north Iraq after ambush

Turkey bombed bases of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in north Iraq on Wednesday, a PKK spokesman said, after the group claimed an ambush that killed eight Turkish soldiers.
"Turkish jets targeted our bases in different areas inside Iraq," Dozdar Hammo told AFP

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 18 Aug 2011 01:33

Carl, that was a very interesting piece.

Just fyi, the Iranian Foreign ministry is becoming more "persian" than islamic. Todays diplomats are offered insight into the Persian empire and persian culture.

There is a renewed crackdown on persian symbols, it appears quite worse in the liberal/posh north where many have converted to zoroastrian.

---------------------------
Some were asking what was Assad's response to Turkish invasion plans? The PKK. The PYD which is the political arm of the PKK. They have always been backed by Asad, while Turkey was backing the Syrian MB. Things were actually better in the last 1 year before this crisis in syria started and since the Mavi Marmara. Syrian army actually raided several PKK bases in Syria. Turkey and syria began demining the borders.

Then both have gone back to supporting each others oppositon.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Aug 2011 03:26

Carl wrote
In demonstrating the above capacity of a Dharmic operating paradigm, India can provide a fine example -- provided we know how to articulate it with a robust understanding of, and strong conviction in, our real civilizational nationhood. Unfortunately at this point we don't really speak in one voice. Our nationhood is either articulated by weak, wishy-washy, ingratiating lefties, or Tejo Mahalaya eliminationist cases. But if we can understand the all round potential of our civilizational identity to absorb and abstract from past experience, and to spread peace, progressive values, ethical living and human rights in the present, then we just may be able to do something good for ourselves and others as well. Then the rise of India will be good for everyone, although there may have to be some "adjustment" pain.

I am not sure that India is that relevant in the discussion. Having said that, I do find a curious note that should really be relevant for "west Asia".

Why did Indian "nationhood" get to be claimed by "weak/wishy-washy/ingratiating" "lefties" on one side and "Tejo Mahalaya eliminationist" another side in India with no "middle-grounders" - whereas no such extreme dichotomies survive in "west Asia"? Perhaps it is because the overwhelming presence of "middle-grounders" or majjhim-panthis in India who failed to take any concrete position to preserve that very nationhood? Whereas absence of such middle-grounders in west-Asia led to absence of confusion and paralyzing ambivalence in trying to balance all opposing forces, without having any clear cut scale of values and objectives needed to be decisive?

A very simple gedanken experimente. If anyone thinks that the "wishy-washy leftie" and "Tejo Mahalaya eliminationists" are diamterically opposite positions, which of these two positions she/he clearly is able to reject mentally in favour of the other? If she/he is able to reject both and thinks that a third "middle" position is feasible - can he clearly outline what that third "middle" position is and why exactly he thinks it is a middle position? Note that it cannot be claimed that there exists a third alternative - which is not exactly a "middle ground" - when we are talking of two diametrically opposite extreme positions - any position not in the extremes will lie somewhere along a "line" joining the two extremes. Any third alternative which is not relative to the two extremes - is entirely irrelevant for the extremes framework.

To be a middle position it has to be somehow equidistant from both, and cannot be too far away from either - as otherwise it loses its sense of being in the "middle", and therefore necessarily contains elements of both. Thus a middle position is unable to reject the two extremes even while it claims that it is rejecting both - because it tries to compromise between what is essentially uncompromisable.

What middle positioners land up in - is the classic dilemma of the "majjhim panthis" - the paralysis of concrete action. It is true of west Asia and India both. The faction ridden, but ideologically fanatic - even in factional infighting - Byzantine Christians could still hold a line just south of the Bosphorus, and even intrigue against or sponsor a Crusader onslaught as late as the 1200's in the Levant, 600 years after losing the fight - and holding the fort for almost 850 years. That fight which however simultaneously wiped out the Parthian/Persian power to hit back in the next 1400 years.

Is it that merely a coincidence that the prevalence of "majjhim panthis" - Buddhist-and-derivatives in Persia, Sindh and Bengal preceded rapid military capitulation before Islamists?

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 18 Aug 2011 19:11

Obama Calls for Syrian President to Step Down

It is the first time the United States has explicitly called for Mr. Assad’s departure from power.

