Tell me More. Please...

Please, tell me more about your "Resistance" project, and how you are fighting the good fight against imperialism and occupation and cultural hegemony. About how you think the necktie is a remnant of the uniform worn by the old Knights Templar (it's not but I like to see you keep bringing that up). Tell me more about how the freedom of the individual, this so-called negative and positive freedom you keep liking to invoke, is so, so, very important to the historic struggles of the brown man as he shakes off the yoke of his oppressor. Tell me about your amazing plan to liberate Jerusalem, for the dignity of all Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims (no dignity to any of them until then, of course). Tell me about your glorious leaders and martyrs, about "keeping your word" with a brutal dictator who has butchered the Syrian people just so that he can be a president like his Daddy.

You'll only be happy to, I am sure. But right now there is something you're not telling me. Right now the so-called "Zionist Enemy" has, through their courts and laws, imprisoned a former president on charges of rape, and that there is a former prime minister who will now serve six years in prison on charges of bribery. Maybe they're not as good at picking their leaders as you are. And you definitely don't want to tell me about how your torture chambers make anything the villainous "Empire" can think of, including Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib - yes, especially them - look like Disney land in comparison. You don't want to tell me that your pet dictator and the militias you send to support him have killed more Syrians than everybody killed by US drone strikes since 2001. That they have displaced in three years more Syrians than the "Zionist enemy" ever did when it took part of Palestine in 1948, and then the rest of it in 1967. I guess these are things you don't want to tell me about...


.

Tehran asks all 11 staff to hand back press cards after agency describes martial artists as assassins

Such nonsense. Not the Reuters story, about which I couldn't care less, but the petty mindedness of the Iranian regime. For a country that, along with Israel, incarcerates the highest number of journalists in the world, this false indignation against Reuters really takes the biscuit. .

There is a "Great Game" that continues across the Middle East, regardless of the wave of Arab revolutions that are altering the region's makeup. It's a bit like two people sword fighting whilst a massive car pile-up is taking place. It would be ridiculous to say that they caused the pile-up.

.

This Iranian 'plot' to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States is odd, but not unlikely. There is, I think, an entire network of individuals and groups throughout the world that are ready to act should they receive instructions from Tehran.

Two men, one an an American-Iranian, Manssor Arbabsiar, 56, and Gholam Shakuri, an Iranian, have been charged in New York with the alleged "murder-for-hire" plot to pay a Mexican drug cartel to help assassinate Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi ambassador and close confidante of the Saudi king.

Over the past few years there have been many allegations that Iran, and Hezbullah, have connections with drug gangs and extensive networks in Latin America. This is the first time that something this substantial and is brought to the surface. Only Arbabsiar is in US custody, and Shakuri is thought to be in Iran. Still, I will be keeping my eyes open for 'arrests' or 'kidnappings' of Western citizens, but then again I doubt this man is very important for Tehran. Arbabsiar might not be released in a few years, when some exchange is arranged.

But what really interested me was the timing of all this, an assassination of a Saudi diplomat in Washington is a big deal. Doing so in an Arab country is possible and easy, but it will never be as public as Tehran would like it to be. Hitting the emissary of a key ally of the United States, in the heart of its capital, is a very direct, and provocative message. I think for that reason it's possible that this story is true. But what, really, can the United States do to Iran? More sanctions, more talk, and that's about it. .

When Iran is displeased with the United States, katyushas land in the Green Zone.

.

Nasrallah and Events in Syria

Many people, including myself, have been very disappointed that Iran and Hezbullah have sided completely with the Syrian regime whilst also proclaiming themselves to be against Israeli and American oppression in the Middle East. At the same time, in London, I have heard news that the Bahraini opposition has sided with the Syrian pro-government 'protestors' and the Libyan pro-government protestors. So what do we make of all this?

Two Camps in the Middle East

As I've mentioned on previous posts, the revolutions in the region are not happening in a vacuum. There are two camps in the region, the pro-Western 'moderate' camp and the Iranian led 'resistance' camp. Whilst the Arab awakening has affected both camps, it is clear that each camp is only eager to support revolutions and unrest in the separate camp. So Iran, Syria, Hezbullah and Shia Iraqi's are eagerly supporting the Bahraini revolution and backing the Gaddafi regime, whilst the Gulf States, Jordan and the United States are supportive of the Benghazi government in Libya and the protestors in Syria. All of this means that what started off as a legitimate wave of Arab revolutions is now at serious risk of being subverted and manipulated.

Protestors in Syria are, quite rightly, becoming strongly anti-Iranian and anti-Hezbullah whilst you find intellectuals such as al Jazeera's Ghassan Bin Jeddo and popular leaders like Nasrallah are now siding clearly with oppressive regimes because it is far more important to them that the United States and Israel be resisted and defeated than that their people live dignified and decent lives. Nasrallah's recent speech was like a slap in the face for many Syrians who deeply respected him. But was it really necessary for him to comment about events in Syria? No, that was a bad move, just like his comments regarding what is happening in Bahrain. He should have kept quiet.

