RSS

October 10, 2008

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (324)

Dialog for the sake of dialog is meaningless. It substitutes process for substance. Dialog might be useful, if there is something to talk about.

But Mr. Rashid fails to address the critical question -- what do we (the West, NATO, Germany, US) have than the Iranians want? What do we have that they want, enough to give up either a nuclear bomb, or stop making trouble in Afghanistan, or both? Mr. Rashid does not answer this directly. Is he suggesting that merely making Iran a member in the various fora and institutions he mentions, is enough incentive for Iran? This is what he seems to be saying.

If so, he leaves out several important points.

First, US-Iranian dialog was going nowhere, until it became clear that the surge in Iraq was succeeding. We need similar progress in Afghanistan before engaging in dialog with the Iranians on that front. If Germany, the US, and indeed the rest of NATO could agree to implement a surge in Afghanistan (including vitally necessary reforms to the ISAF command structure and the end of most national caveats), in return for a US guarantee of future dialog with Iran on the topic of Iraq, that might make sense.

But I think Mr. Rashid is proposing simultaneous initiatives, which seem to me more likely to fail or be misinterpreted by Iran as a sign of weakness. Dialog can be a sign of strength, but it is hard to see how under the current circumstances, absent a successful Afghanistan surge. Still, if simultaneous dialog is the price to be paid to get Germany out of the barracks and engaged in Afghan the way Mr. Rashid clearly understands is needed, it might be worth it.

Second, when Iran and the US engaged somewhat on Iraq, Iran at the same time increased its misbehavior in other places, particularly Lebanon and Afghanistan. This shows that Iran still believes it gets equal, if not more, benefit from having the West as an enemy, than as a friend. It is negotiating re Iraq as a temporary tactic in support of a utopian (if not apocalyptic) "national greatness" strategy that is unaltered. Iran doesn't want to be invited to join the community of nations; it wants the community of nations to join Iran.

So we are back to the original question: What do we have to give, that will make Iran value us more as friends than as enemies? I don't know the answer; it seems to me we have plenty to give, but none of it of interest to the Iranians until they make a strategic decision to alter their current strategy. Mr. Rashid seems to think dialog alone is enough. But what do we say, that we haven't already said many times before?

October 10, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

Welcome, John. You are the same fellow from AR, aren't you?

I could think of a few things which Iran might want. The financial panic is going to effect them. They may have lost money on investment, some of their banks, may be destabilized, but the biggest potential change is that the price of oil has been dropping like a rock, hitting $83 today. If it keeps dropping that may bring them toi the negociation table.

I agee that the current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may not feel this way, but he is not the only one who holds power. He is a 'populist', but if the Iranian economy starts slipping he could lose power quite quickly. The nuclear weapons program is expensive, so economic slippage in Iran could reduce support for the program and some of the power brokers may start looking for a way out - particularly if government finances become difficult and they can't easily pay for the equipment they need.

So it could b e worth doing in the new year.

October 11, 2008

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (324)

Hi Don. Yep, it's me. In fact I cross-posted on Atlantic Review.

Iran is indeed vulnerable, although because they are a closed society and the West has (sigh) near zero human intelligence, it is hard to say how close they are to actually needing our help.

Even if they can no longer afford to actually build, test and deploy a nuke, they could easily keep the program running on a shoestring budget with just enough activity to leave us guessing as to what they're really doing. In fact, even if they were running out of money, they probably have to keep it running on some level, in order to save face at home and abroad.

Your point about the recent fall in oil prices has a flaw: this is not the first time that oil has been at $83. During the 90's we had sustained oil prices below $40 and Iran had no apparent problems funding their nuclear program. They did negotiate on some nuclear issues in the 90's, but it turns out they were cheating at the same time. In fact the specific form of cheating (Highly Enriched Uranium instead of Plutonium) was actually more expensive for them than what they gave up in return for a large sack of carrots offered by Clinton, Putin, and Europe.

Of course Ahmadinejad isn't the real power, the Ayatollahs are. The Ayatollahs are every bit as extreme as Ahmadinejad, however. If popular unrest becomes a problem, they will replace Ahmadinejad, rather than change policy. That is what he is there for, after all.

You seem to accept the premise that Iran's circumstances have to deteriorate, before there will be any meaningful negotiations on the nuclear question. If so, there is a fairly easy way to accomplish this, that is much less violent than bombing their nuclear facilities (which probably would be only a temporary setback). That would be an international embargo against gasoline imports into Iran. That would bring the country to its knees in record time. They have neglected to build domestic refining capability for years now. They appear to have the money to build refineries, but as far as I can tell the Ayatollahs simply can't be bothered. They may be out of touch, or maybe they consider such worldly issues to be beneath their dignity, I don't know.

