West Asia News and Discussions

[RamaY]

^ so Egypt is future Pakistan of Africa. I predict Egypt will move from one dictatorship to another.

That is the game plan of western Marxist liberals.

[Suppiah]

^^^ The useful idiots have done their job, now they can be slaughtered...welcome to Arab spring..

[Suppiah]

Give the like of Baldrick the vote and we'll be back to cavorting druids, death by stoning, and dung for dinner.

Edmund Blackadder (Rowan Atkinson) in the BBC TV Serial episode Dish and Dishonesty..

[ramana]

A little bit of history for this thread...

The Byzantine Sassanian wars: Iranian website

After years of continuous fighting between the Persians and Byzantine Romans, the Byzantine Emperor Maurice ended the Roman–Persian War of 572–591 by helping the exiled Sassanian crown prince Khosrau, the future Khosrau II of Persia; to regain his throne from the usurper Bahram Chobin. In return, the Sassanians gave the Byzantines parts of northeastern Mesopotamia, much of Armenia superior, and Caucasian Iberia, though the exact details are not clear.

During a vicious civil war in the Byzantine Empire, the Sassanian army under the command of two fine generals, Shahin and Shahrbaraz took advantage of this and penetrated deep into the Byzantine Empire. By the year 610 AD the Sassanians under command of Shahin and Shahrbaraz had captured all of Mesopotamia, Armenia and had occupied Caesarea in central Asia Minor. The Sassanians pushed forth mercilessly and occupied Syria, and with this the Sassanian had an open network and opportunities thanks to the conquest part of the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Shahin one of the high commanders of the Sassanian army took Antioch and slaughtered much of the population including the Patriarch of the city.

Shahrbaraz had attacked Jerusalem in 614AD Reinforced by the Jewish army from Persia and local Jewish rebels under Benjamin of Tiberias, Persian army laid siege on Jerusalem. After 21 days of relentless siege warfare, Jerusalem's walls yielded and the conclusive Persian victory resulted in the territorial annexation of Jerusalem, and all of Palaestina Prima. he Jews, who had long been marginalized and oppressed in their Roman-controlled homeland, viewed the Persian invaders favorably. Interestingly after the conquest of Judea, the Sassanians established a “Sassanian Jewish Commonwealth” it appears Jews were given permission to run the city and they effectively did so for the next five years. The Jews of Jerusalem gained complete control over the city, and much of Judea and Galilee became an autonomous Jewish province of the Sassanian Empire. At the time 150,000 Jews were living in 43 settlements throughout the newly liberated territory.


{So the formation of modern Israel is a repeat of the Sassnian venture in the early 600s before the evolution of Islam}

The Persian invasion of Egypt began either in 617 or 618, but little is known about the particulars of this campaign, since the province was practically cut off from the remaining Roman territories. Heraclius transported his army to Asia Minor and soundly defeated the Persian army under the command of Shahrbaraz at the “third Issus” in 622AD. This defeat spared no second thought to Khosrow who saw this as a “minor hindrance” in his great conquests.

At about the same time as these events, the prophet Muhammad sent a letter to Emperor Khosrow, inviting him to Islam. Something that Khosrow saw as an insult and thus, tore the letter and told the messenger that brought the letter Abdullah Huzafah Sahmi Qarashi that Muhammad’s religion was heresy and that he was a foolish to dare send a letter to the mighty Emperor of the Sassanian Empire. When word of this reached Muhammad he told his followers- “May Allah tear his domain to pieces, just as he tore my letter. For sure, his domain shall be torn apart. For sure, you will come to possess his land”.

By all means the war of 602AD that lasted for 26 years had brought little more than suffering and death to both the Persians and Romans causalities figures are immense in size especially for a confrontation during late antiquity. After the war both the Byzantines and the Sassanians were too weak to hold back the Muslim onslaught less the ten years later. By 651 AD the Sassanian Empire ceased to exist, and the Byzantine Empire went into complete and utter decline until it was finally destroyed by the Turks in the year 1453.

and

There was a Byzantine revival following the 800's. This lasted until almost 1000. By the end of 1000's even the Muslim's were going down the drain, and none of their power centres were holding up. Most Islamic principalities began declining in this period. On the other hand, current Persians will deny this - but Persia did not become Islamic entirely until 1000. Even then, there were pockets of independence until almost 1400. Outlying provinces of Sassanian empire were gone - but then those provinces were really not Sassanian for any "establishment" period.