Resistance or a Decent life - Mutually Exclusive?

Obama, now emboldened after his soldiers killed Osama Bin Laden, now feels ready to start turning the tide in the Middle East. Ambitious financial packages for Tunisia and Egypt, a strengthened committment to the Israeli state (in spite of his '1967 borders' claim in his recent speech) and a belligerent Netanyahu who has made it very clear how the Israelis will continue to do business. Coupling this with the admission of the Moroccans and the Jordanians into the GCC can give the GCC a projection force of 10,000 additional soldiers and now means that the Gulf Cooperation Council is a club for the Arabian monarchies. We can see this confident Saudi-led foreign policy with their involvement in crushing the revolt in Bahrain.

Naturally this is making the 'resistance' countries of the region extremely nervous. But frankly this can never justify the repression of their own people's legitimate demands and grievances. There can be no reforms whilst people are getting shot in the street, imprisoned and tortured, and harassed by security services and paramilitary thugs. The clumsy reaction of the Syrian regime is tragic, and now there are 1,100 people who have been murdered, with an additional 10,000 Syrians being imprisoned and tortured in the name of resistance and national security. It didn't need to be that way and this will not be forgotten by the people. If the 'resistance' countries think they will make any progress against Israel or American-led designs for the region, they are mistaken if they believe that people will put up with corruption, a lack of dignity and police brutality in the name of resistance. By ignoring this very simple fact, they risk losing everything - and they will.

Universal Opposition to the Arab Awakening

One thing we can be certain of is that both the 'moderate' and the 'resistance' camps, as well as Israel, the United States and Tehran, are all deeply worried about the Arab Awakening, and will do everything possible to stop it. I don't think this is something they will be able to do. We are in for a very long period of unrest, surprises and revolution. The result will be virtually unrecognisable and there will sadly be a lot of suffering and bloodshed. This is only the beginning.

.

The Counter-Revolution in Iran - and the death of revolution in Bahrain, Yemen and Algeria

The loss of the Mubarak regime in Egypt was a bitter pill to swallow for the United States, but that will never mean that it won't be useful at some stage. Secretary of State Clinton has praised the young protestors and used forceful language against the Iranian government. Clinton said she "supported the universal human rights of the Iranian people". As if on cue, Western media begin extensive coverage of the Iranian protests in a way that they did not do for Egypt. That was partly because the Egyptian protests caught everybody by surprise, but also because Mubarak is a favourite of the West, admired for bringing 'stability' to the region. On the other hand, most people in the Arab world viewed Mubarak as complicit in a criminal seige against the Palestinians in Gaza and of relegating Egypt to the rank of a US vassal, particularly offensive considering the position of Egypt as a one-time leading Arab nation.

Interestingly, I have not heard any reactions from Mrs. Clinton concerning the protests in Algeria, Bahrain or Yemen. There has been no condemnation of the harsh repression the protestors there have been suffering. Indeed, one would be forgiven to think nothing is even happening in those countries. But in Iran, the modern-day Kermit Roosevelts are weaving their magic and creating history before our very eyes. Apparently a noble and humanitarian football referee has even refused to lead the Iranian football team because of the protests in Tehran. Yet during the Egyptian revolution the biggest concern that Western media had was regarding the welfare of tourists on the Red Sea coast. It is good to have your priorities straight.

A revolution is, by definition, a great and far-reaching change or a complete overhaul of an existing political system. The 1979 Islamic revolution deserved that name. Back then, Iran moved up from a nation that was the gas pump of the West under a despotic and archaic Shah, to an independent Islamic country which has, for all its flaws, pushed Iran the status of a world super power. The 2009 protests about allegedly rigged elections (widely supported by the United States) are not a revolution. Their primary purpose is to return Iran to a Western orbit, to reduce the influence of Iran on international affairs or the management of its internal ones and to relegate the country to the status of a US vassal or protectorate. It is with a heavy heart that I fully support the Iranian government in the way they deal with the protestors. Some things are far too valuable to allow well-intentioned fools to dabble with.

.

Not all Revolutions are Equal - A Comparison between Egypt and Iran

One would think, watching the BBC or CNN, that the Egyptian revolution is winding down and that the people are going back home now that talks have been commenced with the regime. That is not surprising. Since the 25th of January I've found that Western coverage of the protests has, at times, verged on the half-hearted. The picture is completely different with regards to the coverage provided by al Jazeera, that has been providing almost round-the-clock analysis and coverage of the current Egyptian revolution.

