Iran News and Discussions

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Jun 2009 11:33

RajeshA wrote:If the Western countries want access to Central Asia, they should support India in retaking PoK, Chitral, Baluchistan, etc., and then we will provide them with access to Central Asia. Isn't GoI not doing enough bending on its own, that we on BRF also become dhimmi?

Yes Siree, you speak for me too, in agreement toto.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 24 Jun 2009 20:13

Guys:

Is it only me, or even you are disgusted at the US media is so brutally and shamelessly exploiting the death of Neda Soltan (Like me, one can feel that pain & suffering of Neda & her kith & kin, but laugh at US hypocrisy). I mean, Americans are very smart, pragmatic people in day to day affairs, and on issues of interest to them. I have to believe that they take this BS with a pinch of salt. The best part is that those not familiar with the way US media oeprates and serves US national interests; will be taken in by all this mumbo jumbo. NO wonder, Indian globalized elites are taken in by this crap US has doled out on them that TSP is waging a war on terror, and India must support it; despite TSP terror against Indians themselves in auto pilot.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Jun 2009 02:19

Reports: Iran's clerics considering removal of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad

The country's Expediency Council and the Assembly of Experts is reported to be considering the formation of a collective leadership to replace the position of supreme leader, according to Al Arabiya, citing sources in the holy city of Qom.

Secret meetings are said to have taken place in Qom and included a representative of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most prominent Shiite leader in Iraq.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 25 Jun 2009 02:34

RajeshA wrote:Why has nobody in the West opted for the Indian route? Why has nobody spoken in favor of India getting PoK back? Why was the division of Pakistan done in such a way, that access to Central Asia was blocked for India?
If it is only a question of having a transit route to Central Asia, India could have provided such, provided these countries had kept good relations with India. But no! The Western countries were interested in having access to Central Asia, but also interested in keeping India out!
So for all these years, whereas the Western countries have tried to keep India out of Central Asia, we on BRF are trying to plead in favor of giving the Western countries access to Central Asia. We are not only pleading in their favor, we are also willing to sacrifice our strategic partner, Iran for the purpose.
If the Western countries want access to Central Asia, they should support India in retaking PoK, Chitral, Baluchistan, etc., and then we will provide them with access to Central Asia. Isn't GoI not doing enough bending on its own, that we on BRF also become dhimmi?

When your grandpa Nehru didn't opt for any Indian route and himself threw away POK rather than opting to get it back immediately, then how can we credibly lecture others about not handing an Indian route to us on a silver platter? It seems we want everyone else to fight our battles for us.

Indians themselves show it everyday through their voting patterns and their lazy rhetoric, that they don't want any Indian route.

The best we can hope for in the interim is an Iranian route. Then after that works its magic, we can eventually hope for an Indian route.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Jun 2009 02:37

As I have mentioned before, when popular support indicates anger turning against state authority which in classical Islamic terms is a fusion of theologian+military+executive, then the theologians typically split themselves into factions. One or more factions then disassociate themselves from the existing setup, and allow a change of faces. This is done so that the basic image of the theologians and the theology itself is not delegitimized. In time, when heads cool, the theologians can crawl back to their supreme seats of power.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 25 Jun 2009 03:56

Iran and India, yesterday and today by Natwar Singh

In September 1986, the NAM summit was held in Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe. Rajiv Gandhi had inherited the chairmanship of NAM after his mother’s death. He was to hand over the office to President Robert Mugabe in the afternoon session. The opening session was presided over by the Prime Minister. Yasser Arafat made a blistering attack on Iran.

Ayatollah Khomeini was leading the Iranian delegation. An Iranian diplomat let it be known that his supreme leader would exercise his right of reply to Arafat’s “unfounded allegations.” Without delay I informed the Prime Minister what the Iranian leader proposed to do. The Prime Minister immediately called a delegation meeting: Shiv Shankar Menon, K.R. Narayanan, H.Y. Sharada Prasad, and myself. Rajiv Gandhi would still be Chairman in the afternoon before passing on the baton to the President of Zimbabwe. The Iranians told us that the supreme leader would exercise his right of reply before Rajiv Gandhi handed over charge to Mr. Mugabe.