October 12, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

John, I think there are more parties to this than the US and Iran. Namely the Europeans. From what I understand (as an engineering problem) the equipment that Iran is using to seperate the plutonium is quite large and complex. And subject to breakdowns. So Iran needs to purchase replacements or see their rate of production deteriorate fairly quickly.

That is where European governments come in, because they have the power to keep European suppliers of such equipment from fulfilling orders for replacements. So if European governments wish the US to talk ith Iran - why not? Especially if the next President asks them as a favor to put a moratorium on shipping certain kinds of equipment and parts to Iran while the US talks with them. Not necessarily negociation, just:

"Hi, Mahmūd. How they hanging, dude? Haven't changed your mind about the jews, have you? sorry dude, lotsa them in Florida, you know? Niceta see you, it' been real."

Ahmadinejad has a big fat mouth and can't resist yammering. Give him some rope to hang himself with. Talk about mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv don't go down so well in parts of Germany. And France.

October 13, 2008

Sepideh Parsa, Atlantic Community, Gold Contributor (90)

Iran could play a vital role in fighting the Afghan drug economy which endangers the interest of the international community. The existence of the drug problem slows the democratic process and hinders the establishment of the rule of law in the country. The flourishing drug production in Afghanistan is assuming vast proportions and fuels corruption that dominates almost all poltical ranks. It further prevents Afghanistan from assuring stability, security, the rule of law and the development of a reliable and stable economy. The drug economy is a major income source for warlords and the Taliban which provide a secure environment for drug smuggling. Iran suffers from an immense drug addiction problem and not just Iran but also Afghanistans neighbouring countries benefit from Afghan opium exports. In order to fight the drug economy, the demand has to be contained. Iran and it's neighbouring countries have taken first steps and concluded on the basis of the Berlin Declaration on Counter Narcotis to collectively fight the cultivation, production and the trade of narcotic drugs. Nevertheless, countries like Iran need the assistance of the international community to succeed in this mission. As a result they help stabilizing Afghanistan.

October 13, 2008

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (503)

This post was very valuable since it opened the view for the wider perspective. I completely agree with Ahmed Rashid that a solution-oriented policy would address the regional partners, and tackle the problems on the ground as he outlines. But the problem is: there is no solution-oriented policy possible in Afhghanistan, because the western involvement targets strategic control AGAINST the regional neighbours, and is driven (or masked) by religious zeal. Just see the earlier comments on this post.

There are two messiases on collision course: one in the white house, and one in Teheran. The other regional players like the Taleban, Iraq, Palestinians etc. appear like pieces on a chess board from this perspective. Perhaps the Europeans are something like remainders of a voice of common sense? At least we would like to be that. But sometimes I think we Europeans are merely (reluctant) pieces on this chessboard, at least if I see how NATO stretches the definition of "self-defence", and allows to have herself instumentalised as a tool for a crusade.

Perhaps things would have developed very differently if Afghanistan would have been an U.N. mission from the beginning, or if the US would have done more to prevent "collateral damage" during "eduring freedom". To make this clear: I have no sympathies for terrorists, the Taleban, or the Mullah regime in Iran. However, I also detest the western policy in the Near East. How can it be that the defeat in Afghanistan is always portrayed as the result of a too reluctant military involvement? The opposite is true: due to western arrogance, careless use of force, and war crimes like hidden torture camps we managed to turn the majority of Afghans (and perhaps Muslims in general) against us.

What an unnecessary, dangerous political culture! Dear earlier commentators of this post, let me attack you: certainly an Iranian nuke is not desirable. Even the Muslim neighbours of Iran fear it. However, I travelled enough in the Muslim world to know that most people are much more afraid of the US than of Iran. Iraq set the stage: either you possess a nuclear warhead or you will be invaded. This feeling for the necessity of a legitimate self-defense also created an incredible pool of recruits for all organisations working against western policies, including those using terror as fighting style.

How sound is the our negative perception of Islam and Muslims as a "threat"? Just consider: how many rightwing evangelicals were rounded up after McVeigh bombed Oklahoma? How many Muslims after 9/11 (and how many were guilty of anything)?. How many Jews and Christians are in Guantanamo right now? How many in secret CIA jails in Europe (with European complicity against their own citizens)?

Common sense would mean that we would sit with all regional partners, work out a plan, present it to the public, and conduct it with full commitment. I would support a military involvement if it has clear goals and a timetable. However, it is no surprise that the German military stays in its camps in Afghanistan: they are there just to satisfy the US "on the paper". They have strict orders not to involve in any serious business because Afghans made clear they would otherwise be treated like the other "occupying powers". So they try to sit between all chairs and keep out, which might be wise for the moment (let the crusaders clash each other...).