The difference between the BBC and the coverage of al Jazeera could not be more different, yet I remember that the BBC seemed to find the so-called 'Green Revolution' in Iran far more fascinating. At the time there was in-depth coverage, analysis and up-to-the-minute information on what was happening in the streets. When Neda Sultan was shot at one of the protests she was immediately turned into the face of that revolution. Yet countless Neda Sultan's were shot dead on the streets of Cairo, Alexandria and Port Said over the past 15 days but we have yet to see a single one of them appear on any Western news outlet. Not one BBC journalist has visited a victim's family, or attended the funeral of any of the protestors. The horrific footage of cars plowing through crowds of protestors or of people being shot in the streets have not provoked as much concern as they would have if they were filmed on the streets of Tehran.

Even the language of Western statesmen has been far more diplomatic and reserved with Egypt than it has been with Iran. In fact the most prominent concern aired for these statesmen has been their fear of a replay on the Iranian revolution in 1979. The idea that Egypt might have a revolution like that of Iran is very unsettling to the West, hence the emphasis by Obama on 'orderly transitions'. This is because the removal of Mubarak is acceptable, but the removal of his regime is not. This regime (inspired by the former president Anwar Sadat) maintains peace with Israel and disrupts the activities of dissenting players in the Middle East such as Hezbullah, Hamas, Iran, or Syria. It is a key ally of the United States and its internal security apparatus help keep the Arab world's most populous and influential country under a tight leash. As a result, all this makes Egypt a prize that is far too valuable to lose.

In a recent blog post I pointed out that it is not wise to equate a day of rage between a country like Syria and that of Egypt. The reason I did that is because these revolutions are not taking place in a vacuum. There is a power struggle in the region between the United States and the regional powers such as Iran, with whom Syria is a key ally. For Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen to drift into the orbit of the 'opposition' states in the region, leaving Saudi Arabia and Jordan alone as US allies, would be very dangerous for the interests of the West in the area, and potentially for the security of the key US ally, Israel. What raises interesting questions in the coverage of Western news outlets between the protests in Egypt and those of Iran is how neatly the coverage coincides with the strategic interests of the United States and her allies. That raises deep concerns about the supposed impartiality and professionalism of these news outlets, but it also gives high hopes for Arabic channels such as al Jazeera that have succeeded in creating an alternative platform for the Arab world to voice its interests.

.

Robert Gates on Iran

Excellent Guardian article on the situation in Iran, published yesterday. Some interesting highlights:

Ringed by professional "Iran watchers" based in neighbouring countries, besieged
by electronic, cyber and human intelligence gathering and surveillance, squeezed
by sanctions, bans and prohibitions, destabilised by unacknowledged internal
covert action programmes, and isolated by myriad diplomatic and political means,
Iran is the most scrutinised, interrogated country on earth.

But as the
cables also show, Iran is fighting back. From Iraq to Afghanistan and from
Azerbaijan to the Gulf, the battle between the US and Iran for the upper hand in
the Middle East is, as one regional diplomat put it, "the great hegemonic
contest of modern times".

A very good introduction to something I have been saying for a long time here at Maysaloon. The events occurring in the region concerning Iran's rise to regional power are titanic in proportion and not given the importance they deserve.

Washington's thinking proceeds from three premises. First, Iran is
developing a nuclear weapons capability and matching missile systems. Second, it
is intent on regional hegemony in Iraq, the Gulf and across the Middle East.
Third, Iran's leadership poses a clear and present – and growing danger – to
Israel.

These three points are extremely important. There must be nobody who has any illusions that Iran's nuclear programe is peaceful, in fact for the Islamic republic to survive, it is a political and strategic necessity that they develop nuclear weapons. Of course, the big worry is that Israel and America's Arab allies also acquire these weapons. The division in the Middle East today is not between 'moderate's and 'extremists' but between those who have accepted becoming vassals to the United States and those that are driven by a more independent vision of their role in the Middle East. It is interesting to see the clear and present, "and growing danger" statement made with regards to the threat to Israel. Yes, Israel's role as the regional superpower is being undermined and challenged each day. Anybody who listens to Hassan Nasrallah's speech, or the words of Ahmedinejad's speech, outline a narrative that is underlined by a different understanding of the dynamics of power in the region. This is very important to understand.

The Guardian summary of the Wikileak document shows how alarmed Western powers and their vassals are with regards to Iran and how seriously they consider its threat. One good thing I believe will arise from this massive leak is that a modicum of intelligent analysis will return to coverage of events in the region. For far too long there has been so much confusion and stupid analysis of what is happening that the most outrageous twists to events in the region have been given by many clueless commentators. Arguing against this idiocy has been particularly tiring, but this readjustment should help make discussions less contentious about basic facts.

.

