“It is not a theocracy anymore,” said Rasool Nafisi, an expert in Iranian affairs and a co-author of an exhaustive study of the corps for the RAND Corporation. “It is a regular military security government with a facade of a Shiite clerical system.”
"...it is very hard to overstate the significance of the statement made last Saturday by the Association of Teachers and Researchers of Qum, a much-respected source of religious rulings, which has in effect come right out with it and said that the recent farcical and prearranged plebiscite in the country was just that: a sham event. (In this, the clerics of Qum are a lot more clear-eyed than many American "experts" on Iranian public opinion, who were busy until recently writing about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the rough-hewn man of the people.)
"...Did the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, and the subsequent holding of competitive elections in which many rival Iraqi Shiite parties took part, have any germinal influence on the astonishing events in Iran? Certainly when I interviewed Sayeed Khomeini in Qum some years ago, where he spoke openly about "the liberation of Iraq," he seemed to hope and believe that the example would spread. One swallow does not make a summer. But consider this: Many Iranians go as religious pilgrims to the holy sites of Najaf and Kerbala in southern Iraq. They have seen the way in which national and local elections have been held, more or less fairly and openly, with different Iraqi Shiite parties having to bid for votes (and with those parties aligned with Iran's regime doing less and less well). They have seen an often turbulent Iraqi Parliament holding genuine debates that are reported with reasonable fairness in the Iraqi media. Meanwhile, an Iranian mullah caste that classifies its own people as children who are mere wards of the state puts on a "let's pretend" election and even then tries to fix the outcome. Iranians by no means like to take their tune from Arabs—perhaps least of all from Iraqis—but watching something like the real thing next door may well have increased the appetite for the genuine article in Iran itself."
"It is a mistake to assume that the ayatollahs, cynical and corrupt as they may be, are acting rationally. They are frequently in the grip of archaic beliefs and fears that would make a stupefied medieval European peasant seem mentally sturdy and resourceful by comparison."
"...occasionally, people have talked about putting me in for a Pulitzer for this, that and the other, and it turns out an undocumented American can do almost anything in this country. He can get a fake driver's license and all the rest of it. But apparently, the Pulitzers still maintain, it's like an old-time country club. It's very hard to get into."
"I’m struck by the fact that when he [Petraeus] goes about methodically telling people on the Hill that Iran is killing Americans, and it doesn’t seem to register, I mean, Joe Lieberman was on the program yesterday, and it registered with him, and it registered with some of the Republicans. But the fact that Iran is killing Americans doesn’t seem, Mark, to make an impression on Democrats."
"I think essentially, Iran is at war with us, and we’re pretending not to notice."
The "progressive" CarpetBagger Report second guesses the decision to bar Ahmadinejad from Ground Zero:
I appreciate the fact that blogging does not lend itself to mixed emotions, which I admit to feeling in a case like this. My first instinct was to reflexively oppose Ahmadinejad’s request. The man is a dangerous nut, and it’s hardly a stretch to assume that he wants to appear at Ground Zero to improve his own image on the international stage. Given the hostilities between his country and ours, there’s no reason for the U.S. to accommodate his public-relations campaign. If Ahmadinejad wants to appear more responsible as an international leader, there are several constructive steps he can take in his own country.
But the more I think about it, the more I second guess this reaction.
[H]ere this man comes, to make an ostensibly good-faith gesture and to pay respects to our dead. Maybe he wants to help himself understand the magnitude of the tragedy so he can better understand why his country is under such a threat.
Is it really a ‘good faith’ gesture? Maybe not. Maybe it is just a stunt to make him look good. One thing is for sure…denying him the opportunity doesn’t make us look good.
Look, I realize Ahmadinejad is not a good guy and has said some scary things, but let’s get a grip. It’s not as if Ahmadinejad or Iran had anything to do with 9/11. He’s a Shiite Persian. Bin Laden is a Sunni Arab. They’re not allies. Never have been. They don’t even have similar goals or aims.
Moreover, don’t we want Muslim leaders to acknowledge the tragedy of 9/11? Doesn’t that help us? Whatever we think about Ahmadinejad, wouldn’t it be constructive to have a prominent Middle Eastern head of state, particularly one that is hostile to America, publicly acknowledge the horribleness of what happened on 9/11? We are, after all, supposedly engaged in a battle of ideas.
But this is all too complicated for today’s Republican Party. Apparently all that matters is that Ahmadinejad is an “Islamofascist” and therefore it is imperative that he not be allowed anywhere near Ground Zero.