All I heard from soldiers who were there, interviews with generals, and political journalists, added to my own experiences in the Near East, I guess that "enduring freedom" is pure imperialism. What fits this impression that even today there is neither clear information about the goals and timetables of the western involvment, nor reliable information about the conducted operations. Just think about the secret concentration camps, expeditions into Pakistan, etc. That the US now demand more European involvment is no surprise, since they are overstreched in Iraq etc. But they demand this European involvment on their own terms, which may in essence even be against European interests, as I outlined in earlier posts.

Why should we sacrifice our soldiers for a failed strategy, and for a mission with questionable goals? As long as there is no real option of changing the strategy due to the dominance of the biggest ally, I would say it is time to get out as soon as possible. And to take NATO out of this game as well, since the conflict in Afghanistan threatens to pull us all into new world wars for control of strategic regions, or at least to put the existence of the alliance at risk.

It is very sad if the choice is "either you are with us or you are against us". At least it is time to speak out against the increasing war-rethorics, and the creation of Islam as the new concept of an enemy. Aren't these strategies of misinformation and simplified messages well-known acquaintances like the "Soviets", "Jews", "Communists" and other threats?

October 13, 2008

David Neil Lebhar, Atlantic Community, Gold Contributor (134)

A piece all might find interesting, if you haven't come across it yet:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385751317227389.html?mod=rss_opi...

Dr. Nasr argues that the West does indeed have something to offer Iran, and it is economic - a market for Iran's oil and gas supplies as the EU tries to wean itself from Russia.

Driving a wedge between Iran and Russia may "solve" two birds with one stone.

October 13, 2008

Morgan Sheeran

Ignoring Iranian influence in Afghanistan is simply not acknowledging the truth. During my year long tour in Afghanistan, I met many Afghans who had gone to Iran to find work due to the dismal Afghan economy. There is simply not enough work in Afghanistan for a man who is not making money as a farmer to work, earn, and save money.

Afghans don't have a negative view of Iran. They do have a negative view of Pakistan, however. Iran is not seen to be the meddler that Pakistan is perceived to be. Afghans have seemed surprised to learn that the US has a poor relationship with and a dim view of Iran, and that Iran takes a dim view of the US.

Iran, sharing a significant border with Afghanistan, has the ability to contribute materially to the Afghan economy, which would help us to achieve our goals in stabilizing Afghanistan. I have often said that when a guy has a full time job, it's harder to convince him to run around in the middle of the night planting bombs and engaging in tomfoolery. In Nuristan, outsiders would come in and pay unemployed local men to engage in what an officer I worked with referred to as "stupid human tricks." Sometimes those tricks are fatal.

Afghanistan has significant natural resources, but no easy access to a port. Transporting these natural resources out of the country is difficult at best and physically impossible at present given the state of transportation (15 miles of railroad at present.) Iran has expressed interest in improving Afghanistan's infrastructure and ability to move material into and through Iran.

Afghans, who are overwhelmingly Sunni, do not feel the animosty towards Shia Muslims as we see in Iraq. They do not feel that animosity in return, either. However, Iran is sensitive to the needs of the only Shia tribe in Afghanistan; the Hazara were ruthlessly persecuted by the Taliban. The Taliban did not curry favor with the Iranians by doing so.

Iranians do not appear to be threatening to establish an empire in Afghanistan, nor are they perceived as being so by Afghans.

Simply acknowledging the reality that Iran can be an arbiter of change and development in Afghanistan, reassuring them about their safety (American involvement in two neighbors on opposite sides makes them feel a bit sandwiched) and allowing them to express a positive influence in their own neighborhood will likely have a positive effect on Iranian perceptions of the Western community and their role in the world. They will also have the tendency to "act their way into right thinking." Behaving like a responsible citizen will bring more citizenlike behavior and thinking.

Partnering towards reestablishing the Afghan economy will potentially bring many positive relationships with Iran.

I served in southeastern Afghanistan, in the 201st Corps area. Our interactions with the German troops were limited, but we did have some interaction when the ANP we were mentoring were taken to Konduz for training. We had to conceal the lack of ability of the Germans to respond to events in the area. It is not safe for German troops to be put into such a situation where they are totally defensive and left only to "turtle up" when fired upon.

The Germans are making, at this point, a largely token statement in their presence. Allowing German troops to take direct action in the areas where they are the primary NATO force will significantly contribute to overall NATO mission accomplishment. I agree with Ahmed Rashid's evaluation of the importance of educating the public. This is true here in the United States also. NATO fails horribly in the Information Battle by failing to portray the realistic impact of our presence, efforts, and goals.