Assassination of Iranian scientists

The timing is probably irrelevant, but on the day following the Wikileaks release of classified documents, two Iranian nuclear scientists have been attacked, with one of them killed. In January another Iranian professor was also assassinated. At the time, there were rather hasty allegations made by the Western press that the Iranians had assassinated their own scientist. No such quick judgements have been issued by the Western press yet on this set of events, probably as they are pre-occupied with the "Cablegate" scandal.

On another note, the way the assassinations were attempted is astonishing. Charges were attached on the drivers window by motorcycle drivers. The charge is probably shaped to hit into the car, killing a driver or passenger sitting at that side. It is nothing short of ingenious, but one wonders who is behind such a move...

.

Lebanon and Israel's "Five-Pillar" Strategy against Iran

Some interesting comments made in a meeting on August 17th 2007, between Mossad Chief Meir Dagan and Under Secretary Burns. The context of this meeting is interesting. It is almost one year after the Israeli defeat in Lebanon and one year before the Hezbullah take-over in Beirut.

For those who have a memory, they will remember that in the year after the Israeli attack of 2006, there was an increasingly violent period of demonstrations, militia clashes and bombings in Lebanon as March 14 associated groups tried to counterbalance Hezbullah internally. The culmination of this was that in 2008, Hezbullah took over Beirut in about 6 hours, destroying the power of the 'Future' militias aligned to Saad al Hariri, and completely surrounding Walid Jumblatt's home, demanding the surrender of his entire weapons cache there. The Future television station was also shut down temporarily, and Saad al Hariri was not allowed to leave his home.

In this meeting a year earlier, Dagan describes then prime minister of Lebanon Siniora as a 'courageous man' and that "Hariri, Jumblatt and others" had personal and political reasons which would make them anti-Syrian. Most interestingly, Dagan said that the US and Israel are "on the edge of achieving something in Lebanon, and so cannot afford to drop their guard. What is necessary is finding the right way to support PM Siniora."

We see here that, in 2007, the US and Israel both believed that this internal counterbalance to Hezbullah that had been slowly building up might actually be able to pin the Islamic movement down. Of course we know that this did not happen, and today Saad Hariri, now the prime minister of Lebanon, is in Tehran, presenting his credentials. This narrative to what was happening is in stark contrast to the naive comments made by some commentators that somehow Hezbullah was to blame for the internal strife and growth of new militias in that country. The paranoia that they accuse Hezbullah of, often sarcastically, is in fact well placed.

Israel's Five Pillar Strategy against Iran

More interesting things in the meeting were regarding this Five Pillar strategy that Israel employs against Lebanon. Each to "bear fruit", according to Mr Dagan, in its own time.

The first pillar is with regards to the Political Approach. In this approach, Israel strongly supports further sanctions against Iran through the UN Security Council. This is independent to when Iran actually possesses nuclear capability, but it will bear fruit at some later stage and was useful to have. The second pillar concerning Covert Operations, was, with hindsight, a wise decision not to discuss at the meeting. Counterproliferation, Sanctions and Forced Regime Change were the other three pillars.

Particularly interesting was the comment made regarding ethnic minorities in Iran. As I had mentioned in a widely-criticised article on Islam Comment, ethnic minorities are extremely useful to both the US and Israel in undermining security in Iran and other countries. In this meeting, Dagan points out that, "more should be done to foment regime change in Iran, possibly with the support of student democracy movements, and ethnic groups (e.g., Azeris,Kurds, Baluchs) opposed to the ruling regime."

He also said that "more could be done to develop the identities of ethnic minorities in Iran."

This approach is aimed at weakening and dividing the state and, as a strategy, is one which is likely to have been employed on numerous occasions with many other opponents. In fact the example of Iraq comes to mind first and foremost. I am also pleased to note my initial assumptions, that the student led revolts of the "Green Revolution" following the 2009 Iranian elections were something to the advantage of the West and not for the Iranian people, have been confirmed. The mentality exposed in this high level meeting in Tel Aviv seems to demonstrate this fact, again, the naivety of some commentators and news agencies astounds me today as it did then. I intend to cross-reference a lot more documents with my posts surrounding key events, and will tag such posts with the Wikileak tag to make these easier to find at a later date.

.

The New Great Game - Iran and Israel

Some interesting comments coming out of the Israeli state recently. Firstly, Gabi Ashkenazi believes Hezbullah may take over Lebanon if the Special Tribunal for Lebanon accuses members of the party in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik al Hariri. This is an interesting statement to make, firstly because Israel had traditionally drawn a distinction between the Lebanese state and Hezbullah. Statements made over the past few years indicate that in future wars, Israel will no longer recognise that distinction and will target Lebanese infrastructure. A baffling statement if one considers the desctruction wrought in previous conflicts...