“What do I do? If the Ayatollah insisted on speaking, the whole atmosphere of the summit would be vitiated.”

I remember distinctly what I suggested: “Ask for an immediate meeting with the Iranian supremo. He will, in my judgment, listen only to you.”

I was dispatched to meet the great man. Let me add that Ayatollah Ali Khomeini has a magnetic personality. If one is eye to eye, you blink first. I said: “Sir, the Prime Minister wished to meet you urgently.” The answer came: “He is welcome.”

Rajiv Gandhi too had uncommon charisma. It was fascinating to listen to and watch that unusual meeting.

The Prime Minister placed his problem before the Iranian leader frankly and gracefully. I do not recall the exact words of the Prime Minister, but the gist I remember: I have come to you not as Chairman of NAM, but as the Prime Minister of India and Iran’s well-wisher. I need your cooperation.

“What can we do for you?” The Prime Minister placed his problem before the Ayatollah. If Iran exercised its right of reply, then under NAM rules Arafat could ask to speak again. Iran could do the same. That would inevitably create a confrontational situation, which should be avoided if the summit was to succeed.

After a deliberative pause the answer came. “We cannot say no to the Prime Minister of India. We shall not exercise our right of reply.” Here is real grace and diplomatic large-heartedness. The summit was saved by Iran and India.
<SNIP>
What should India do? Publicly, say nothing. It is an internal matter of Iran which also has international ramifications. Wait and watch. No action is also action.

Remember the unspoken word.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 25 Jun 2009 05:30

Fair enough - as I said, India should not take the lead in isolating Iran, since India has no international strength anyway. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't see the benefit of the Ayatollahs falling.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 25 Jun 2009 10:10

India said nothing when Generalissamo Mushy got elected with 97% votes. Why should India poke its nose in Iran's affair which Iranians are more than capable of handling.
If we have to raise voice, lets talk about absolutely no elections in China, Saudi Arabia, NoKo,
At least Iran is having elections regularly.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Jun 2009 12:28

Sanjay M wrote:When your grandpa Nehru didn't opt for any Indian route and himself threw away POK rather than opting to get it back immediately, then how can we credibly lecture others about not handing an Indian route to us on a silver platter?

Nehru's failings doesn't subtract anything from Western machinations to deny India access to Central Asia, and neither should we be too eager to provide them with one.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Jun 2009 14:02

Iran clerics join anti-govt protests: Times of India

Pictures of the Iran anti-government protests show clerics prominently participating in an anti-government protest, speaking volumes about the
new face of Iran’s opposition movement.

In a blatant act of defiance, a group of mullahs took to the streets of Tehran, to protest election results that returned incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power.

Whether these clerics voted for Ahmadinejad or one of the opposition candidates is unknown . What is important here, is their decision to march against the will of Iran’s supreme leader who called the results final and declared demonstrations illegal, CNN News reported.

It would interesting to know, how sharply the Shi'ite clergy is divided on this issue, especially all the Grand Ayatollahs!

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 25 Jun 2009 15:23

RajeshA wrote:
Sanjay M wrote:When your grandpa Nehru didn't opt for any Indian route and himself threw away POK rather than opting to get it back immediately, then how can we credibly lecture others about not handing an Indian route to us on a silver platter?
Nehru's failings doesn't subtract anything from Western machinations to deny India access to Central Asia, and neither should we be too eager to provide them with one.

Nehru's failings certainly don't help us make our case either. When we ourselves have been throwing away opportunity after opportunity for an Indian route, then how would we expect others to fight our own battles for us? Certainly, it's unrealistic of us to accept that others will revolve their interests around us, or that the Sun and planets will suddenly start orbiting the Earth. We need to mesh our interests with the interests of others in a way that will meet our needs. Iranian power is too feeble in comparison to that of others, and what power they do have is misdirected at stalking countries like Israel, with whom they don't even share any border. This is because of their irrational ideological hangups. Having a fool in your camp is worse than having a clever enemy.