Conveying the message of the consequences of failure is critical as well. If Germans do not realize that a real threat exists, they are less likely to care and more likely to react against some sort of American mandate.

Steady, consistent conveyance of the message of what the mission is, why we need to accomplish it, what the situation is realistically on the ground, the challenges we face, and the results that are being slowly won is of paramount importance. Public discussion of counterinsurgency principles and engagement of the public in critical thought in regards to what is working and what is not brings in a sense of commitment to a mission, while failure to do so risks the opposite. The engagement of civilians in reestablishing the Afghan economy would also engage the solution-oriented compassionates in a positive way.

October 15, 2008

Daiyar, Hazaristan Times

Why are we fooling ourselves?

Ahmed Rashid suggests US-Iranian cooperation--the cat and mouse game. Iran is surrounded in the west by 160,000 US troops in Iraq, and from the east with about 50,000 US and NATO soldiers in Afghanistan. If the United States can attack Iraq and Afghanistan for its national security in the wake of 9/11, how could it expect Iran to remain calm being surrounded by US troops, with Israel constantly threatening to bomb its nuclear facilities? Iran will never be sincere in bringing peace and stability in Afghansitan -- it never has. It seems to be muddying the waters in Afghanistan to thereby force the Americans to just swim out of it gasping for air. In Iraq it is playing its best to push US troops out of the region as soon as it can. This is apparent in Iran's support for Shiite militias fighting in Iraq, and its pressure on the Iraqi Shia leadership to compel the United States to announce its withdrawal.

Iran and Al-Qaeda

Iran has been supporting Al-Qaeda and Taliban. It was revealed in early 1997 when Osama Bin Ladin hinted in an interview at an alliance between Taliban and Iran for their joint stance against Untied States. Evidence in this regard was revealed in 2002 when, after a military operation against Al-Qaeda fighters in eastern Afghanistan in March, American forces recovered several documents and lots of ammunition from caves in the mountains. US military told in April 2002 in Kabul that unused Air Iran tickets and some bills of a hotel in Mashad were also recovered from the caves used by Al-Qaeda. Many Al-Qaeda leaders were harbored in Iran after US troops landed in Afghanistan in 2001.

Iran and Taliban

Last year NATO seized a cache of Iran-marked weapons being supplied to Taliban from Farah province which borders Iran. NATO said field analysis of the weapons showed they were similar to the ones used in Iraq. Earlier than this another cache of roadside bombs coming from Iran was captured in Helmand.

A recent BBC report exposed the Iranian hand behind the intensifying Taliban insurgency. A Taliban commander, while talking to BBC’s Kate Clark, said Iranian-supplied arms have improved their fight against United States and NATO. The BBC report suggested Iranian agency supplies Taliban with explosives, mines and Kalashnikovs.

Some time ago in London, British officials charged the interpreter for NATO's commanding general in Afghanistan with passing secrets to Iran. Recently a British soldier was caught spying for Iran. Daniel James, the spy, was the interpreter for Col John Donnelly. He was also the translator of Gen David Richards.

Gulbadin Hekmatyar

Many leaders of Gulbadin Hekmatyar’s Hezb-e-Islami are in Tehran. Through them, Iran is heavily supplying the insurgents across Afghanistan. The leader of Hezb-e-Islami, Gulbadin Hekmatyar has recently returned from Iran after long exile. Hezb-e-Islami took responsibility for the deadly ambush on French soldiers near Kabul that left 10 dead. Hekmatyar is being supported by Iran. He remained for years in Tehran, and wrote a book whilt there, critiquing the US and its policies.

--------

Being a citizen of the war-ravaged country of Afghanistan, I disagree with Ahmed Rashid on his reasoning about NATO losing the war. Taliban is not a regional phenomenon; it is limited to Pushtoon population, and Afghanistan and Pakistan are not comprised of Pushtoons only--there are many other ethnic groups in Afghanistan, for instance, who are actively fighting the Taliban where Afghan and international security forces fail to protect them. Secondly, much, if not all, of the citizen population in the region hate Taliban. Drug production is not due to lack of agricultural investment; rather, it is due to the involvement of officials from the Karzai government and warlords and druglords. Even Karzai's brother is involved in drug business, says New York Times.

Rashid wants the involvement of regional powers, including India for the peace process to go forward. But involving India in Afghanistan would further deteriorate the situation. Pakistan has been blaming the Indian consulates across Afghanistan for meddling in Pakistani affairs, while India blamed Pakistan’s ISI for the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul. Bringing India on the table will create huge problems in reconciling the two atomic powers and their divergent interests in the region; their 60-year histories of mutual hostility are a testimony to the vehemency of their differences.