If security and safety concerns make the visit impossible, all of this is a moot point. But as a matter of principle, it’s worth considering what the U.S. reaction should be if, say, there were no logistical concerns. After all, Ahmadinejad is a foe, but that hasn’t stopped the Bush administration from sitting down the Iranians to discuss Iraq policy. Doesn’t that mean we have some kind of diplomatic relationship with Tehran?
First, from the Jerusalem Post, Oops: 'Dozens died in Syrian-Iranian chemical weapons experiment'
Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in a Jane's Defence Weekly report that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.
According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas.
What's beyond question is that something big went down on Sept. 6. Israeli sources had been telling me for months that their air force was intensively war-gaming attack scenarios against Syria; I assumed this was in anticipation of a second round of fighting with Hezbollah. On the morning of the raid, Israeli combat brigades in the northern Golan Heights went on high alert, reinforced by elite Maglan commando units. Most telling has been Israel's blanket censorship of the story--unprecedented in the experience of even the most veteran Israeli reporters--which has also been extended to its ordinarily hypertalkative politicians. In a country of open secrets, this is, for once, a closed one.
As for the North Korean theory, evidence for it starts with Pyongyang. The raid, said one North Korean foreign ministry official quoted by China's Xinhua news agency, was "little short of wantonly violating the sovereignty of Syria and seriously harassing the regional peace and security." But who asked him, anyway? In August, the North Korean trade minister signed an agreement with Syria on "cooperation in trade and science and technology." Last week, Andrew Semmel, the acting counterproliferation chief at the State Department, confirmed that North Korean technicians of some kind were known to be in Syria, and that Syria was "on the U.S. nuclear watch list." And then there is yesterday's curious news that North Korea has abruptly suspended its participation in the six-party talks, for reasons undeclared.
“We are convinced that no modern problem has a military solution, and that applies to the Iranian nuclear programme as well”
Iran threatened to fire long-range missiles at American targets in the Middle East yesterday as the war of words between Teheran and the West continued to escalate.
A senior commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the largest component of the Islamic republic's armed forces, chose this moment to outline the capability of his country's ballistic missiles.
The Shahab-3 rocket has a range of 1,250 miles, allowing it to strike an array of Western targets across the Middle East.
"Today the Americans are around our country but this does not mean that they are encircling us. They are encircled themselves and are within our range," said Gen Mohammed Hassan Koussechi.
"The change of government in Paris has given French diplomacy a new and welcome dose of realism. Bernard Kouchner has made it clear that Gallic patience has come to an end where Iran is concerned. If Iran continues in its nuclear intransigence, Kouchner announced, the world must prepare for war
"...In stark contrast to the role played by the Chirac government, Nicolas Sarkozy has made it plain that he wants to work with the US on security concerns in the Middle East. Iran used to be a major client for French industry, just as Iraq once was under Saddam Hussein. France therefore has had influence in Teheran that neither the British nor the US have had, but their attempts to use it to curtail the Iranian nuclear quest came to naught.
"Their sudden support for keeping military options open may get some attention from the mullahcracy."
Stephen: Fine speech. Now what do we do?
William Wallace: Just be yourselves.
Hamish: Where are you going?
William Wallace: I'm going to pick a fight.
Hamish: Hope we didn't get dressed up for nothing.
Former Spook laughs at Iran's promise of retaliation should Israel strike it or friend Syria:
For the record, Iran actually has two missiles capable of reaching Israel, the Shahab-3 (with a maximum range of 800 miles, and the recently-delivered BM-25, a North Korean derivative of the Soviet-designed, SS-N-6 submarine launched ballistic missile (maximum range: 1500 miles). The operational status of the BM-25 is uncertain; a German diplomat reported last March that Iran had acquired 18 disassembled missiles from North Korea, presumably with a smaller number of launchers. Iran has never conducted a test launch of the BM-25, so it's unclear if the missile would be available for operations against Israel and U.S. targets in the Middle East.
As for the Shahab-3, that system attained its initial operating capability less than three years ago, after a long and troubled development. Most estimates place the number of Shahab-3 airframes in Iran at no more than 40, with a launcher inventory of less than half that total. Obviously, the number of available launchers is critical, since it limits the number of missiles that can be fired at any given time. So much for that 600 missile salvo.
