"Leave no man behind" - the Revolution's promise

In line with the long list of concessions that Western governments have made to Iran, we now find another deal surfacing.

"An Iranian convicted of the 1991 murder of Iranian former Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar has been released from prison in France."

And from the same article:

"Iran recently freed a French teacher who had been convicted of espionage after the presidential election."

That's the student who was arrested shortly after the Iranian elections and I remember having wondered what had happened to her. It turns out she has been in Iran all this time. The wikipedia entry on her is quite interesting, she is alleged to have been "volunteering" information about the situation in Iran for some time- note that the French DGSE is like the CIA or MI6, responsible for intelligence outside of France. The poor girl was probably in the wrong place at the wrong time and she's hardly a Mata Hari. Still, she has proved useful in more ways than she expected or hoped for.

On a slightly different subject, Iran still holds three American students who stupidly wandered near the border. Whether by themselves or in conjunction with further prisoners the Islamic Republic will acquire, it is still not clear whose release they are being held for. Bear in mind that an Iranian nuclear scientist, Shahram Amiri, "disappeared" whilst performing the Hajj in Saudi Arabia earlier this year. Colonel Amir Mohammed Shirazi of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards also "disappeared" in Turkey in 2007.

There are unofficial claims that these men have been captured by the United States, although the Americans say that these have been defections. In all probability it is doubtful that the American claims are true, firstly because Colonel Shirazi is not just any figure, this man is a big deal. During the eighties he was a key figure in the formation and structuring of Hezbullah in South Lebanon. People like Colonel Shirazi do not "defect"; they are "believers" in their causes. You might as well shoot someone like him before they betray their cause. As for Mr Amiri, his defection whilst his entire family is still in Iran is also highly unlikely.

The message we get consistently from all these actions is simply this, no man is left behind. To support this, just consider how Hezbullah recently secured the release of Samir Kuntar, something that was considered impossible previously. In 2008, Kuntar was also awarded the Syrian Order of Merit, Syria's highest honour, for enduring the longest period of imprisonment in an Israeli jail (three decades).

This brings us to the final point I wish to make. If the Islamic Republic and Hezbullah have this much dedication and patience for securing the release of their people, then it is highly likely that the same can be said when it comes to avenging their champions. Hassan Nasrallah, in one of his recent speeches, pointed out that Hezbullah is seeking a response which is fitting for a man of Mughniyeh's stature, not just a knee jerk reaction. Watch this space.

.

On Piracy...

We've been hearing a lot of news recently about the Somali pirates and their disruption of trade through the Red Sea. Their recent capture of a massive oil tanker only boosted the level of attention that the world is taking in that part of the world. There are even rumours now of an "internationalisation" of that route, and potentially more drastic measures for Somalia itself. It is interesting here to note the parallels with a similar course of events which took place almost 400 years ago. The fall of Andalusia and the expulsion of the Arabs led to their eventual resettlement across the north of Africa. In retaliation, many took to the sea, raiding and pillaging the European shipping routes and coastal colonies. This was aided further by the Ottoman Turks, who would send admirals, men and ships to boost what were eventually known as The Barbary Pirates. These men made entire stretches of the European coast uninhabitable because of their activities, which eventually became motivated by slavery. They reached as far as Ireland and Iceland, capturing slaves, looting and pillaging and it was not until the French invaded Algiers in 1930 that this came to an end. Typically, the Dey cut a deal whereby he would surrender if he could not be harmed and would be allowed to retain his own wealth, then he set sail for Italy. It was the Sultan of Morroco who would support the insurgency against the French, led by the hero Abd al Qadir and many Algerian refugees were welcomed by Morrocans apparently, in stark contrast to what the present position between the two countries is today. It is interesting to see the attitude of the "liberal" Europeans towards the Arabs in two excerpts I found on Wikipedia:

Lieutenant-Colonel de Montagnac wrote on 15 March 1843, in a letter to a friend:
"All populations which do not accept our conditions must be despoiled. Everything must be seized, devastated, without age or sex distinction: grass must not grow any more where the French army has put the foot. Who wants the end wants the means, whatever may say our philanthropists. I personally warn all good militaries which I have the honour to lead that if they happen to bring me a living Arab, they will receive a beating with the flat of the saber... This is how, my dear friend, we must do war against Arabs: kill all men over the age of fifteen, take all their women and children, charged the buildings with them [i.e. probable allusion to military brothels], send them to the Marquesas Islands or elsewhere. In one word, annihilate all that will not crawl beneath our feet like dogs."[3]