In another bit of news, the divided village of Ghajjar, long seen as a security gap by the Israelis, will now be withdrawn from. The Israeli army will only patrol the southern half whilst UNIFIL protects the northern side. There was also an announcement that Israel's missile and satellite defence network will be completed by 2015, ostensibly to protect the country from Iran. As for Egypt, Ashkenazi was quite vocal in his criticism of their inability to prevent smuggling into Gaza. Apparently Israeli intelligence believe Hamas now has missiles with a range of 80km, making Tel Aviv well within their range. It's quite likely that the Israelis are keeping a close eye on developments in Egypt as president Mubarak is now old and in frail health.

What is even more interesting is the fact that the Middle East is now the central stage for a new "Great Game", mirroring that which took place in central Asia during the nineteenth century. The implications for this "Game" are far-reaching. With regards to Lebanon, the Special Tribunal is largely considered to be politicised now, and is being used to add pressure to Hezbullah there, with the aim of keeping them distracted and on their toes. In Gaza, slow pressure is constantly being applied, but smuggling is proving to be remarkably successful. What is fascinating about the Gaza seige is the Iranian influence that has been growing in central Africa over the past five or six years. Eritrea is a hotbed for Israeli and Iranian intelligence, Iranian warships patrol off the horn of Africa and the coast of Yemen. Israel is good friends with Ethiopia and have a strong presence throughout the region. Recently an Israeli airstrike struck what is alleged to be an Iranian funded convoy delivering arms destined to be smuggled into Gaza.

Perhaps this would explain the recent "misunderstanding"that took place in Nigeria, where Manoushehr Moutaki, the Iranian foreign minister had to fly over following the discovery of containers containing Iranian weapons. Iran might be looking further afield in establishing smuggling routes. The ship with the weapons had been destined for The Gambia, although it is unclear what destination they were going to. On the map, we know Mauritania is close to The Gambia, and then we have the Western Sahara of Morrocco. One idea that comes to mind is that the Iranians, in promoting their ideology of standing by the Mustaza'afeen (the oppressed of the earth) might be helping the Polisario arm, thus putting pressure on the Morroccan kingdom. Morrocco recently had a diplomatic spat with Iran, cutting off ties because of alleged Shiite influences on the youth there. Impoverished Morrocco has particularly strong ties with the United States, Israel and Europe - most likely due to economic necessity. Still, this is far fetched and nobody has made any news or fuss about this. Then again, Western media routinely ignore the situation in the Western Sahara and that might be the trade off for Morroccan assistance elsewhere.

The other option is that the weapons were destined to be smuggled to Egypt and then on to Gaza via a tortuous and long route through the lawless and vast Sahara desert. It is far-fetched but crazy enough to work. Still, Chad is very much on the side of France, you have the issue of passing through Algeria and Libya too. There are far too many uncertainties and it is far too dangerous, making this very unlikely. Shipping these arms to Latin America is also a possibility but that introduces an entirely new set of problems. Overall, the destination of the shipment will remain a mystery, in the same way as the privateering of the Russian ship, the Arctic Sea a few years ago.

Expect this cat-and-mouse scenario to continue between these powers for at least another thirty years, incidentally the same amount of time that General Sir David Richards believed the war against al Qaeda might continue for, a war that he believes is unwinnable with the methods currently employed. The general advised that the best method to undermine this extremist threat he believes to exist will be in spreading "education and democracy". For a West that is currently weakened by the recurring economic crises that have befallen it, it is by far a cheaper option. The Israelis might also apply a similar approach, in tandem with the United States, with regards to Iran. Expect far more politicisation, music concerts for, and "concerned" coverage surrounding, democracy in the Islamic republic, and, of course, plenty more cloak-and-dagger business.

.

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon and sanctions on Iranian officials - what does it all mean?

There is something particularly interesting about the coverage of Iran, Syria and Hezbullah in Western news media. In 2006 the media were near hysterical with their analysis of these key players in the stage we call the Middle East. Iran was ominous, threatening and dangerous. Hezbullah was almost terrifying in the mystique it exuded, and have-a-go analysts were falling over each other to give interviews about this movement. Yet in the last two years something has changed, particularly as Western impotence in the face of these countries and their growing power became more apparent. In 2008 America's stooges in Lebanon were utterly routed in less than 8 hours, in Iran the "Versace" activists and their Western cheerleaders learned the hard way that you cannot have a revolution using Facebook and Twitter, let alone with an absolute minority in a country which is still overwhelmingly pro-Ahmedinejad and pro-Islamic Republic. In Syria the idea of "regime-change" espoused by the Bush administration also failed, and the West's star player in Lebanon, Prime Minister Saad al Hariri, recently visited Damascus to present his credentials. Yet today, and across the Right-Left political spectrum that defines Western ideologies, newspapers deal with Iranian statements with an irreverance that borders on the comical. Articles regarding Iranian "boat-planes" are derided whilst statements by the Iranian president concerning the 9-11 attacks are, like his statements concerning Israel, taken out of context yet again. Statements made by Hassan Nasrallah are mostly ignored or treated with a certain contempt and skepticism, even Turkey's Erdogan is a subject of ridicule by the secular Turkish media, "Mr 1 minute", for his interjections with Shimon Peres, and for his principled positions concerning Gaza and the Palestinian people. In Syria, every now and then some silly article about silly Syrian activists is pushed to the surface of news coverage. In all fairness, Syria has received far less of the criticism, and this is mainly due to an excellent and politically savvy foreign policy that has defined this country as a player that can punch far beyond their weight.