The Revolutionary Guards, or at least the al Quds force (which specialize in supporting pro-Iranian terrorists in foreign countries) is having a hard time in Iraq. With the collapse of al Qaeda in Iraq (because the Sunni Arabs turned on them), U.S. troops are now concentrating on Iranian supported groups. Coalition commando forces are specifically looking to capture as many al Quds operatives as they can. As a result of this, Iran has been pulling its al Quds people out of Iraq. Those that have been captured so far have given up embarrassing and damaging information.
the operation caught Damascus by surprise (there was apparently little reaction from Syria's air defense system); the Israelis inflicted serious damage on the target, and both the F-15I crews and the commandos escaped unscathed. Syria has threatened retaliation, but its options are limited.
Then, there's the matter of that commando team. If the Times is correct, those personnel arrived in the target area a day ahead of the fighters, inserted (we'll assume) by Israeli Sea Stallion helicopters. As we've noted before, the successful infiltration of a commando team by helicopter, deep into Syrian territory, is an impressive operational feat, indeed. But getting the commandos (and their choppers) all the way across Syria (and back again), undetected, represents a monumental challenge, even for a state-of-the-art military like the IDF.
It was reported last week that the U.S. confirmed Israeli air strike on Syria:
A US official has confirmed that Israeli warplanes carried out an air strike "deep inside" Syria, escalating tensions between the two countries.
The target of the strike last Thursday remained unclear but Israeli media reported that a shipment of Iranian arms crossing Syria for use by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia in Lebanon was attacked.
Israel would not risk war with Syria just to test out an air defense system that Iran might get. They would risk war to stop Hezbollah from rearming to the point where they would launch another attack on Israel and provoke another war in the sub-Litani region, and they would have every right to do so.
That the Syrians are closed lipped and not flooding the zone with "oh poor innocent us" footage and pics of stuffed animals from the site speaks volumes about what got hit.
This operation had been planned since the spring, when the facility first came to the attention of the Israelis. The Syrians had apparently bought North Korean technology and materiel at about the time that Kim Jong-Il had started to cooperate with the West on nuclear disarmament. Analysts believe that Kim either hoped to hide his work by sharing it with the Syrians or just get as much hard currency as he could grab through proliferation. No one doubts that the Syrians would love to have nukes, nor does anyone doubt where those weapons would go -- and Israel, as they did with Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor at Osirak, decided to eliminate the threat before it reached fruition.
Canada's envoy John Von Kaufmann said that Iran's "deteriorating human rights situation" contravened its international and domestic obligations, citing "treatment of women as second-class citizens" and suppression of peaceful demonstrations for women's rights. The complaints were echoed by those of the European Union. But Iran's envoy, A. Eshragh Jahromi, said that Canada should have its own record scrutinized.
"Such comparisons are nonsensical," says Pat Maguire, Persian Gulf co-ordinator for Amnesty International in Canada. "The human rights conditions in Iran are appalling, and bear no resemblance to Canada's."
"...this is the really loud message -- the Arab world, taken as a whole, has responded with... silence. No other Arab government complained about the raid, forcing Syria to take its protest to the United Nations alone. No mobs poured into the famous "Arab street," no flags were burned, no cars torched, and no "rage boys" screamed into television cameras. The message to Syria and Iran could not have been more clear: The Arabs are far more worried about Iran and its satellites than they are about Israel."
By its actions, Israel showed it is not interested in waiting for diplomacy to work where nuclear weapons are at stake.
As a bonus, the Israelis proved they could penetrate the Syrian air defence system, which is stronger than the one protecting Iranian nuclear sites.
Maybe:
There was a drop-off for a couple of weeks, but we do not see a sign of that abating. The [Iranian] Quds Force have been pulled out of the country, as well as Lebanese Hezbollah trainers who were used in assistance [by Iran].
The plot thickens.
Via Hot Air:
Debka floats a not-unlikely theory about that strange Israeli flyover of Syria a few days ago. Apparently, the IAF was able to jam the Russian-made Syrian anti-aircraft system; it so happens that Iran has the same system. You do the math.
That is the question.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he has the answer: Iran's Ahmadinejad has 'proof' US won't attack
"I tell them: 'I am an engineer and I am a master in calculation and tabulation.
"I draw up tables. For hours, I write out different hypotheses. I reject, I reason. I reason with planning and I make a conclusion. They cannot make problems for Iran.'"
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert. (The Times of London)
...what the FU%#???
Radio Free Europe: Iran Starts Constructing Cultural Center For Jews
September 2, 2007 - Iran's official news agency IRNA says the country has started construction of a new cultural and sports center in Tehran for its Jewish minority.
Iran's president, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, has called the Holocaust massacre of millions of Jews during World War II is a "myth" and said that Israel should be "wiped off the map."