Again, I'm not saying that India has to take the lead in opposing the Ayatollahs, but I'm saying that neither should India go out of its way to shore up these people, or to misbelieve that these people are our friends. They are sectarian types who see us very clearly as heathen infidel kaffirs, make no mistake about that. Their entire world outlook is based on such prejudices and distinctions.

Tell me - do you think those Ayatollahs would ever favour BJP coming to power? Hah, you and I both know the answer to that one.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 25 Jun 2009 17:42

Two-Thirds of Iranian MPs Boycott Ahmedinejad's Victory Party

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8118783.stm

Haha, out of 290 MPs invited to attend Ahmedinejad's victory celebration, only 105 showed up.
You can see what the legitimacy of this regime is. It's not anything fantastic.

This is the guy who was taunting Bush by challenging him to a debate at Columbia.
What a coward this guy is. Next to Moussavi, he talks like an immature juvenile brat - as if he suffers from Rahul's disease.

By contrast, Moussavi comes across as very sober, mature and sophisticated.

tarun · Post by **tarun** » 25 Jun 2009 18:05

Sanjay M wrote:Again, I'm not saying that India has to take the lead in opposing the Ayatollahs, but I'm saying that neither should India go out of its way to shore up these people, or to misbelieve that these people are our friends. They are sectarian types who see us very clearly as heathen infidel kaffirs, make no mistake about that. Their entire world outlook is based on such prejudices and distinctions.

While I tend to agree with the first part, India needn't take lead in opposing the Ayatollahs or trying to shore them up. I am not sure if they see us as infidels the way our immediate western neighbor sees us. We don't have any Paki students in Indian universities seeing the world from our viewpoint, but we do have a lot of young Iranians trying to learn English and Computers at colleges in Pune and Bangalore.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Jun 2009 20:06

Sanjay M wrote:Tell me - do you think those Ayatollahs would ever favour BJP coming to power? Hah, you and I both know the answer to that one.

To put this into context, my position has been that Moussavi should be allowed to become President, but the overall politics of Iran should remain anti-Western, and the political system a Shi'ite Theocracy, in which the hardliners still have power. As Khatami was in power, India's relations with Iran were very good.

It is difficult for India to deal with a hardliner Govt. in Iran, e.g. with Ahmadinejad-led Govt., simply because the anti-Western and anti-Semitic rhetoric spouting out of Tehran makes us cringe, and we have difficulty defending our relations with to our other partners in the world (even though we need not be defensive about this). Our establishment tends to look at ourselves and portray ourselves to the world as a civilized country. All this aggressiveness of Ahmadinejad does not play well with the Westernized elite of India. So a hardline nationalist government in Iran makes relations with India difficult.

Similarly Iran is full of Muslims, and the BJP has a image problem with Muslims. Having openly warm relations with BJP may also be difficult for the Iranian regime as well, especially if people like Varun Gandhi are given prominence. I am not passing judgments on BJP's policies, but they do have a certain public image. Regardless of such arguments, Iran and BJP have had good relations, at least before Godhra riots. I don't know how they were affected afterwards or even if they were affected at all.

President Mohammed Khatami was the Guest of Honor at our 54th Republic Day in January 2003 and PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee hosted him.

So clearly Theocratic Iran and BJP-led India can coexist and cooperate, and fruitfully so!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Jun 2009 21:15

SanjayM, Dont get worked up. Indian interests are served by watch and wait. To me there is soft coup in Iran in process which got forestalled by rigging. Rafsanjani et al are equally reprehensible.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 25 Jun 2009 23:47

>>It would interesting to know, how sharply the Shi'ite clergy is divided on this issue, especially all the Grand Ayatollahs!