By the 12th century, Islamic caliphate-ummah was itself being torn to sheds first by Mongols and then by the Turks.

What we are seeing is a reapeatof the old history because of the geography of the place.

Geo-politics doesnt descibe the situation. The Sanskrit term "Sthana balam" or power of the place describes it better.


No matter what the West does it will never be the center of the wolrd's thinking process.

Bji,

It was the Safavid dynasty's adoption of Shiaism as state religion that fianlly converted all of Persia to Shia Isalm.

[shyamd]

The way the Persians treated the Jews is what the US has been trying to do (so the Arabs say) currently to bring Iran and Israel together. But the problem is, is that Khamaeni was an islamist and insisted on using terror against Israeli's. But once this regime falls, you will see persians and the Israelites get together once again, perhaps like they were when the Shah was around.

[ramana]

They are the same people divided by religions.

[shyamd]

Can you imagine what things will be like once Iran changes regime? Iran, Israel, India and US will have renewed ties. India and Iran had nuke cooperation prior to Shah being deposed. TSP would have to be fully reliant on PRC in such a situation.

[devesh]

US will never support such bonhomie contrary to what they say. the Anglo-American power politics is designed to keep regions in suspended terror. if a bunch of powerful entities in a region decide to form a collaborative alliance, and these countries have the resources and man power to form a very powerful equation, then US/UK will do anything to avert such a situation. the last thing they want is peace/unity between powerful players who live close to each other. that is a big 'negative' for Anglo-American imperialism.

some people who've heard the above from me in real life, have called me a paranoid loon. but looking at the behavior of US, and Britain prior to that, it is clear that the one principle that they always adhere and stick to is Divide-and-Rule >> Balance of Power.

[shyamd]

Well it just goes back to how things were prior to the Shah. Except India was under the Soviet influence. However, don't forget the US still retains the levers - TSP, GCC, PRC, Jordan, Egypt. To be used against the 3.

US is down now. But this is the time you expect trouble from our neighbour to the east.

[Suppiah]

They are the same people divided by religions.

Oh no, one is Semitic other is Indo-Aryan...linguistically and ethnically...even if Iran becomes a democracy instead of mullacracy, it may not become pro-Israeli unless there is some dramatic movement in Palestine affair. At which point perhaps entire ME will lose its main reason for anti-Israeli hatred so Iran would be no different.

[ramana]

Dig deeper.

[Suppiah]

Would appreciate enlightenment thru some reliable links..

[svinayak]

Would appreciate enlightenment thru some reliable links..

Start with dicussion such as this
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... ws__st__40

[brihaspati]

A little bit of history for this thread...
Bji,

It was the Safavid dynasty's adoption of Shiaism as state religion that fianlly converted all of Persia to Shia Isalm.

True. What I wanted to point out in that original post was that - Persia was never really fully "Islamic" even until the 1400's. In the 900's-1000's it was a mosaic - with patches of non-Muslims still resisting.

I have long projected that by doing the Islamic "revolution" they have gone into the next stage of coming out of their defeat by "west" [in their time it was sequentially - first the Mesopotamian doab - then, Roman-Eastern-Med, then Arabic corruption of Paulician Byzantine inconoclasts, then the Brits, and now Americans]. As the mullahs made the blunder of taking over political power - the next political gen faces the reality of Islamic claims of being the ultimate solution. So my analysis was that the Ayranyias will be the first among "Islamic" countries to come out of their Islamism and it will be a second revolution. I expected change in Islamic world through that - but Arab "spring" appears to have swept in before that.

[ramana]

Maybe the Arab spring was to forestall the Iyranian casting off the green mantle.