What to be done?

I do agree with Ahmed Rashid's call for greater military involvement from Germany in Afghanistan. German withdrawal would further give a surge to Taliban insurgency. The German Government should campaign in this regard to make their citizens understand the essence of troops’ presence -- that it's not merely America's war their troops are fighting; that it's about the ordinary citizens of Afghanistan desperate for peace and prosperity after decades of bloodbath; that it's about nibbing a potential source of international terrorism in the bud; that it's about safeguarding German as well as other youths across the world from the scourge of the otherwise unchecked opium production.

The notion of US-Iran cooperation would be a waste of time. The United States and NATO, with Germany's assistance, would have to stop Iran from helping the Taliban. The influx of suicide bombers and insurgents from Pakistan into Afghanistan should also be prevented. Pakistan’s sincere role in the war on terror is the prime factor to win this war. To do these, more troops from the international community--Germany in particular--would be required. Permanent deployment of troops in the south of Afghanistan and areas along its border with Pakistan is a must in keeping the resurgence of the insurgency in check. Of course more toops is not the only panacea -- it is the best way to lay the groundwork and protect a civilian operation that would win the hearts and minds not only for the USA, but for Germany and all nations committing their troops to help the Afghan people in this situation of mutual risk

October 15, 2008

David Neil Lebhar, Atlantic Community, Gold Contributor (134)

Don't the Pashtuns comprise some 40% of the Afghan population? And don't the Pashtuns largely back the Taliban? -- it would seem that claiming "much, if not all, of the citizen population in the region hate the Taliban" would, therefore, be a stretch.

It is true that breaking ties between Iran and Al-Queda / the Taliban and stifling their support of terrorism in the region in general is vital. But are this goal and the possibility of closer cooperation with Iran mutually exclusive? Is the correct response to continue shunning Iran and only dealing with the consequences of its influence (support of Taliban / Al Queda in Afghanistan and Shia fighters in Iraq) instead of addressing the problem at its source? I don't think anyone is suggesting incursions into Iran as the US has done in Pakistan...? Shouldn't we keep our enemies closer?

As for Pakistan, I completely agree - crucial role to be played there. Don't recent changes in Intelligence leadership allow for some optimism?

More troops won't necessarily solve the problem of internal corruption within Afghanistan's government: it seems that from an impoverished perspective drugs = money, hence the temptation for Karzai's brother to be involved. Couldn't investment, be agricultural or otherwise, increase general wealth, thus limiting the temptation to reap profits from the drug market?

October 15, 2008

Khaliq

David,

There has never been a dependable census in Afghanistan...at least not recently. The last census conducted was in 1978/1979, which the UNFP invalidated due to the biased techniques used...it was hugely in favor of the Pashtun population, while mitigating the numbers of the others. Therefore, all facts and figures relating to Afghanistan's population are just estimates, often only wild guesses. I can neither agree nor disagree with the 40% figure for Pashtun population; we will need to have a census to have an accurate figure. Nonetheless, almost all Taliban are Pashtuns, but not all Pashtuns are Taliban. A considerable number of Pashhtuns don't favor the Taliban.

Also, among the poor in Afghanistan drugs is a source of money; in fact, this is perhaps true anywhere in the world. But Karzai's family is not impoverished; they are the nobility...well to do, reputable, owning multiple sources of income, with businesses even in the United States.

October 15, 2008

Marie Claude

How sound is the our negative perception of Islam and Muslims as a "threat"? Just consider: how many rightwing evangelicals were rounded up after McVeigh bombed Oklahoma? How many Muslims after 9/11 (and how many were guilty of anything)?. How many Jews and Christians are in Guantanamo right now? How many in secret CIA jails in Europe (with European complicity against their own citizens)?

Because so far the american christians (and or those you quote) didn't blow themselves up with a bomb in the middle of crowd, or didn't behead some civils

Don't get confuse, about Iran and AQ or islam
agendas, who is actually sponsoring HezBollah, Hamas, AQ in Irak and the Talibans in Afghanistan ? OK the muslim brotherhood from Saudi origin is also in the business.

A well known afghan drugs cheik who was hiding in Iran until 2003 voiced lately that he arranged the ambush in August when French soldiers were trapped, paid by Iran, supposingly to punish Sarkozy harsh talks against Iran (got a video)

If you had read carrefully the koran, there are versets at the end that are not pacifist dictats, but directives for the holy war.

Vienna doesn't remind you anything ? the Balkan war was also a jihadists war, that unfortunately the western alliance didn't cast as it should have been. The islam spirit of conquest is still alive and well alive nowadays. Make the ostrich policy and you'll see your grand-daughters under shariah laws, it has already started in UK, where the communotarism allows that each communoty get its own rules as far the evereyday life is concerned, though that's the beginning of dhimminitude.