I think fairly deeply divided. By my last count, a couple of days ago, there are five Grand Ayatullahs who have openly come out against the election results: Montazeri, Safi Golpaygani, Makarem Shirazi, Ardabili and Sanei.

But there are over 25 Grand Ayatullahs in Iran, don't forget, along with several in Iraq, Lebanon, India, Pakistan, etc.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Jun 2009 13:01

JE Menon ji,
Thanks for the info.

The politics of power within the Shi'ite clergy is indeed a vast field of study. Since one needs club membership to know more about this, the information is not generally available, AFAIK. Incidences like the current ones in Iran are helpful as much of this club-internal knowledge leaks out!

Vinod Ji · Post by **Vinod Ji** » 26 Jun 2009 13:17

JE Menon wrote:>>It would interesting to know, how sharply the Shi'ite clergy is divided on this issue, especially all the Grand Ayatollahs!

I think fairly deeply divided. By my last count, a couple of days ago, there are five Grand Ayatullahs who have openly come out against the election results: Montazeri, Safi Golpaygani, Makarem Shirazi, Ardabili and Sanei.

But there are over 25 Grand Ayatullahs in Iran, don't forget, along with several in Iraq, Lebanon, India, Pakistan, etc.

There are 2 great grand aytollah living.. in iraq sistani No.1 & no2. montezari in iran Sistani is higher & senior. & there are 5 grand ones Rest all are ayotollahs.. (AFAIK)

BTW montezari is under house arrest for long many years. His son in law and other close relatives were executed.. He is very much a broken man.

Things are moving in qom.. slowly but steadly raftzanjani is gaining..

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Jun 2009 14:18

After doing some wikipedia lookup.

List of Grand Ayatollahs

List of Ayatollahs

The only Grand Ayatollah from India (deceased)

Vinod Ji · Post by **Vinod Ji** » 26 Jun 2009 14:42

self deleted

Vinod Ji · Post by **Vinod Ji** » 26 Jun 2009 14:51

quote="RajeshA"]After doing some wikipedia lookup.

List of Grand Ayatollahs

List of Ayatollahs

The only Grand Ayatollah from India (deceased)[/quote]

The definitions are confusing at best ( do not want to use the word wrong) here.. these are "marja taqlid" entirely a different kind of breed. (there are marja taqlid who are not Ayatollah. The moment a mullah accepts khoms is marja taqlid)

Khamnei's follower like to call him grand because of the virtue of him sitting on the same seat(Job) as khomeini hence equal to grand but in qom he is still an ayatollah.. AFAIK (because of my living there & interaction with the (momnin) religious group of people . I am not a muslim either) but pretty sure though!

One more thing you will be surprised how hard it is to qualify & the type of research /writing of the equivalent of thesis and to defend your thesis in front of the teachers in the equivalent of university. Very well organized and tough job. Much difficult than getting a phd. in the uni.. Just a static... only about 1 in 2o thesis equivalent are successful after spending years in fazihey (uni) e ulema.

edited later 2oo to 2o

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 26 Jun 2009 15:21

"America believes in the independence and territorial integrity of Iran. America believes in the right of the Iranian people to make their own decisions and determine their own future. America believes that freedom is the birthright and deep desire of every human soul. And to the Iranian people, I say: As you stand for your own liberty, the people of America stand with you."

...

— President George W. Bush, June 2005

-----------------------

In February 2004, prior to the parliamentary elections, the newspapers Sharq and Yas-e No were shut for publishing extracts from a letter by reformist parliamentarians to the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ali Khamenei. The letter blamed Khamenei for the electoral "coup d’état" and the current political crisis. In July, Jumhuriyat, a morning newspaper started by reformist and human rights activist Emadeddin Baqi, was closed after publishing only one issue.