Turkey, which has had close relations with Syria, said that its message was that it had run out of patience. But Mr. Assad rebuffed the appeal, saying that he would continue his fight against protesters he has dismissed as militant Islamists and terrorists.
American diplomats had said they were aware that they had limited influence with Syria and that an American statement alone was not likely to have much impact on Syrian behavior.
But pressure has been building against the Damascus government. Tunisia recalled its ambassador from Damascus on Wednesday, as Saudi Arabia had done earlier.

Menawhile Ombaba govt has asked India and china to ask Assad to step down.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 18 Aug 2011 19:25

ramana wrote:So I would like you to gather the material in another thread and eventually write a book or two. I had expected the double normatization of Iranian mind by fall of Csteiphon and then Shia Islam would have killed off all such normal thinking.

Yes Cyrus is held as an example of multi-religious tolerance in Middle East.

Ramana ji, ok I will start a thread on identity issues in Iran and focussed on getting a pulse on peoples' aspirations there.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 18 Aug 2011 19:44

shyamd wrote:Carl, that was a very interesting piece.

Just fyi, the Iranian Foreign ministry is becoming more "persian" than islamic. Todays diplomats are offered insight into the Persian empire and persian culture.

There is a renewed crackdown on persian symbols, it appears quite worse in the liberal/posh north where many have converted to zoroastrian.

Shyamd ji, yes the crackdown is there and is selectively targeted at the "posh" north Tehran types. We can infer this from the fact that, parallel to suppressing Persian or Zoroastrian symbols, they also put in draconian laws against things like walking pet dogs in public, etc....usually done by the more non-Islamic types there.

Similarly, couple of days back the Tehran police went to town rapelling down highrise apartment buildings, tearing down all satellite dishes. All satellite dishes beaming foreign channels into Iran are illegal, and they are found in all parts of the city. But the thing is, they focussed this crackdown mainly on suburbs like Ekbatana, which are populated by the hip crowd.

The strange fact that most Iranians will personally admit is that the regime doesn't mind it if people put on an obediant albeit hypocritical show of hejaab and Islamic shari'a in public, while doing and believing whatever they want in private. Many younger Iranians find this pervasive show-bottle Islam (tazaahor) disgusting.

I think the bait and switch tactic by Iranian consular staff and diplomacy of projecting a "Persian" identity is unconvincing at this stage. They know that "Persian" has a much more positive ring in Western ears than "Iran". But even their published literature and pamphlets use that in a dumbed down fashion, and as a segue to the beginning of Islamic Iran.

Its also interesting to note that the level of Persian exhibits at museums in the West and elsewhere is a reflection of what the Iranian government wants to project. Usually Persian historical and art exhibits are subsumed under Islamic arts. Very little of pre-Islamic Persian artifacts seem to be shared and projected. And if they are, they get subsumed under titles like "Central Asian" or "West Asian". Some people say that Iran doesn't share its exhibits because of its poor relations with Western countries. But precious Persian artifacts are being auctioned off in even the Gulf states. Iranian intellectuals cry themselves hoarse over this, but their government doesn't seem to be motivated to move against misappropriation, and show little official sign of assertive claims and advertisement. Ordinary educated Iranians complain about such things. e.g.:

تحریف میراث ایران در جهان عرب
"The 'transposition' of Iranian heritage in the Arab world"

The above article is just about the post-Islamic cultural output of Iran being subsumed under vague rubric like "Central" or "West" Asian, and often made part of other specific countries like Iraq, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan. The case with pre-Islamic Iranian heritage is that it is seldom even exhibited to the world (unlike during the Shah's regime).

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 18 Aug 2011 20:17

brihaspati wrote:Is it that merely a coincidence that the prevalence of "majjhim panthis" - Buddhist-and-derivatives in Persia, Sindh and Bengal preceded rapid military capitulation before Islamists?