We got to be ferm with the muslims, they can practice their religion under our laws, BUT it is important that we don't let them import their shariah laws. A millenarim of history with them teach us that, but in Germany, you only have a few decades with Turkishs that were bred under Kemal laic laws in Turkey, so your approach is a bit gentle, yes they would tell you that they don't like the Americans, who does nowadays ? all the net is full of biased infos about them.

Call that what you want, but they are actually the only ones that name a cat a "cat", and have accumulated myriads of documentations about islam agendas

And yes Afghanistan is worth fighting, for the right of the women and or the little girls, that we ought to educate, in order that they don't remain a weak prey for the middle-aged jihad propagandists, that they could educate their children... not to kill under the name of biased religious interpretations


http://www.islam-documents.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilaire_Belloc

http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/heresy4.txt

October 16, 2008

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (503)

To Marie Claude:

I travelled since 7 years in many Muslim countries, and lived there quite a while. By chance, I went there first just after September 11, 2001. I am a Christian, and was very anti-Muslim when I first went to their countries. At least I had a very uneasy feeling, and admittedly, knew little about them. "Crusade" was a positive word for me, something which has to be done if some people can't stop their agression.

And every year, my perception of Islam changed. I know it first-hand: I read Koran, I met Sunni, Shi'a, Alawi'in, Sufi, Arab christians, Jews, non-religious people and everybody else who is today living in the Near East. I visited countries strongly allied with the US, neutral countries, and even the "axis of evil". And I tell you one thing: what we read, hear and watch in western media is biased, unfair, simplistic, and perhaps intentionally building a concept of an enemy. There is no need to discuss the meaning of passages in the Koran; if we would take the Bible word by word, we would still stone women to death. The point is to grasp the spirit of a religion, and I am afraid many westerners are unable and unwilling to open themselves for Islam. But of course that is not easy since you read every day in the newspapers how bad Islam is, e.g. that Muslims can never be democrats and other ugly tales.

Of course, the historical experiences like Vienna weren't nice, and I'm not saying that all what the Muslims did was fine. But what about their historical experiences? Let's remember how the French army bombed Damascus in 1945 and tried to re-establish the colonial control (some priceless medieval mosques were reduced to dust that time), although the country had already been recognised as a U.N. member?

If you want to understand the current Muslim societies, I advise you to visit Lebanon, and to read deeply into the history of the civil war. For straight European thinking, the history of this country is a mess. But there you can experience all the contradictions of the Near East, since all groups live closely together. You can see Arabs who are more European than we living next door with very conservative people. And looking closely into the history of the civil war, the role of the west in that conflict is all but glorious.

Our western attitude is very arrogant: we tend to consider us superior. But in fact, at least from a spiritual point of view I think we are very inferior. Compared with the warmness and openness which I experienced in the Muslim world, our societies are cold, extremely based on material goods, and our exclusive focus on achievements like e.g. women's rights blinds us for the different contexts of different cultures. In every aspect, I would not say that we are superior. We are just different, and have no right to judge the Muslim culture.

Our coming challenge is the integration of so many immigrants in Europe. Again some colonial heritage... solving the wars and conflicts in the Near East is probably an easy task compared with the integration. Again, the US may play a key role, since their "world culture" has an amazing ability to integrate people from different backgrounds. It would be very regrettable if the current circle of fanatism and religious zeal would prevent dialogue with Islam.

Islam is in the defensive: in my opinion, the terrorists and increasing anti-western policies are the result of inner weakness of this culture. If we only oppose their desparation, we will force them and us into a big clash in which all lose.

October 16, 2008

Marie Claude

Ok, they all are good people and we are the villan brainwasheds, I wonder if the Londoners or the Madrilenes think so either

I have in my family 2 muslims persons, and they are very nice, but they forgot about their previous country, cause there they had death threats (Algeria)

So kind of you to remind me a war fact, didn't see that the Brits were better in the other part of the ottoman empire.

In case, Lebanon and or Syria were happy to get their infrastructures and administrations during the french protectorat (under SDN mendate, not quite colonies as you like to say), which wasn't quite peaceful either, tribal conflicts are not from the eighties there. I didn't see that the Brits were so generous for the other ottoman colonies

a bit of history, in french, I believe you speak french if you quote Lebanon or Syria: who aren't anti-westernies, except for HBZ and syrian secret interferences in Lebanon

http://www.servicehistorique.sga.defense.gouv.fr/04histoire/article...