So what can explain this change in the way the supposedly free Western media covers this Middle Eastern alliance? Well one possible answer lies in the dramatic shift in the West's psychology towards the region. People with a longer attention span than the last three months will recall the sheer terror and apprehension that the world felt prior to invading Iraq. Even within the region, the public stocked up on gas-masks, bread, supplies and water. Countries in Europe wondered if Iraqi missiles could reach their cities, the Israelis held their breath, and probably hovered a finger over their nuclear launch buttons. This awe with which an Arab and Muslim country was held with was eroded gradually over ten years of sanctions until the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which dissipated it completely. Apparently George Bush believed it was "Mission Accomplished". Since then, this healthy awe has been building up again and is now unchallenged. The bully recognises that they cannot hurt people without being hit back, and this makes countries like the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany very nervous.

There will be a confrontation with Iran, Hezbullah and Hamas and this is unquestionable. This author firmly believes that prior to simply charging into battle with all guns blazing, there is a certain amount of preparation and public attenuation that must take place. Firstly, people are more at ease when they can ridicule that which once gave them fear. Secondly, generating weighty international legal paper-trails give military actions or sanctions an added justification. In this case we can see a meticulous construction of sanctions on Iran aimed at clearing the ground before the battle. Firstly there is the delegitimisation and ridicule of the regime, so that it would be more difficult for critics to oppose a war against that country; Secondly sanctions; Thirdly, targetting of key figures in the Iranian military-industrial complex in a list which, according to Secretary of State Clinton, will grow further with time; and finally, hard-biting international arrest warrants for key figures in Hezbullah through the politicised, and now discredited, Special Tribunal for Lebanon that was allegedly made to investigate the death of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri over five years ago.

What we are witnessing in effect is a tightening of the noose around the key players in the region. It is inevitable, and not just highly likely, that the future and shape of the Middle East will again be decided with arms as the West prepares a second attempt at beating the natives into submission. The only way to prevent a third attempt from ever being contemplated would be for Hezbullah, or Iran, to pull off a victory on a par with the Viet Minh's defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu, a victory that would completely shock the political minds of the United States and her allies and impose a new political reality for the region, thus transforming it.

.

Blair on Iran - some thoughts

The ripples from Tony Blair's memoirs continue to spread throughout the news although I am not sure whether I will take the time to read them yet; I have a lot of other books to read and not very much time. Not surprisingly, the latest revelation from Blair's BBC interview is that he supports the use of force against Iran, claiming that it would be unacceptable for the Islamic republic to possess a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, perhaps controversially, he also seems to be equating the Islam of al Qaeda with that of Iran.

Now I understand people's reservation about this very broad generalisation (which is also untrue) but there is a deeper view underpinning the former prime minister's statements. Islam is influencing the world in a way that would have been unthinkable twenty years ago. There is no one country from which this influence is emanating, nor is there one movement or group which speaks for it, it is simply a world view which animates over 1 billion people, and is beginning to overlap with the Western, modernist,narrative that has been dominant for the past two hundred years.

I think Iran in particular is very unsettling for the West and especially Israel. Regardless of the vitriol surrounding it, the Islamic republic is capable, competent and non-superstitious. It is also rational in its behaviour and functions as a society run, albeit imperfectly, under the rule of law. The desperation that Western 'hawks' view such countries is not misplaced - although I don't think anybody seriously considers Israel to be viable in the long term - as it touches on a deeper and more historical paranoia, the beginning of an eclipse for "the triumph of Europe". There are other countries in the region that have similar potential, Egypt being the other example. Although politically the Egyptian government is anything but similar to that governing Iran, the political climate and general disposition of Egypt, also a country operating, even if nominally, under the rule of law, along with its strong Islamic identity, make it another source of worry for the West. In fact some Israeli newspapers and politicians have made no secret of their desire for Mubarak to have a long life, claiming he has been a valuable ally over the last thirty years; better the devil you know and all that.

Yet in spite of all this, I think Mr Blair's fears of some Iranian first strike are unfounded. There will be no Iranian missiles falling over Europe or Tel Aviv unless the latter are stupid enough to start some kind of aggression. I find myself wondering if that is itself what Blair and his co-ideologists fear most; this idea that their countries can no longer bomb the savages without fear of effective and quite destructive retaliation.

.