Brihaspati ji, that is an interesting idea with valid points. Here's my take in an attempt to flesh it out a bit -- As far as Parthian Sassanid Persia was concerned, while it is true that Buddhist derivative relativistic attitudes and movements were prevalent, there was also a hardcore, eliminationistic Zoroastrian "cultural nationalist" ruling element in that society. This emerged from the time Persia was overrun and its culture, libraries, etc destroyed by Alexander's armies and the subsequent Hellenic rule. As a reaction to that cultural assault, there was a Persian reaction in the form of Aryan cultural assertion and eliminationist tendencies against Hellenic influence. After the initial destruction and depradation, the Greeks tried hard to create some kind of syncretic Greco-Persian culture. They tried to adopt Persian sophistication in terms of manner and style and even intermarriage with aristocratic Persian families, and wanted to be accepted as part of the new ruling elite. But the Zoroastrian literature of the time simply refused to grant religious ligitimacy to the new rulers' attempts on the basis that Macedonians were just not "Aryan". Only "Aryans" were acceptable to Mazda to create good rule on Earth. This developed into an anti-Hellenic and later anti-Roman Zoroastrian hard core of cultural nationalism. W.r.t the inner social relations, the emphasis on legitimacy based on bloodlines and long eugenic inculturation seems to have lead to more elite-consciousness amongst Persians themselves, increasing the distance between Persian priest-aristocracy classes and the masses. Note that even among the two-and-a-half Parsis who migrated to India to keep the sacred fire alive, they had this class distinction. The Mobeds (priestly caste) among India Zoroastrians are very conscious of their bloodline. Other non-Mobed Parsis are actually termed "be-deen" (religionless)!

Between the liberal ethics of Buddhist derivatives coming in from the East and the hardcore of structured priest-ruler nexus of power, the masses felt disempowered and devalued. Between the supposedly divine inter-civilizational power games for cultural and political supremacy between elites, the masses didn't have a strong feeling of being stakeholders.

I am not well informed about the facts of the dynamics in Sindh and Bengal, but I strongly suspect that those societies at the time also had this polarity. The masses may have been caught between a Buddhist-derivative cultural relativist attitude and a hard core priest-aristocrat elite.

My musharraf has a theory which says that when a region is subjected to a level of violation that breaks its moral spine, then the overall moral-emotional tone of the society is depressed and this kind of ideological polarity emerges. In Persia it was the Macedonian invasion. In Bengal/Orissa area perhaps the Ashokan era warfare and other factors may have played a role in the Buddhist attitude side by side with orthodox Brahminical opposition?

So my thoughts on your gedankenexperimente are that this polarity exists on a particular mental platform. The actual "third alternative" is not bisecting the line between these polarities, but on a different moral-emotional platform.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 18 Aug 2011 20:50

Ramana ji, creating a new thread "Iran's identity faultlines". I will X-post a few relevant posts from here to that thread for now.
Or let me know if I should use the existing Iran News and Discussions thread to track such issues.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 18 Aug 2011 21:31

U.N. rights chief mulls Hague court for Syria - envoys

The U.N. human rights chief is expected to suggest that the U.N. Security Council refer Syria's crackdown on pro-democracy protesters to the International Criminal Court, envoys said on Wednesday.
U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay will address the 15-nation council in a closed-door session on Syria on Thursday, along with U.N. humanitarian chief Valerie Amos.
"OHCHR (Pillay's office) have indicated that their Syria report will find evidence that Syria has committed grave violations of international human rights law in its actions dealing with protesters over the past five months," a diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Pillay's office considered the allegations too serious to be left to a national Syrian investigation and that an international probe would be needed.

Western diplomats say they would like the council to take further action against Syria, but Russia and China, along with temporary council members South Africa, Brazil and India, have been reluctant to ratchet up the pressure on Assad.

screws are slowly and surely turning on Assad.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Aug 2011 21:52

Carl wrote:
brihaspati wrote:Is it that merely a coincidence that the prevalence of "majjhim panthis" - Buddhist-and-derivatives in Persia, Sindh and Bengal preceded rapid military capitulation before Islamists?
Brihaspati ji, that is an interesting idea with valid points. Here's my take in an attempt to flesh it out a bit -- As far as Parthian Sassanid Persia was concerned, while it is true that Buddhist derivative relativistic attitudes and movements were prevalent, there was also a hardcore, eliminationistic Zoroastrian "cultural nationalist" ruling element in that society. This emerged from the time Persia was overrun and its culture, libraries, etc destroyed by Alexander's armies and the subsequent Hellenic rule. As a reaction to that cultural assault, there was a Persian reaction in the form of Aryan cultural assertion and eliminationist tendencies against Hellenic influence. After the initial destruction and depradation, the Greeks tried hard to create some kind of syncretic Greco-Persian culture. They tried to adopt Persian sophistication in terms of manner and style and even intermarriage with aristocratic Persian families, and wanted to be accepted as part of the new ruling elite. But the Zoroastrian literature of the time simply refused to grant religious ligitimacy to the new rulers' attempts on the basis that Macedonians were just not "Aryan". Only "Aryans" were acceptable to Mazda to create good rule on Earth. This developed into an anti-Hellenic and later anti-Roman Zoroastrian hard core of cultural nationalism. W.r.t the inner social relations, the emphasis on legitimacy based on bloodlines and long eugenic inculturation seems to have lead to more elite-consciousness amongst Persians themselves, increasing the distance between Persian priest-aristocracy classes and the masses. Note that even among the two-and-a-half Parsis who migrated to India to keep the sacred fire alive, they had this class distinction. The Mobeds (priestly caste) among India Zoroastrians are very conscious of their bloodline. Other non-Mobed Parsis are actually termed "be-deen" (religionless)!