So we should continue with the present path — and not bomb or have surrogates bomb Iran. That option is still down the road. For as long as it is possible, the best-case scenario is not a smoking Iran, but a humiliated theocracy that slowly implodes before the world, displaying in their disgrace what the mullahs did to themselves — and perhaps a small reminder of those helpful shoves from us.
Said Thomas P.M. Barnett, on Hugh Hewitt's show. Barnett was on to discuss a post on his blog which suggested that the United States allow the Sunni/Shi'a fighting to accelerate in the hopes of creating a dialogue between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Barnett, always well informed and well spoken, said a number of things, but made three essential points:
1)
We're moving in the direction... of recognizing a free Kurdistan. That war(in Kurdistan) is a complete success.
The surge strategy, and I would emphasize the word strategy there ... is what has really turned the tables. There we've been successful in turning the Sunni Sheiks and tribes against al Qaeda in the region... I believe we can count that as a second success.
The third one is the one that I think most people refer to when they talk about the war going badly or the surge failing: and that is, our capacity to stop Sunni on Shi'a violence... and we're nowhere near the two sides being fatigued in their fighting... I don't think the surge is going to be judged effectively in that light.
I think the real key is gonna be: Is Bush gonna bite the bullet and create a peace dialogue in the region on Iraq that gets Saudis and Iranians to the table... it's really shaping up to be a proxy war between the House of Saud and Tehran... I'd rather see the fight sped up a bit and then get them to the peace table.
If we quote "speed up the battle," and that battle involves hundreds of thousands of casualties slaughtered in a genocidal conflict... don't you think that'll bankrupt our credibility in the third world?
We're going to get the same outcome whether it's slow motion, or whether it's fast... I'm more willing to run that risk and accept the consequences of that, then I think other people are, simply because I think it's going to happen anyway, just in a slower fashion.
Is there any chance it wouldn't happen [the violence ends before we leave], I mean, You're giving up, isn't there at least some prospect?
I'm increasingly dissatisfied that we haven't been able to get any sort of regional peace dialogue on Iraq going... we haven't gotten the Saudis to step up whatsoever, and we're still pursuing the WMD charge with Iran, which I believe based on our intelligence is a premature fight to drag into this current issue of Iraq.
If we run out on Iraq, how long will it be until another Arab people or regime trusts us on any pledge we make in the future?
If we can get down to half the number of troops we've got now, reman operationally efficient against al Qaeda in Iraq, and protect Kurdistan... that force can still do everything we need to do, but it would allow the dynamic of a Shi'a/Sunni fighting to either force some sort of regional peace dialogue, or we would suffer some sort of credibility loss... if we pull out completely, that's a different subject.
How many casualties in that Shi'a/Sunni fight are you willing to stand by and see happen? What's the upper most limit a Western liberal democracy can stand back and watch happen?
It's not me, Hugh, who's going to sit back and take that quarter million [deaths], which I think is a good number, it's Bush who's doing that by refusing to engage in some serious dialogue with Iran on the subject, and really twist some arms in Riyadh on the subject.
... has been years in the making.
Kimberly Kagan's new Iraq Report:
Iran began preparing to combat American forces in Iraq even before the invasion of 2003... Immediately after the U.S. invasion, thousands of members of these resistance groups, primarily from the Badr Corps, moved into Iraq and attempted to seize control of various key locations in Shia areas.
No oversight Crucially important to U.S. officials weighing the possibility of sanctions is that the Guard presides over a multibillion- dollar income stream outside the scrutiny of Iran's parliament or the national budgeting process, according to many of those familiar with the Guard's operations.
Such a cash flow, Iranian opposition leaders and some analysts have argued, could be marshaled to finance clandestine military operations, such as support to Iraq's Shiite militias, weapons for Lebanon's Hezbollah fighters or clandestine nuclear development programs.
The controversial uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, which came to light in 2002, was developed under close supervision by the Revolutionary Guard without disclosure under the parliament's public budgeting process. Since then, U.S. officials have attempted to impose a series of sanctions to halt financing of Iran's nuclear and missile development programs.
"Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation.”
PARIS, Aug. 27 — In his first major foreign policy speech as president of France,Nicolas Sarkozy calling the Iranian nuclear crisis “the most serious weighing on the international order today” and said that Iran could be attacked militarily if it did not live up to its international obligations to curb its nuclear program.
“A nuclear-armed Iran is for me unacceptable,” Mr. Sarkozy said in a speech to France’s ambassadorial corps, stressing the urgency of finding a negotiated solution. “This approach is the only one that would prevent a catastrophic alternative: the Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran.”