In January 2004, journalist Ensafali Hedayat was arrested when he returned from a conference in Germany organized by a group advocating a democratic and secular state. He faces charges relating to national security, as well as defamation charges for an article he wrote on a website. While attempting to appeal his sentence during a prison leave in early December 2004, Hedayat was returned to prison and his application to extend his leave from prison was denied, due to "political activities" while on leave.
Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian-Iranian photo-journalist, was murdered in July 2003 while in government custody

----------------------
America knew exactly what would happen in 2009....

anmol · Post by **anmol** » 26 Jun 2009 15:31

Gerard wrote:Reports: Iran's clerics considering removal of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad
The country's Expediency Council and the Assembly of Experts is reported to be considering the formation of a collective leadership to replace the position of supreme leader, according to Al Arabiya, citing sources in the holy city of Qom.
Secret meetings are said to have taken place in Qom and included a representative of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most prominent Shiite leader in Iraq.

Gurus,
Al Arabiya is the channel that leaked an internal memo written to Khamenei which disclosed that Ahmadinejad did poorly in election and was distant third and Mousavi was actually the winner, but authenticity of this document is in question.

Later on after the leak of the document, Iran closed down Al Arabiya's office in Iran and deported its reporters. Al Arabiya is owned by Hariri Family(assassinated by Syria), its head office is in UAE. Also as part of its "reach out to Muslim world" project, Obama administration contacted Al Arabiya and gave them the opportunity to interview him (I guess this happened in January), which made Al Arabiya first news channel in Middle East to interview Obama.

So am i alone in suspecting this channel's role ?

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 26 Jun 2009 16:16

anmol wrote: So am i alone in suspecting this channel's role ?

Anmol Ji,

Barack Obama gave his first formal interview as president to Al Arabiya...

...

Al Arabiya was established on March 3, 2003.

Al Arabiya is partly owned by the Saudi-controlled broadcaster Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC).

-----
MBC Owner - SHEIKH WALEED BIN IBRAHIM

TEXT OF INTERVIEW - March 12 2008

SHEIKH WALEED BIN IBRAHIM: I think it was a bit primitive. We went to school in America in the early 80s and we realized we really didn't have television, you know? We had propaganda. Media machines for government. Doesn't try to become commercial television. And the need was obvious.

RYSSDAL: What was the sales pitch to you for Dubai when you sat does with the sheikh.

SHEIKH WALEED BIN IBRAHIM: Freedom of speech. Because that's the only thing that made us go to London in the first place. And he went through tests that I know about during the Iraq war, even from the Americans. Rumsfeld was not happy with a lot of Al Arabiya sometimes...

...

. And they tried to put pressure on the sheikh. He said look if you can shut your tv stations in the U.S. then I can shut these guys down. I put them in a free zone: Media City. And I'm not going to change it.

SHEIKH WALEED BIN IBRAHIM: Oh yes. The real message is for these people to understand eachother first and then reflect that one the outside world. I'm Saudi but I'm also an Arab Muslim in the Middle East who is looking for change {Change we need...

}like many people in my generation who are looking to see this part of the world evolving to become modern, become fit for our children to live in. Everyone try from his side. And I happen to be in the media.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 26 Jun 2009 19:05

Everyone in the ME knows Al Arabiya is Saudi propaganda machine. Its owned by King Fahd's brother-in-law.

They don't like Iran, the detest the iranians. In fact the Iranian political system is way more advanced compared to elsewhere in ME. By airing those debates between Iranian candidates, the ME is learning more about the Iranian democracy, apparently its not damaging the ME autocrats. They are a pro american outlet, the western media calls them "independent" and they called the torture of detainees as "enhanced interrogation".

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 26 Jun 2009 20:05

Funny to see some posters here are on the same wavelength as Eric Margoli

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Jun 2009 19:55

But at least one expert says it is dangerous to draw any connection between a drop in Iran-related tweets and the weakening of the opposition.

"If you are a cleric in Iran wishing for the international community to stop paying attention to this extraordinary story in your back yard, you are certainly glad for this distraction" of Michael Jackson's death, said John Palfrey, a Harvard Law School professor and faculty co-director of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society.

"But I would be very careful about giving it a sense of cause and effect: 'The Michael Jackson story has risen on Twitter and Iran has fallen and therefore'" it has negatively affected the opposition movement.