In a moment of idleness I charted the varous turns in their history since the emergence of Fars as center of a nation state.

They have a ~500-800 year cycle where they change completely.

[Agnimitra]

^^^ Kurdish independence from Turkey and Arab Syria could very well give a boost to Iran's freedom from Islamism. Kurds are Iranic people, and still constitute a mosaic of religions, including explicitly non-Islamic religions like Yazidism, Zoroastrianism, Ahl-e-Haqq, Christianity, etc. Establishment or substantial movement towards a Kurdish state at the expense of Turkish and Arab power in the region will be an incentive for Iran to define itself in its non-Islamist ethnic terms instead of ingratiating itself with the Islamist agenda.

Public approval for this continues. Iran has an official body assigned to "purify" Persian language from excessive and unnecessary Arabic influences. Recently they decided that the name "Farsi" itself should be restored to "Parsi".

[brihaspati]

Palestinian statehood will be pushed through so that the ME can be pushed down into war. The mullahs are simply raring to launch on their long held dreams of a Jihadi cleansing - and they simply rejoice now that the Europeans have fallen in line. But the real thinking behind "west's" support for this is to provoke the mullahs by the opportunity and then finish off both the hated "Jew" as well as the "mullah" in a war of attrition. Their colonial dreams are still working - while US is moved by a combined religio-commercial view that is so steeped in self-delusion that it can no longer separate out the two facets. It now thinks that it is pushing commercial interests when it is really being driven by religion, and thinks it is pushing religion when it is really being driven by commercial interests.

So all these factors will combine to try and start the chain reaction.

ramana ji,
you have a valid point. I saw that they are not free of the 30 and 90 year cycle. The last phase of this 90-cycle has started from 2009 or so. Iranian change may be linked to what happens in the subcontinent roughly 25-26 years from now.

[shyamd]

Ultimately, the hope is that the current regime will fall from within. The west won't expend too much resources. All it has to do is beat the war drums all over Iranian influence areas such as Syrai, Lebanon, Iraq, GCC coast. This means IRAN has to be on the ready all the time and will expend a lot of money. The KSA will dump oil onto the market - lower the price, west will increase sanctions.

This tactic appears to be working as there is more internal strife in Iran. Ahmadnejad just went on a program to get rid of fuel subsidies in the country so that the govt saves money, but at the same time just did some wealth redistribution to keep the people happy for now. Make no mistake the iranians are under a lot of pressure.

Apparently internally, there is a growing divide between the people and the religious rulers. As far as the IRGC are concerned, 40% are with the "supreme leader", 40% with MA and 20% in the middle. The liberals are with MA.

[ramana]

Avram used to have a good handle on Iran and Persian society. There is a divide between the Ayotollahs and the people. BTW outside Iran many expatriates are fed up with the religion. Some want to choose Buddhism.

[Kati]

Not sure what to believe about the ME.....Eventually what matters most is what the masses are thinking.
Had a series of discussions with students from ME. I think they are the real
defining force in the region. The common thinking is that the events of Egypt
and tunisia are truly from the grass-root level. But surprisingly, the students
supported the regime of Syria, and they think that the events are blown out of
proportion by the west to please Isreal. True, may be 20% people are strongly opposed to Assad, and they are given the promise of money and power if they
can do something similar to Libya.
...just sharing my 2 paisa.

[Agnimitra]

Possible?

[RamaY]

^ that plan is not acceptable to Bharat. This plan ensure that Bharat has no say in the subcontinental matters. The idea of Pakistan is kept alive to be detrimental to Indian interests but is cut to size to not to threaten western interests. Let us not lose site of our destiny to win browny points against Pakistan. Pakistan is not the enemy of India. The idea of Pakistan (a geographical entity to contain india) is the enemy of india.

[Agnimitra]

^^^ I know. Focusing more on the Mid-East / West Asia though.

[Vikas]

Why split up KSA ?