Actually, Parthians were not homogeneous in religious terms. The leading clans - like the Suren-Pahlavs considered even the Sassanians as heretical, and their modifications/editing/new additions to the classical zoroastrian literature as an "instrument" of "repression of the masses". Contrary to what you are leading towards - the Suren-Pahlav-Sassanian controversy should immediately show that there were already perceptions of "ideological compromise" within the society and tendency towards the middle-road pushing of adapting the "good-elements" of oh-so-culturally-contributing external ideological shenanigans.

Actually they might have been facing exactly a similar approach as done in India - during Islamic advent and the neo-Islamic-EJ advent. A section of the elite - a faction keen to get on to power - sees potential in buttering up the the supposed cultural-contributions of ideologies they perceive as well-organized militant entities - and try to use the latter to obtain personal power. This is how syncretism starts in such societies. So the divisive forces in Iranian society could well have risen out of exactly such syncretism champions - who would continuously compromise on the ideology/religion to please as many militant factions as possible to ensure personal dominance.

Between the liberal ethics of Buddhist derivatives coming in from the East and the hardcore of structured priest-ruler nexus of power, the masses felt disempowered and devalued. Between the supposedly divine inter-civilizational power games for cultural and political supremacy between elites, the masses didn't have a strong feeling of being stakeholders.

There is no evidence that at this stage -prior to the Islamic invasion - "Buddhist" derivatives were religions of the "masses". As in rest of Central Asia, and north India - most records handed down, do not speak of a "mass" religion, but a religion followed by urban concentrates of elite and mostly dominated by transnational trading interest networks. Huen Tsangs narrative should be illustrative. He traveled through the west coast of India and traveled through Sind right during this preiod. Sindh at this time would be part of the Parthian/Persian Buddhist circuit, and long been part of the same circuit of Manichaeism/Nestorian interregnum, as well as factional infights within Zoroastrian schools. He tells very clearly of what he saw as the decline of saddharma and the growing corruption in the "Buddhist" church. He also notes that the real religion of the masses were changing and growing away from the shadow of urban Buddhist control.

I am not well informed about the facts of the dynamics in Sindh and Bengal, but I strongly suspect that those societies at the time also had this polarity. The masses may have been caught between a Buddhist-derivative cultural relativist attitude and a hard core priest-aristocrat elite.

No. Sindh is clearly a case of rural masses turning towards "Nilakantha" worship, while viharas lay in ruins from lack of patrons, and the urban Buddhist estabslishment being led by sramans who doubled as rich merchants with slaves and opulent houses. Description not mine - but of the "traveler" most sympathetic towards Buddhism. We also know from Islamic chroniclers that these very same merchant-monk Buddhists intrigued with Islamics of Baghdad/Kufa, came tos ecret treaties and understandings during earlier and failed Muslim invasions and provided Qasimian army with provisions in their successful bid on Devala.

Bengal is less well-recorded. But there are indirect evidences too. Not to be discussed here.

Moreover, please do not paint the Buddhists of this period as "liberal" in the current sense. The Sindhi Buddhists - and their brethren up the Persian circuit, were dominated by iconoclasts, who appear to have taken an active militant interest in trying to wipe out less-iconoclastic brothers.