"That's an extraordinary overstatement," he said.

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 27 Jun 2009 22:24

As I said earlier, the people who successfully launched a violent revolution that toppled a government never forgot that hard earned lesson. From experience, they knew what to do and what not to do and how to do. They may have dittered a little in the beginning (perhaps due to internal differences) but they never forgot the lessons they learned when they successfully launched their anti-government revolution three decades ago. Thus, this so called green uprising was quite easily put down. It was quite obvious from the very beginning that this uprising did not have the CRITICAL mass that is needed for a fussion. So it fizzled. It will never show its head in many years to come as the regime calmly in discreet manner bumps off one after another everyone of the "miscreants" in cold blooded fashion. Not even their ashes would be found. This is going to be clean sweep with no trace at all.

Lesson to everyone the world over: Never fight an opponent with one hand tied. You may get brownie points for your stupidity but your opponent who fights you with both his hands will eventually win. This is a lessons the democracies the world over never seem to have grasped. History of democracy is only a little over two century while the history of authoritarianisn is
as old as human history. This also applies in war.

Avram

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 27 Jun 2009 23:04

>>History of democracy is only a little over two century while the history of authoritarianisn is as old as human history. This also applies in war.

True Avram. However, I suspect democracies are less prone to committing suicide. They may fight with one hand tied behind their back, but the other hand will be released - and then all bets will be off, with popular support. We are slowly getting there. It will take time and events unfortunately.

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 28 Jun 2009 02:03

JEM,
So far we have not had a democratic institution falling or committing suicide. Could it be because this experiment in governance is only a little over two contiguos centuries? How would we judge it in say a thousand years? The Hellenic form of city-state democratic experiment was actually an experiment of fracticide and eventually suicide. Our experiment and experience is way too brief.

In wars, modern democracies handicap their military's power to wage war by imposing restrictive rules of engagements while opponents who have no respect for democratic values engage in war with no such limitations. This compels the democratic nations to always find ways and means to employ a military force that has to be superior than the non-democratic opponents to deter the misadventurists. So far this has been the case though during the cold war this deterrand was nearly broken. I don't think the democracies will be able to maintain this superiority far into the future. Also this constant desire to maintain a superiority has been and is a drain on the resources of the nations involved. Thus to be able to sustain and live and prosper, democratic nations must not fight with one hand tied but with both hands. This is true to every democratic force or freedom loving force out there.

Anyways, don't want to get side tracked. For those who are arguing about India's inaction or action in the current Iranian crisis.....this you all need to know. Regardsless of what India does or does not do...the fall of Islam in Iran will begin the domino effect of fall of Islam everywhere. It was the conquest of Iran by Islam that swelled the manpower of Islam to expand all directions. Thus it is only ironic that the fall of Islam must also come from Iran. Instead of looking at short term tactical advantage, Indian policy makers should look at things from that perspective.
Avram

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Jun 2009 03:22

There is no need to read too much into the fall (if at all) of one faction of Shia clergy and equate that to fall of "Islam" all over the place in a domino. In Islamic theocratic regimes, many factions fell in the past, their places being taken up by other factions of Islamics. It ha sto be understood, that when popular anger or overwhelming force comes to bear on an avowedly Islamic regime (the classical model of all authority - military, political, theocratic and state fused into one single theologian dominated or determined power centre) the Islamic clergy in power always creates factions - one or more of which will diasassociate from the "hated" or "to be toppled/overwhelmed" regime, so that the theology itself is not attacked or remains safe.

Once the hostile wave passes over, the Islamics can reassert their authority under a new face. Where they were tardy in doing this they have suffered badly - like in Turkey, primarily because of the Ottoman structure of concentration of all Islamic powers in "imperial" hands and not letting go until military disaster. But even in Turkey, slowly and surely, the demographic majority has reasserted its Islamism under political Islam.

Once the numbers are there, Islam will never "fall". The clergy will split and save Islam's face if necessary.