[devesh]

Carl ji,

you've done a good thing by reducing Pak to Pakjab and Sindh. once this is done, PoK should swiftly become ours. Kashmir belongs to India. full stop. period. reducing Pak to Pakjab and Sindh, and establishing direct linking between India, Afghanistan, and CA is the ideal short-term goal. long term, we'll have other goals too.

[RamaY]

BTW, that map is not Carl's creation. It is doing rounds for a while as the new ME vision of US

[devesh]

ahh....sorry. didn't know.

[Agnimitra]

^^ Right. I wouldn't have been so generous to TSP would I?

[Lalmohan]

the map maker is naive in a number of respects, notably an arab shia state, a broken up turkey and entirely the wrong configurations for afghanistan and pakistan

[Suppiah]

^^ Right. I wouldn't have been so generous to TSP would I?

You better be...a rump Pakjab without Sindh and without access to the sea will try for merger with India..with Sindh it will survive as a nation, a septic tank where all the fanantic barbarian terrorist turd animals of the sub-continent drain. They can be kept isolated like a leper colony and rest of S.Asia can progress.

Who in their right mind would want the Mohajir fanatic scum back?

[RajeshA]

Who in their right mind would want the Mohajir fanatic scum back?

I guess I would!

[RajeshA]

Possible?

^ that plan is not acceptable to Bharat. This plan ensure that Bharat has no say in the subcontinental matters. The idea of Pakistan is kept alive to be detrimental to Indian interests but is cut to size to not to threaten western interests. Let us not lose site of our destiny to win browny points against Pakistan. Pakistan is not the enemy of India. The idea of Pakistan (a geographical entity to contain india) is the enemy of india.

the map maker is naive in a number of respects, notably an arab shia state, a broken up turkey and entirely the wrong configurations for afghanistan and pakistan

How the West Asian situation, as depicted in the map, can be brought about was discussed earlier.

An Arab Shia state is desirable for India, and if they take over the Ghowar Oil Fields in Al Ahsa Province of Saudi Arabia, nothing can be better.

When Ralph Peters made that map, it seemed as USA had everything going for it, and they could decide the outcome of the war in Afghanistan. As such Afghanistan seems to have Gilgit-Baltistan as part of it. It was desired by the Americans because they thought they would rule Afghanistan.

Now that that seems remote, they may prefer that Gilgit-Baltistan comes under the rule of India, rather than remaining with the Pakistanis or being taken over by the Chinese.

Also leaving Southern Sindh under the control of Pakistan may not be desired anymore, considering that US-Pakistan relations have plummeted. Besides it is not as if, USA would be deciding the outcome of all this singlehandedly.

[Suppiah]

Who in their right mind would want the Mohajir fanatic scum back?

I guess I would!

Isn't that advocating another state, not back in UP/Bihar?

[RajeshA]

Who in their right mind would want the Mohajir fanatic scum back?

I guess I would!

Isn't that advocating another state, not back in UP/Bihar?

Yes, I was advocating another state of Mohajirstan in Southern Sindh, which can become an Indian state to provide contiguity to Baluchistan, which should also become another state of the Indian Union. Mohajirstan should also be used to cut off Pakistan's access to the sea.

[shyamd]

Iran is now desperate.

Report: Turkey foils Iranian arms shipment to Syria
Diplomatic sources tell German newspaper weapons were meant for Hezbollah
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 11,00.html

Israel recently seized a ship bound for Sinai with huge armory meant for Hamas from Iran. Iran is preparing for a limited showdown with Israel as it is trying desperately to save the Assad regime. The Assad regime is going to fall without a doubt. This is a real revolution. Israel suffered a terror attack a few months ago, sent kids totheir death on the border with Israel. This is all part of saving the Assad regime, tryign to create a diversion and force people to line up behind Assad rather than the "zionist,imperialists" etc.

Iran is baiting the west with that $10b gas pipeline of which it gave $5b immediately to Syria (because war is expensive Syria is very short of cash now also due to sanctions). Now Maliki yesterday wants more F 16s again (he doubled it to 36 from 18) to bait the west and all of a sudden said he wants US troops to stay. This is all part of Irans plan to bait the west on the nuke issue and Syria.