American soldiers unceremoniously end combat operations in Iraq

Well it seems that the American army's "combat operations" phase is now finally over. No victory parades, no fancy speeches or handing over ceremonies, instead the thief slips away quietly during the night. Or seems to slip away. There is still a strong American presence in Iraq and the US Embassy complex in Baghdad is apparently bigger than the Vatican. But if you read these stories and believe that this is about the United States leaving Iraq for good, or that this is even about Iraq, then you are gravely mistaken.

I think the timing of this withdrawal is interesting because in a few days Iran's Bushehr reactor will become operational; and a week after that? Well, we can talk about that when it happens. When a bull is expected to come crashing through your living room the first thing you do is pack up all your belongings so nothing is damaged. It would be very bad indeed for the Americans if they had all those American soldiers running around Iraq and Israel decides to bomb Iran before this reactor is activated. We all know the tit-for-tat kidnapping saga that the Americans had went through previously so I guess somebody in the American administration decided they didn't need that, or worse, happening to American soldiers on a mass scale. The clock is ticking, but for what?

.

The kidnapped Iranian researcher arrives in Iran, but...

I've noticed there is very little media coverage about the kidnapped Iranian researcher Shahram Amiri, who has just returned to the Islamic Republic following what seems like a period of captivity in the United States. This sparse coverage tells me some very important things. Namely that on certain key issues, mainstream channels appear to 'overlook' stories about their national governments that they are not supposed to focus on. Recall the British "IT" worker captured in Iraq a few years ago and only recently released. In that story too there has been very little coverage or follow-up on what happened to him, why he was held and by whom. This was maintained even whilst he was in captivity.

We live in a world where people can be kidnapped whilst on hajj, made to disappear, made to be heroes or villains, poisoned by radioactive sushi, or thrown out the windows of expensive London apartments, with complete impunity. Such a delightful maze of mirrors and smoke that we live in.

.

Arbitrary death sentences

A 43-year-old Iranian woman is facing death by stoning unless an international campaign launched by her children forces the authorities to quash what her lawyer calls a bogus conviction.

Firstly I would like to point out that I in no way identify myself with the international human rights perspective which is taking the lead in the outcry about cases such as this which occur in countries like Iran. I find the basis of their arguments to be abhorrent, and were it not unjust to side with the opposing view, I would support the Iranian position. But I cannot. The Iranian court judgements concerning the stoning to death of people guilty of adultery are applied in far too arbitrary a manner and, in my opinion, contrary to what the Prophet and the Qur'an teach.

There is no question about what the Qur'an says concerning limits that must not be crossed, especially concerning issues such as theft, murder, adultery and even perjury. In the case of adultery, it is unfortunate that news articles carried by the Guardian carry very little, if any, information about the cases or the reasoning of the judges. There is a famous hadith concerning the Prophet's dealing with an adulteress which affirms the very strict limitations that must be placed on applying so strict a punishment. Even in Christianity, there is the famous "Let he without sin cast the first stone" saying which affirms both the existence of the prohibition and the strict limits on applying the punishment.

You do not impose the حد or limit by handing out death sentences like chiclets. The role of a judge is an awesome burden and not one to be taken lightly. The Iranian judges should never be allowed to forget this fact.

.

"Russia has said its long-standing contract to supply surface-to-air missiles to Iran will not be affected by new UN sanctions."

You can find more information on the S-300 system here. Syria might have a version of this system in place, or it might not...Hezbullah might have this, or they might not...

.

An analysis - Iran sanctions

The United Nations Security Council have voted in favour of a fresh round of economic sanctions against Iran, the BBC reports. This set of sanctions have been watered down considerably and interestingly aim at stopping the delivery of weapons such as helicopters and missiles from being delivered to Iran. This is curious as Iran actually builds its own missiles, though perhaps the sanctions also cover components that are vital for manufacturing them.

Furthermore, Turkey and Brazil are not happy with these sanctions, earlier Robert Gates expressed "concern" about the collapse of relations between Turkey and Israel. China and Russia helped to water down the sanctions considerably whilst Lebanon abstained from the vote, naturally. Will this affect Iran? Unlikely, the report quotes Ahmedi Nejad as saying that the sanctions were like a dirty handkerchief that needs to be thrown away.

This is just another sign of the tightening grip that the United States has been trying to impose on the Islamic Republic. Only recently Obama approved the increase of the reserve stock of weapons that the Israeli state can rely upon when it wages one of its wars. From around $800 million, this is now around $1.1 billion or so, an increase of about 50%. Israel has also asked for more JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) modules which are apparently very useful for transforming cheaper, "dumb" bombs into precision guided bombs. Israel dropped many bombs,with devastating effect, in Lebanon (2006) and Gaza, more recently, using this technology.