In the same way, Alexis de Tocqueville, deputy and famous representative of the liberal tradition in political philosophy, declared in 1841:

"war in Africa is a science. Everyone is familiar with its rules and everyone can apply those rules with almost complete certainty of success. One of the greatest services that Field Marshal Bugeaud has rendered his country is to have spread, perfected and made everyone aware of this new science... As far as I am concerned, I came back from Africa with the pathetic notion that at present in our way of waging war we are far more barbaric than the Arabs themselves. These days, they represent civilization, we do not. This way of waging war seems to me as stupid as it is cruel. It can only be found in the head of a coarse and brutal soldier. Indeed, it was pointless to replace the Turks only to reproduce what the world rightly found so hateful in them. This, even for the sake of interest is more noxious than useful; for, as another officer was telling me, if our sole aim is to equal the Turks, in fact we shall be in a far lower position than theirs: barbarians for barbarians, the Turks will always outdo us because they are Muslim barbarians. In France, I have often heard men I respect but do not approve of, deplore that crops should be burnt and granaries emptied and finally that unarmed men, women and children should be seized. In my view these are unfortunate circumstances that any people wishing to wage war against the Arabs must accept. I think that all the means available to wreck tribes must be used, barring those that the human kind and the right of nations condemn.I personally believe that the laws of war enable us to ravage the country and that we must do so either by destroying the crops at harvest time or any time by making fast forays also known as raids the aim of which it to get hold of men or flocks."[4][5]

"Whatever the case", continued Tocqueville, "we may say in a general manner that all political freedoms must be suspended in Algeria.[6]

A very interesting article on the invasion and subsequent colonisation of Algeria is here.

.

جرّد سيفٌ لرأس لا نخوة فيه

I didn't like Sarkozy even before his election. His reaction to the riots in the "banlieues" and his attitude towards Arabs and Muslims betrayed a deep seated contempt towards "non-civilized" peoples. He didn't say that of course, this is me attributing this position to him based on what I've seen from his remarks and political positions. After his election, he wanted to send France back into the Middle East whilst Britain and America were already looking for a way to escape- He is also a very strong supporter of Israel. So it was with some glee that I watched his visit to Britain dominate the headlines recently, less for himself and more for his glamorous wife Carla Brunni. As soon as I saw her pouting and posing for the cameras I realised that here was a man heading towards his own ruin. I'm going to wildly generalise in this post but stay with me....it might be interesting.

Personally I feel it is true that behind every great man there may be a woman and this woman can make or break him. For a man ruling a nation and with immense responsibilities, a woman like Carla Brunni is political kryptonite. I don't know her but based on what I've seen so far, I can make a pretty strong guess that Sarkozy will gradually find her unmanageable. She likes attention, has no problem with taking her clothes off for everybody to see and thinks monogamy is a bore. The idea of making concessions for her husband due to the sensitive nature of his job is, I imagine, unthinkable. She seems quite frankly incapable of discretion and has her own priorities, so to hell with everything and everyone else. So where does this leave us? A pro-Israeli and pro-American French president who is not able to control his own wife let alone deal with the problems of the Middle East, ie. making our lives miserable. As we say in Arabic, "she will take him out of his religion". For the poor mans sake, I hope the poontang is worth it.

.

The Suez Crisis

There was an interesting programme on BBC2 last night on the Suez crisis or, as it is referred to in the Arab world, the "Triple aggression". I had a few problems with the method of portraying information, such as the ambush of Sharon's unit which was described in moving music. The narrator described 38 Israeli soldiers killed for what should have been a "token battle" organised by the strategists in London, Paris and Tel Aviv. Very touching and dramatic...then in the same breath the narrator describes how around 140 Egyptians or so were killed in the counter attack while defending their country. No touching interviews, no list of names on a marble slab, not even some stirring music. Excuse me but I thought the Israeli's were the aggressors in all of this?

I also noted how this last stab at imperial greatness by France and Britain was described without a hint of irony, and much more emphasis on them than on any Egyptian reactions or points of view, almost like the viewer is encouraged to want the conspirators to succeed. I'm just presenting the view from the other side when I say this, and I know the BBC has always tried to be impartial and accurate. Maybe they just can't help it, I mean is anybody really impartial? It'll be interesting to see what is on next week in the final episode.

.