Iran is now desparate.

[shyamd]

The truth on the GCC and the US. Introducing too much democracy here will make the place a lot more unstable.

Bahrain and the Arab Spring: time for some realism

For far too long it has been fashionable to downgrade the merits of stability in the Arab world, writes Peter Pearson.

Bahraini King Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifa Photo: AFPBy Peter Pearson
4:13PM BST 04 Aug 2011
Comments
As the so-called Arab Spring gives way to the month of Ramadan, perhaps now is the time to inject some realism into what some of the consequences are likely to be and their implications for the interests of Britain and the West. In particular, what of Bahrain – a long-standing friend of Britain whose strategic importance has, if anything, grown over time?

Britain’s links to Bahrain go back over two hundred years. Our alliance with the ruling Al Khalifa family makes them Britain’s oldest ally in the Gulf with a shared interest in containing Persian influence in the region. For many years, Bahrain was a British protectorate, serving as a vital staging post to India and the Far East. The relationship continued after Bahrain became independent in 1971. The most Anglophile country in the Middle East, Bahrain has always given unstinting support for the UK’s military activities, most recently during the war in Afghanistan. As the base for the US Fifth Fleet, Bahrain provides a key military facility in containing Iran.

In recent years, it has become fashionable to downgrade the merits of stability. The benign outcome from the fall of Communism across Eastern Europe in 1989 was a product of a unique set of circumstances in nations that had previously been more democratically advanced than their Soviet oppressors. Moreover, the newly liberated countries had as their model decades of democratic successes in the western half of the continent. By contrast, religion remains the most potent political factor in the Middle East.

When the Shah fled Iran in January 1979 after months of demonstrations and civil disobedience, the result was – to the astonishment of virtually all observers – the world’s first theocratic Islamic republic. The Iranian revolution led to the eight year Iran-Iraq war, one of the bloodiest conflicts of the post World War II era. Neither side got what it wanted. Since then, Iran has pursued its interests in the region with more subtlety, recognising the sensitivity to Arab feeling of Persian power, but with considerable determination and ruthlessness.

One unintended consequence of the removal of Saddam Hussein has been increased Iranian influence in Iraq. Furthermore, through Hezbollah, Iran has become the most powerful external power in the Lebanon. And, there is little doubt that it is actively assisting the Assad regime to hold on to power in Syria. As President Obama observed in his speech on the Middle East two months ago, Iran stands up for the rights of protesters elsewhere yet represses its people at home.

That applies particularly to Bahrain, which, together with Iraq, is unique in the Arab world in having a Shia majority, where Iran has most to gain from instability. The ruling Al Khalifa family has, for the most part, managed a difficult balancing act, perched just off the shores of the leading Sunni power in the region and across the Gulf from Shiite Iran. In many respects, Bahrain is the most progressive of the Gulf nations. It has led the way on freedom of worship, women’s rights and establishing a welfare state.

Politically, Bahrain has representative institutions, but power is concentrated in an appointed upper chamber. One of the uncomfortable features of democratic politics in countries with sectarian division is that it creates incentives to deepen those divisions. The United Kingdom found this true for a number of decades in Northern Ireland.

It is still not widely appreciated how close Bahrain came to falling into a sectarian abyss earlier this year. In February, after protesters were forcibly removed from the Pearl Roundabout, during which three protesters and one policeman died, the Bahraini government made an unconditional offer of political dialogue. Security forces were withdrawn from the streets and talks led by the impressive Crown Prince began. On the ground, radical elements, sensing the opportunity to overthrow the regime, exercised an effective veto, by erecting roadblocks manned by armed vigilantes across the capital’s main streets. There was an uncanny similarity to the so-called ‘No Go’ areas in Northern Ireland in the early 70s. The Sunni community felt itself under siege. Sunni gangs put up road blocks into Sunni areas. Bahrain was on the brink of disintegration. It was only after four weeks of concerted negotiations, which failed to achieve a solution, that the state of emergency was put into effect. It gave the vast majority of law abiding Bahraini citizens renewed confidence that their freedom of movement would no longer be impeded and that they could live their lives without threat.