In the case of Iran, who would really wish the fall of the Ayatollahs? who gains? Does USA gain? Not really - an Iran minus the Ayatollahs would be ultra-nationalist, to compensate for the authority and bondage of the Islamic regime - replacing at least some aspects of religion with nationalism of equal fanatical ferocity. Replacement of religion in France with the French revolution and under threat of being overrun produced a fanatical Republic. Overthrow of the official Church in Russian Revolution produced an even more fanatical early USSR. So a nationalist Iran will still see USA as a threat, and wil not stop supporting the Hezbollah. A nationalist Iran will not think of Sunni Wahabi Saudi Arabia as a friend to be clasped in warmest of embraces.

Who ever has planned this Obamaic move, from within the USA or from outside, has little understanding of Islam and of the Shias of Iran. At best this is a dangerous gamble whose fallout, if negative, can be blamed on the overenthusiasm and "good but naive intentions" of one individual. If positive, it will supposedly weaken Iran's capacity to cause USA harm through nuclear attacks or destabilizing the "energy triangle" (Saudi-Iraq-Iran-Persian Gulf). But if Ayatollahs fall, Iran will never get back to a Shah regime, but will form an ultranationalistic power - and even more aggressively defensive of its perceived interests.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 28 Jun 2009 05:48

Oh look, they're reaching for a new low:

CNN:

Iranian Ambassador Claims CIA Shot Neda Agha-Soltan

Next we need to hear Kaangress accuse CIA of being behind 1984 riots -- oh, I forgot, they already pinned the blame on BJP for that one, didn't they?

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 28 Jun 2009 06:28

b, dont you think if there are any peoples who can reform islam it is the persians? after all they did most of the thinking about it, atleast in early years. IM are too involved dealing with advani's accusations to really grapple with islam. as johann said many moons ago, IM are in too much of a defensive mode to really assert their experience on the islamic narrative. they are not going to break it to the islamic world that there is no stone that will yell oh mommen here behind me is a jew go kill him.

A comrade in bengal did some dialectic analysis of muhhamad in a magazine recently and they had to recant the entire edition.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Jun 2009 06:56

Standard Marxian dialectics has one fundamental weakness that makes it fail completely to analyze individual phenomenon like that of Muhammad. So the attempt should not have been made anyway. If on the other hand it was Marxian historical materialism that would fail because of a different but still fundamental weakness, to explain the phenomenon of "Muhammad"'s ism, i.e., Islam. WB in any case is a gone case for the next decade at least, until the point comes to shove all of that muck, Jihadism, "Leftism", together into the Marxists' favourite "garbage dump of history". However, Iran needs to be very carefully watched. My point is that, Islamism in its core essentially Jihadi form is never crushed unless it suffers an overwhelming military defeat, and at the hands of an enemy that is equally ruthless in using counter terror - i.e., counter-jihad. The Shias differ from the Sunnis only in elements that are not really significant for non-Muslims facing jihad from either of these two sects.

Iran's problems comes from the same weaknesses as shared by Saudis - they sit and survive on the flow of capital, material and humans across their territory between far greater, longer term sources and sinks of human and natural productivity. The complex interplay of oil, theology and this need for survival is yet to play out fully. I am just suggesting to reign in our high hopes.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 28 Jun 2009 07:43

b, i have lived around a few shias in my time they have certain spiritual side to them. i think it has to and does amount to something. but more importantly what is the limitation of dialectics you talk about? i think, like muslims, they are suffering from massive romanticism due to lack of responsibility. are you referring to that?