My musharraf has a theory which says that when a region is subjected to a level of violation that breaks its moral spine, then the overall moral-emotional tone of the society is depressed and this kind of ideological polarity emerges. In Persia it was the Macedonian invasion. In Bengal/Orissa area perhaps the Ashokan era warfare and other factors may have played a role in the Buddhist attitude side by side with orthodox Brahminical opposition?

There are too many vague definitions and identifications we are using now. A so-called "reform movement" that pretends to be holier-than what it derives from as something so fantastically new and liberating, and which also finds oh-so-good elements in everything that is aiming to destroy the preexisting values and structures - so much so that - none of these new ideological aggressions can entirely be rejected, is not the result of intensive "violation". In many cases, the hesitation lay within elite factions long before the crisis - so that these factions were never really sure of what they identify with, not sure of what to reject and what to accept.

Two factors bring this to open manifestation - external military imposed defeat and loss of power, and interest and belonging to transnational trade and financial flow networks that overlap with the aggressors. Bengal of the immediate pre-Islamic period would be a long way from Ashokan "violence" [which again was concentrated narrative wise more towards upper India and Odra and not Banga] - but just like Sindh and central-eastern Iran - would be part of transnational mercantile networks, which also doubled as Buddhist pilgrim and theologian networks.

So my thoughts on your gedankenexperimente are that this polarity exists on a particular mental platform. The actual "third alternative" is not bisecting the line between these polarities, but on a different moral-emotional platform.

[/quote]

Agreed and I recognized this escape route already - hence I also pointed out that in that case for a truly detached "third" alternative, it should be placed independently and not relative to the context of two supposed "extremes" as an alternative to the "extremes". At most it becomes a candidate third extreme point.

If this third alternative finds selective elements of two extremes good and worth incorporating, it is deceptively hoping that this will bring in support from both extremes for its own agenda. Moreover it is not really able to reject any of the extremes. But if it is unable to replace every defining characteristics of both extremes - such an alternative is a disaster. Most of the time, it restrains the alternative from being able to clearly reject the most virulent of the extremes fearing alienating the most militant group, while lacking any clear cut independent value-system to be able to formulate a complete replacement.

Result - confusion and lack of decisive action, and almost always complete surrender to the most extremely aggressive.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Aug 2011 22:37

Carl,
New thread.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 18 Aug 2011 23:14

Brihaspati ji,
I am X-posting your response in the new thread "Iran's identity faultlines". Please econtinue controbuting there.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 19 Aug 2011 20:48

From the Hurriyet Daily:
PKK reaches out to Iran, Syria

Recently, Iranian troops entered Kurdish PKK controlled territory in Northern Iraq to fight PJAK, and PKK has decided to no longer help PJAK in fighting Iran, and deported all their fighters from the border towards PKK camps further inland, to use them in PKK's continuing campaign against Turkey.

Now PKK leader Murat Karayılan reaches out to Iran in this speach, and talks about why PKK and Iran, both enemies of the "international forces who seek to redesign the region" (read NATO and its allies) should not be enemies:

“As the PKK, we have not declared any war against Iran. We do not wish to fight against the Islamic Republic of Iran either. Why? Because one of the aims of the international forces who seek to re-design the region is to besiege Iran. Currently, they are more preoccupied with Syria. If they just manage to work things out there as they wish, it will be Iran’s turn next. As Kurds, we do not think it quite right to be involved in a war with Iran at such a stage.”

“You have no interest in targeting the PKK ... You must end this conflict. It is America that wants this conflict to go on. Because these attacks of yours serve America’s interests. They want both the PKK and Iran to grow weaker.”

The article ends with a snide remark about Turkey's emerging foreign policy orientation:

Now, just as the Justice and Development Party, or AKP’s, Turkey is abandoning its bankrupt strategy of “zero problems with neighbors” while realigning itself with the “Western Alliance” in the context of the Arab Spring, why would Iran want to capture the top field figure of an “old friend” who no longer wishes to fight it?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Aug 2011 22:20

I've done some reading on the Israeli position on whats going on in Syria and added a different perspective on the plans going forward in Syria.