October 17, 2008

David Neil Lebhar, Atlantic Community, Gold Contributor (134)

Dear Daiyar and Khaliq,

What about Iran? I still haven't heard a call for ignoring Iran entirely. Though Daiyar says we are fooling ourselves, does that mean we just put our heads in the sand regarding Iran? What steps could NATO, the US, and the West take towards Iran concerning Afghanistan? Can Iran play a role, and what would that role be?

If the US and Iran are going to have a diplomatic dialogue, as Rashid suggests, then what are they going to talk about? Energy? Nuclear program? Fighting drugs in Afghanistan together? Can Iran be convinced to cooperate with the West - or can the West be convinced to cooperate with Iran? What would cooperation look like? And what would it look like in Afghanistan?

October 17, 2008

Sepideh Parsa, Atlantic Community, Gold Contributor (90)

Maybe we should give Iran some incentives for cooperation. I mean we have put sanctions on Iran for not suspending their nuclear program, which might be right. But if we now want them to help us, we should maybe offer them something. What about the $18 billion that the US has frozen in foreign accounts!? Maybe Iranians would want to have some of their money back!

October 17, 2008

Abbas Daiyar, Daily Outlook Afghanistan, Platinum Contributor (184)

David,
Expecting Iran to help the situation in Afghanistan/Iraq is something fooling oneself. The regime in Tehran is supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, Mehdi Army in Iraq, Taliban in Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda all over the world. Iran's cooperation in Afghanistan is interconnected with all abovementioned. It had been having a negative role in Afghanistan long ago before the US landed there. What steps NATO, US and the West can take towards Iran are to pressurize in any way to kick the theocratic regime out of power. Iranian people are tired of them. They want freedom and democracy. The world must stop Mullahs in Tehran to get to nuclear bomb.

Sepideh Parsa,
I don't think incentives are remedy to the illegitimate Iranian theocracy. If so, the attractive 2006 package of European Union, Germany, China and Russia would convince Tehran to halt its nuclear uranium enrichment. Prior to this, Russia--having soft-corner for Tehran's enrichment, offered Iran to enrich the second phase of uranium process in Russia which Tehran rejected. It further increased doubts of the international community about their nuclear enrichment.
United States had the long stance not to have table-talk directly with Tehran regime until they do not freeze all enrichment activities but, took the bold U-turn sending diplomats to meet Iranian representatives in Geneva a couple of months ago. It did not result positive due to the cold attitude of Tehran despite the efforts made by Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China.
The fact is that Tehran would not stop the nuclear enrichment at all costs. The world has to take strong initiatives to stop the enrichment. Removal of the illegitimate theocratic government--which Iranian people are tired of, may be a working solution to all the problems muddied by Tehran regime.

October 17, 2008

Sepideh Parsa, Atlantic Community, Gold Contributor (90)

You are right, incentives are no remedy for the Iranian theocracy - but I rather meant for cooperation regarding the situation in Afghanistan - the fight against the drug economy... And yes, Iranians are tired of their regime and they would welcome a change. But I wonder- what do you suggest- how should a removal be accomplished? I mean, we have seen what has happened to Iraq but Iran is a different league. Maybe this time we should get rid of our arrogant attitude and pay more attention to the Iranian people before deciding what's best for them.

October 17, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

So what has changed from 2006? Something very big. Oil prices fell below $70 bbl yesterday. According to the NY Times, Venezuela and Iran both require $95 bbl to balance their budgets.

So presumably something has to give after the currency reserves run out. Iran ill have to squeeze it's people or it's oil field investments or it's nuclear progream; perhaps all three.

If it squeezes the people too muc social pressures will increase for 'regime change', possibly the kind of regime change which forced the Shah out of power in 1979....

October 17, 2008

Khaliq

Sapideh and David,

What would work in Iran is what works anywhere in the world: Encourage the moderate voices in that country. If any change is going to come there, it has to come from within Iran. It is not going to be an overnight change, of course, and will take time. I think the West lost an exceptionally golden opportunity by not fully responding to President Khatami and his call of "dialogue between civilizations." He was a moderate who wanted peace and cooperation with the West by many people. I think the election of a hardliner such as Ahmadinejad is in part the response of the ordinary Iranians to the West's negative treatment of their gesture of peace forwarded by Khatami. It's like the election of Hamas by frustrated Palestinians who only saw brute force from Israel and almost zero cooperation from the international community toward their cause.

Lao Tze, a Chinese philosopher, once said, "People are hard to govern because they know too much." And the mullahs and maraaje'-e taqleed in Iran know this. That is why working with Iran to loosen its draconian grip over the exchange of information -- online, on air, through books, etc -- is vital. Again, encouraging voices of opposition such as the Hizb-e Toodeh, voices of moderation such as the new generation of secular technocrats and an aggressive, non-state media are all ways Iran can move toward a less theocratic country.