It's also noteworthy that Israel just finished the fourth major nationwide exercise only very recently and Hassan Nasrallah made his clearest warning yet on the 25th of May 2010 that Israeli shipping will be a target throughout the Mediterranean as well as the Red Sea if a naval blockade of Lebanon is put in place in the next war the Israelis wage against that small country. These are powerful words and although the world media have generally ignored this warning, I'm sure that the people who need to know about this in Washington and Tel Aviv have taken note.

Will there be a war this summer? I think the decision for war has always been with the Americans and Israelis. We probably won't see any steps towards it by Iran or Hezbullah as that would give the pretext to their enemies to begin massive attacks and might affect public opinion. Then again, the Israelis do not want a war before they are absolutely ready. If they fight this time they have to fight to win. I think Damascus and many cities in Syria will also be bombed if there is a war this time. The chances of this happening are not certain but it is more than likely.

The role of Syria in arming and assisting Hezbullah has not gone unnoticed. I doubt the Syrian front will hold up as strongly as the Lebanese south though, and this might be something Hezbullah will have to factor in. In 1967, the Israeli army attacked and conquered the Golan Heights precisely by going around them via weaker (at the time) Lebanon and then attacking the positions from the rear. This time a similar plan might be a wiser move for the Israelis regarding the south of Lebanon. However, if Syria has a surprise for the Israeli air force, like it did in the opening days of 1973, then the Syrian Republican Guard might just about be able to face off the Israeli army using the same tactics Hezbullah did. In 2006 tank hunter teams with missiles inflicted a heavy toll on Israel's Merkava tanks and the Israeli airforce was unable to dent Hezbullah's heavily dug in defences and tunnels. It would be stupid if the entire front Syria has with Lebanon right up until Damascus isn't already a patchwork ant's nest of tunnels, defence positions and ambush holes. Still, Syria has excellent planners who are qualified in spite of their lack of resources, and they are very good at keeping secrets, so one can only hope they have enough tricks up their sleeves.

One thing that might be possible, and unlikely, is that Israel might attack Syria via Jordan. The Jordanian government, along with that of Egypt, are now firmly allied with the Israelis and a discreet approval for the Israelis to do so, it would be hard to see what Jordan can do if it rejected this, would allow Merkava tanks to cross into the entire south of Syria, push through past Damascus and straight into Lebanon, but that is ambitious and stretches Israel's supply lines. What they might do is use it to overcome Syria's defences and then clear a path straight into the East of Lebanon, but they might as well send a postcard to Hezbullah telling them that this is what they intend doing. Also there are very difficult mountains to cross between Syria and Lebanon, meaning that this wouldn't be a wise move for the Israelis.

Invading Lebanon from the sea is not an option either following Hezbullah's clear message that they have the ability to hit any navy ships blockading the Lebanese coast. Iran most certainly has what NATO calls the Sunburn surface to sea missile. This missile puts the entire sea between Lebanon and Cyprus within range of Hezbullah's defences, if they have that missile, as it has a range of about 110km.

Whenever the next war the Israelis and Americans want to wage actually begins, what is certain is that this will be a very, very different type of war to anything the region has seen since the fall of the Ottoman empire. Ad nauseum, I repeat again my firm belief that it is not if, but when, a new war begins in the Middle East. Any "reality" of peace agreements simply cannot be imposed on the Arabs as long as Hezbullah and Iran are major players in the region. This is not something obvious to many people, but Israel's existence as an entirely Jewish state centered on the Zionist ethos is depends on Israel being able to destroy Hezbullah and Iran. If they don't, then they really will have to follow Helen Thomas' advice to pack their bags and move back to Poland, Germany or America.

.

Shahram Amiri - شهرام أميري

Recently I blogged about the tit-for-tat kidnappings between Iran and the United States. One person I mentioned in particular was that of the Iranian scientist Shahram Amiri and that he might be part of a prisoner exchange for the three American's captured when they strayed over the Iranian border. In a video released by Iranian TV, footage shows Mr Amiri saying he is being held against his will in Arizona, this release was followed quickly by another clip, on Youtube this time, and anonymously posted, which shows Mr Amiri saying he defected of his own free will.
The BBC seems to cast doubt on the validity of the grainy footage where Amiri claims he is being held against his will in Arizona. They do, however, recognise that his clearer video released on Youtube appears to be scripted and from a poorly written script at that.

I remember when US pilots who were shot down over Baghdad in 1990 they would be "interviewed" on TV and asked how they were being treated. One of them in a later interview, after he had been released, said that he kept giving signals that this was not normal by looking down or sideways, as if he was being forced to say this. Well Amiri appears to be using the same technique in the clearer Youtube video, the one where he claims to have "defected" of his own free will. Which one is telling the truth is unclear, but the burden of proof is still on the United States to provide compelling evidence that what they say is true, and that they haven't just kidnapped him as they might have done to Colonel Shirazi in Istanbul.

.