Here is my assessment:
- Israeli view is that it is the GCC is the one pushing strongest against Syria and are the ones beating the war drums
- Turks are sort of half in half out on the plans (I'll tell you what the GCC advisors are thinking and saying later on, source has met with officials and others, I'll stick with the israeli view for now)
- Davutoglu met with Asad for the last time for 6 hours closed door.
1) Asad told FM that protests will be over 10-15 days
2) Asad expected further protests
3) Asad said he will go through with multi party refrms to stall further protests
4) Asad said, if I go, this movement could spread to Ankara and asked for patience.
5) Asad asked for assurance that Turkey wont be used for anyplansagainst Syria.
6) Finally he told FM, that Syria will get Turkish influence in Iraq and he also doesnt want Iranian influence in Baghdad (playing on somein washington who think that ASad will dump Iran for the west for the right incentives).

Asad took the 10-15 days announced by Erdogan, Obama as a signal to carry on the crackdown and that Turkey isnt a threat, so Syrian troops moved closer to turkish border and conducted anti protestor ops there.

Israeli's think that if the Syrian middle class continue to see instability and more sanctions on businesses, they will opt for a military take over (coup) and someone who can offer stability.

So the Israelis think 2 things can happen:
1) War against Israel as a diversion (as I have already mentioned). In fact we have already started to see this as Hamas has began to fire rockets into Israel, patrols on the Egypt Israel border ambushed etc.

Basically NATO/GCC/Israel have concluded that air strikes in Syria are too risky as the syrians have dense network of Pantsyr 1 SAMs as I had mentioned earlier.

So the Turks conclude the best option is ......?? Wait for it..........
Send in the JIHADI's! Thats the plan. KSA has been purchasing weapons from the blackmarkets - I had already said before that black market prices for weapons from Brital in Lebanon has gone up due to Syrian demand. So send them to protestors.

So Turkey will invade and build its buffer zone. Use this as a stage post and bring in the jihadis, train give arms from there to Syrian rebels.

Remember during the Bah crisis, i had said that if Iran strikes, TSP and Turkey are required to invade. Well, it works both ways, so if Iran as it has already threatened publicly, steps into this conflict, via missile assaults into Turkey. GCC will respond by launching strikes into Tehran. (Source was hinting discretely to me that the fall out of all this will be in the Gulf, now I understand what this means)

SO King Abdallah and ErDogan met up in Jeddah. They both cemented the agreement on Syria. I had already told you that GCC advisors were now in Ankara. If shit hits the fan, expect Turkey to call in NATO (oh wait, the USN, EU Navies are all there together off the coast of Turkey and Syria waiting - especially AEGIS class boats).

Assads move is to use the PKK - which he has done quite successfully so far. And also the expectation is that Asad will pull off a surprise attack on someone to break up the alliance.
Israeli's think that KSA still doesn't want war with Iran. But GCC sees the Iranian threats with all their missiles as just empty threats as I have said before.

It could get a lot ugly from here.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Aug 2011 22:31

What if Turkey gets bloody nose in Syrian intervention? Are they ready for fallout?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Aug 2011 22:48

The whole plan hinges on Syria staying the same geographically. They have done the math and think the odds sharply favour Turks. Militarily the Turks are obviously far better equiped. Bringing Jihadi's tothe job obviously causes problems of its own.

I am not 100% sure on what the turks are saying. I'll find out soon hopefully, source is meetings with officials for past 2 days. Lets see what they say.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 20 Aug 2011 14:21

Egypt to withdraw Israel envoy over Sinai shootings

Cairo said it regarded the attack as a breach of the 1979 peace treaty between the two nations, and blamed Israel for lax border controls.

[...]
And correspondents say the Sinai desert region of Egypt has become increasingly lawless since Mr Mubarak was ousted, with a rise in al-Qaeda-inspired militant activity.

[...]
As the numbers of protesters grew outside the Israeli embassy in Cairo, the chants grew louder.

Protesters called for the embassy to be closed and the ambassador expelled. They burned the Israeli flag and tore down the metal barriers at the entrance of the embassy.

Some protesters carried pictures of the late Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, known for his open anti-Israeli stance.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 20 Aug 2011 18:43

Turkey has cornered and begun destroying its own 'secular" internal opposition. This would be a wonderful time to unleash the jihadis on Syria. in turn these Jihadis will expand in both directions into Syria and Turkey. Those in Turkey dreaming of rechaining the unleashed dog will be pleasantly surprised I guess to get bitten by the same. Those around Erdogan who have patiently worked towards this eventual Islamization move will of course celebrate.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Aug 2011 19:11

Hasn;t one week run out of the 15 day Turkish intervention deadline!!!!!