At this point, it’s worth considering what would have been the consequences if Bahrain had deteriorated into civil war: Iran would have been emboldened; Sunni Arabs in Gulf states, notably Saudi Arabia, would have felt increasingly insecure and almost certainly taken action; the world economy would have taken a knock from the impact of higher oil prices; the West would have lost a firmly western-looking ally; and extreme Islamist elements in Pakistan and around the world would have felt emboldened.

Instead, Bahrain’s security forces intervened and other Gulf states, led by the Saudis, occupied key strategic installations. Even as order was being restored, sadly at the cost of two dozen lives, the reality of sectarian violence loomed. Reporting was one sided. For example, it never reached the public domain that Sunnis needing medical treatment at the Salmaniya hospital were pre-screened out. Some arriving in ambulances were attacked. Sunni migrant workers from the Indian sub-continent were also attacked. Four were killed and one had his tongue cut out.

With a Shia population on its Gulf coast, there was and remains little prospect of Saudi Arabia acquiescing in the establishment of a Shia-dominated state on its doorstep. A transition to full democracy would in reality be a transition to something very different. In his brilliant book on the art of war in the modern world, General Sir Rupert Smith argued that the paradigm of industrialised warfare between nation states has given way to what he called "war amongst the people".

Igniting Shia-Sunni tensions in Bahrain would inevitably have repercussions across a region that is geo-strategically the most fragile and dangerous in the world. Once started, it could be years and more probably decades before a new equilibrium is found. As Clausewitz wrote, the only decisive victory is the last one. Sometimes, perhaps, it’s more prudent to hang on to what you have and make the best of it.

Bahrain’s rulers will have learned the lessons from the earlier part of the year and will, no doubt, reflect during Ramadan on how best to take forward their country. In the future, it will be seen as a major watershed in that nation’s history from which there was no going back. Its government has taken the unprecedented step of inviting UN human rights experts to find out what happened at the Pearl Roundabout and afterwards, learn from the mistakes of the past and turn a new page. A stable Bahrain with laws and practices that are fair and acceptable to all bar the extremists would not only be in the interests of all the Bahraini citizens but, clearly, of the wider region and beyond.

Lieutenant General Peter Pearson (retired) served in the Far East, Northern Ireland, Europe, Bosnia, Kosovo and Cyprus before becoming Deputy Commander of NATO's Southern Command in Italy.

[ramana]

ShyamD, We need to focus more on Syria. The rising against Assad is supported for they think the successor regime will be more Israel friendly. It might not be powerful enough to do that. Assad regime might be keeping the Hamas types in check. A less pwoerful repalcement will make that area free for all.


There was some report about an understanding to keep Gaddafi in Libya and get rid of Assad.

[Rony]

Hizbollah’s dilemma on Syria uprising

NATO already planning military operation against Syria - Russian envoy

[shyamd]

ShyamD, We need to focus more on Syria. The rising against Assad is supported for they think the successor regime will be more Israel friendly. It might not be powerful enough to do that. Assad regime might be keeping the Hamas types in check. A less pwoerful repalcement will make that area free for all.


There was some report about an understanding to keep Gaddafi in Libya and get rid of Assad.

quick reply:
This is a real revolution inSyria. The system is falling apart.

Assad had all the levers on Hamas and in fact MOST of the proPalestine groups.

Look - the Israeli;s don't negotiate on much, but they were willing to give up the Golan. So for a "fresh" start I expect Israel to give up Golan tothe successor regime.

Replacin assad is part of Iran theat and strategic defeat of it.

Expect a limited scale war. Iran appears to be gearing up for it and they have already provoked the israeli's with terror strikes and border clash. Israeli's didnt respond,

[ramana]

So what is the 'real' revolution in Syria about?

What are the drivers and demands?

Is it from core (like Egypt) or periphery (Libya)?