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 28 Jun 2009 15:00

from the beeb

Iran 'arrests UK embassy staff'

Iran has detained eight local staff at the British embassy in Tehran on accusations of having a role in post-election riots, local reports said.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 28 Jun 2009 18:43

This reminds me of that incident where the Iranians snatched the crew of that small British patrol vessel which came near their waters. They knew that the Brits are too puny to be able to do much but fume impotently over it. The Brits are an easy target these days, for regimes like Iran's. It's easier to pick on the little Satan than on the Great Satan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00574.html

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Jun 2009 19:23

The reason I urge caution with hoping too much in emphasizing the Shia aspect of Iran, comes from my concerns about the Kashmir situation. Iran’s attitude to the Kashmir question at the OIC and India’s permanent membership of the UNSC has not yet been resolved in favour of India. Right from the beginning, from the conversion of the exiled Tibetan prince Rinchan by Bulbul Shah, Islamization in Kashmir has been dominated by the Shias.

The majority sect overall in Kashmir (including POK) is that of Shias. Here is an extract from the writing of Mir Sayyid Ali Hamadani (1314-1385 CE), a "tolerant" Islamic Shia-Sufi spiritual leader and prolific writer, whose main activities were in Kashmir, in "Zakhiratulmaluk" (reputed to have converted 3700) :

1. Muslim ruler shall not allow fresh constructions of Hindu temples and shrines for image worship.
2. No repairs shall be executed to the existing Hindu temples and shrines.
3. They shall not proffer Muslim names.
4. They shall not ride a harnessed horse.
5. They shall not go about with arms.
6. They shall not wear rings with diamonds.
7. They shall not deal in nor eat bacon.
8. They shall not exhibit idolatrous images.
9. They shall not build houses in the neighborhood of Muslims.
10. They shall not dispose of their dead in the neighborhood of Muslim Maqbaras nor weep nor wail loudly over their dead.
11. They shall not deal in nor buy Muslim slaves.
12. No Muslim traveler shall be refused lodgement in these temples and shrines where he shall be treated as a guest for three days by non-Muslims.
13. No non-Muslims shall act as a spy in the Muslim state.
14. No difficulty shall be offered to those non-Muslims who of their own choice show their readiness for Islam.
15. Non-Muslims shall honor Muslims and shall leave their assembly whenever the Muslims enter the premises.
16. The dress code of non-Muslims shall be different from that of Muslims to distinguish them.

Hamadani and his son are more likely to have been Shias while remaining Sufis, from certain historical evidences. His son's activities in conjunction with the most famous iconoclast sultan of Kashmir is even more interesting. The fact that the majority overall of Shias in Kashmir, have such huge problems with Indian authority, (yes they also have problems with Sunni dominance in POK and NA) forces us to look at the complicated business of removal of Ayatollahs from power and installing a "secular", "nationalist" regime that is more "Persian" (the foreigner given name) than the "Ayiranya/Iran" (the internal name) could actually worsen the situation if undertaken the drastic Obamaic way.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Jun 2009 19:26

shaardulaji,
the "dialectics" problem will perhaps go OT here. I will try to reply in Indian Interests or Red Menace thread.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 28 Jun 2009 20:01

brihaspati wrote: 1. Muslim ruler shall not allow fresh constructions of Hindu temples and shrines for image worship.
2. No repairs shall be executed to the existing Hindu temples and shrines.
3. They shall not proffer Muslim names.
4. They shall not ride a harnessed horse.
5. They shall not go about with arms.
6. They shall not wear rings with diamonds.
7. They shall not deal in nor eat bacon.
8. They shall not exhibit idolatrous images.
9. They shall not build houses in the neighborhood of Muslims.
10. They shall not dispose of their dead in the neighborhood of Muslim Maqbaras nor weep nor wail loudly over their dead.
11. They shall not deal in nor buy Muslim slaves.
12. No Muslim traveler shall be refused lodgement in these temples and shrines where he shall be treated as a guest for three days by non-Muslims.
13. No non-Muslims shall act as a spy in the Muslim state.
14. No difficulty shall be offered to those non-Muslims who of their own choice show their readiness for Islam.
15. Non-Muslims shall honor Muslims and shall leave their assembly whenever the Muslims enter the premises.
16. The dress code of non-Muslims shall be different from that of Muslims to distinguish them.

These are the standard clauses of Jaziya tax which was implemented in India..

Jaziya Tax as implemented in India