The people in Iran know that their country is slowly becoming isolated like North Korea; that despite their oil wealth, they are increasingly suffering from inflation and lower standard of life. Ahmadinejad's charisma and the resultant rally-around-the-flag effect is now waning, just as it has waned in the US after 9/11 and Bush's 2004 election. People can't be kept obedient by to fear and xenophobia forever; people know too much.

But the international community's approach toward Iran's foreign policy should not be as lenient as Rashid is suggesting. Bringing them on the negotiating table is an acceptance of the effectiveness of their grip on the region, and that is, ipso facto, tantamount to giving them more negotiating leverage.

I think when the Iranians play their puppets in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Iraq, the international community can't just sit around and clap at its performance. I am not suggesting an invasion of Iran; rather, a combination of soft power and hard power as a better alternative. Levying sanctions while keeping "all options on the table" to make life hard for the regime, encouraging free flow of information to break the stranglehold of IRNA and Fars News, and bolstering moderate voices can be effective if done correctly. The Iranian people need to know that chanting "death to America" and "death to Israel" every Friday after their theocrats is not the answer, and that there's another way to look at the world, one that's not guided by a few mullahs draped in black and their cronies occupying positions of total power.

October 18, 2008

Marie Claude

who is President Khatami ?

http://www.iran-resist.org/article3072?var_recherche=khatami

http://www.iran-resist.org/article4859?var_recherche=President+Khat...

http://www.iran-resist.org/article4450?var_recherche=khatami

http://www.iran-resist.org/article2661?var_recherche=khatami


... etc

October 18, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

"And yes, Iranians are tired of their regime and they would welcome a change. But I wonder- what do you suggest- how should a removal be accomplished?"

Sepideh, I think there is no way the West should try the Iraq solution on Iran. We prbably can smash Humpty Dumpty but there is no way we can put it together again. Iran is not a kleptocracy like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, there is no mass murder going on, Iran has meddled in other countries but not invaded neighbors, and Iran is not ambitious to take over the Persian Gulf oil states. So there is no moral case for invasion except to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

I think perhaps 'all things come to him who waits'. I think negociation is the way forward, but not just yet because Iran still is in too powerful a position. Allow oil prices to decline another 20-30% and the pot should be cooked just right by the time the new President takes the oath of office in January and gets his feet under him, probably later in the spring.

Not tha negociations should necessarily be a bilateral thing, but the US is a necessary part of it and Bush is too much of a lame duck to set policy at this poit. But he's also not going to be starting a war either. So the situation can wait a bit.

October 18, 2008

Marie Claude

t"here is no mass murder going on", your kidding

http://www.iran-resist.org/article4829?var_recherche=etudians+pendus

more than 220 hangeds since january 2008


http://www.iran-resist.org/article3555

how many women have been stoned to death ?

little girls are married at 9 years old

and Iran is not ambitious to take over the Persian Gulf oil states. So there is no moral case for invasion except to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

thay's not what think your businesses partners, the Saudi, nor Khadafi in Lybia where lately some terrorist bombs bizarrely exploded.... ah yes, Khadafi is now that good american friend, that's why !!!

October 18, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

That is not mass murder, Marie-Claude. Mass murder is where a million people disappear, like in the regime run by Chirac's good buddy Sadam Hussein.

October 18, 2008

Marie Claude

Don, of course not in a year record, but since 1979, I bet it's far more than a million, as much as Rumfeld good buddy Saddam Hussein. Chirac was the star of your MSN propaganda BS (MS-LSD like your right buddies like to call it now), though no proof, but freedom of speech allow that in your country, the thing id that, now, the same harm is made by the lefties against the very ones who used it against the "old world" before, and they don't appreciate it at all !!!!!!!

October 25, 2008

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (324)

@Donald Stadler, October 17:

"So what has changed from 2006? Something very big. Oil prices fell below $70 bbl yesterday. According to the NY Times, Venezuela and Iran both require $95 bbl to balance their budgets."

You are correct, if these oil prices are sustained, Iran will face a financial crisis. My point is that in the past, they have shown a marked preference for sacrificing in other areas, rather than giving up their nuclear programme. This is what they did through most of the 90's. In the late 90's and early 00's, they (as far as we can tell) made major investments in their nuclear programme with oil below current prices and (at the time) no reason to believe it would spike the way it did.

I would be delighted to think that something has recently changed in Iran that would make them unable, or unwilling, to sacrifice other spending to keep their nuclear programme going. But, no-one has shown, or even suggested what, specifically, might have changed.