What Could, And Should, Have Occurred

July 8, 2007

Note by Bernhard:
Parviz characterized her/himself in a previous comment: "Hello, I’m an Iranian living in Iran […] I am fiercely anti-Mullah […] I operate under a pseudonym and with a real but totally misleading email address, for obvious reasons."
Links below were added by Bernhard.

America had a historic opportunity, following the Iranian regime’s considerable assistance in defeating the Taliban in Oct/Nov. 2001, not just to gain (because it already had it following 9/11) but to maintain global sympathy and establish unprecedented credibility even in the Muslim world, namely, by sending the 100,000+ troops to assist their overstretched colleagues in Afghanistan. This would have hit the bases of those people responsible for 9/11 and would have deprived the Taliban and Al Qaeda of the literally $$$ billion in funds resulting from America’s botched planning that increased Afghan opium production by 4000 % (U.N.F.A.O. data). The results of proper policy and planning would have been as follows:

By NOT invading an imaginary enemy 3000 km West of the real enemy, America would have removed the rallying cry for all 1 billion+ Muslims world wide, namely, that America used 9/11 as a God-given excuse to expand its military bases in the Middle East, partition one of Israel’s major potential threats and control the region’s oil supplies.
By instigating a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan, at a FRACTION of the physical and financial cost needed to destroy Iraq, America would have proved that its invasion was truly about spreading democracy, would have established alternative (non-opium) sources of income for the Afghan warlords and would have turned its ally Karzai into a democratic, national hero with full support of the masses. This would have brought greater pressure to bear on Iran than the misguided invasion of Iraq.
Oil prices would have remained in a range of $ 20-$30, depriving Iran’s domestically unpopular regime of the financial windfalls available both to retain power at home and spread its influence abroad.
The Iranian reformists would have gained added momentum and strengthened President Khatemi whose efforts were undercut precisely by America’s insane policies: Following America’s rejection of Spiritual Leader Khamenei’s comprehensive peace overture in May 2003 (confirmed by the entire U.S. intelligence community — See Flynt Leverett Op-Ed titled "The Gulf Between Us") Khatemi became a lame-duck reformist for
his final 2 years: Khamenei was finally forced to listen to the Radicals (Baseejis, Revolutionary Guards) who had been claiming all along that America would accept nothing less than total regime change. Result? Iran said "No more Mister Nice Guy" and manipulated the 2005 presidential election in Ahmadinejad’s favour so as to bare the nation’s teeth and fangs.
By consolidating Afghanistan and controlling the border with Pakistan, America would have been able to lend greater assistance to President Musharraf in controlling and eventually eradicating the Pakistan cells which had created the Taliban, facilitated 9/11 and participated in the Madrid and multiple U.K. bombings. (The greatest danger to world peace is Pakistan as represented by its fanatical Madresehs and Pakistani armed forces who both hate America and already possess the nuclear weapons needed to cause unimaginable global
chaos). But who can blame Musharraf for playing both sides of the field (see this week’s excellent CNN report by Nic Robertson titled "Pakistan: The Threat Within"), when the U.S. focussed 90 % of its efforts on Iraq and ignored the real terrorists entirely?

This was all predictable. One of the most shocking scenes I personally witnessed was John Kerry reading excerpts from Dr. Vali Nasr’s book to the new Democratic majority in the Senate, explaining to them for half an hour the difference between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims, describing the in-bred hatred between the two sects, particularly in Iraq! One would have thought that the U.S. Government would have read the book BEFORE invading Iraq, not 4 years later!!!

Posted by b on July 8, 2007 at 10:15 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Thanks for publishing my “2 cents”. Here is a gripping account by Gareth Porter titled “How Neo-Cons Sabotaged Iran’s Help on al Qaeda”:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0222-07.htm
This wasn’t a case of good intentions sabotaged by ‘Keystone Kops’ planning . It was something far more sinister: America’s and Iran’s common interests sabotaged by Israel.

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 8 2007 10:43 utc | 1

Most American “leaders” simply do not know the difference between Sunnis and Shi’ites and particularly the Religious Reich Republicans simply do not care. Throughout the period of the Iraq Oil Colonization Campaign, I have watched C-Span whenever one of the hapless and pseudo-educated members of my own House and Senate either dodged the question, refused to answer it, answer it wrongly or change the subject. Only one recently gave an answer that would semi-satisfy the requirements of a freshman World History short answer question! I inwardly cursed when it turned out to be a Republican!
If this much ignorance existed, during, and after Cowboy George and Shoot ’em Up Cheney’s ” Post Mission Accomplished “SURGE” fiasco, it makes me wonder the level of ignorance that existed back in Jan/Feb 2000, when Madame Supertanker in a long, drooling, article in Foreign Affairs talked about the necessity for “regime change” in Iraq long before there was a 9/11 to blame Saddam for.
So much for an administration that get its advising from graduates of Patrick Henry college and Regent University. Sure they know shit about Islam, but they all know Paris Hilton recently found Jesus in the Bastille!

Posted by: Diogenes | Jul 8 2007 12:10 utc | 2

If not seen already you might wish to refer to the parallel thread “Gordon’s source on Iran”, in which I posted an outstanding article written by an (I assume) Iranian-American, Kam Zarrabi, titled “The path to war with Iran is paved by the hands of our enemies within”.
In fact, there’s a huge overlap between the diverse themes discussed on this outstanding blog: the NYT-assisted Pentagon propaganda, the befriending of enemies (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) and the betrayal of potential allies (Iran), the subversion of the U.S. Constitution, America’s strengthening of the unimaginably ruthless and corrupt Mullahs, America’s growing unpopularity among friend and foe alike, and so on. I don’t see the world untangling itself from this mess so easily. It will continue long after Cheney has politically or physically passed away ….

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 8 2007 12:33 utc | 3

A few problems I have with the above:
– Afghanistan: With kicking the Pashtun (Taliban) tribes out of the government the case was lost. One can’t change a country against the will of the majority, especially not when part of that majority tribe also resides untouchable in Pakistan and they have a fierce strike of independence.
– US/NATO will inevitably get kicked out of Afghansitan (like all powers before).
– an additional 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan would not have helped, as US troops are, through their culture, uncapable of using the soft-power that is needed for a successful conquerer.
– the AlQaeda problem could have been solved with very severe pressure on Saudi Arabia and the Pakistani secret service to shut down their funding of such groups.
– strategically after 9/11 it would have made much more sense for the US to get friendly with Iran and to punish the Saudi dictatorship for the world-wide Wahhabi financing. But their are lots of personal financial interests that stopped that route to be taken.
– as for internal Iran policy, I have no idea how much real support Ahmadinejad had in the election, but there is obviously a significant part of the society that is quite poor and liked him, while they despised the baazaris like Rafsanjani which shuffled in millions and billions.

Posted by: b | Jul 8 2007 14:02 utc | 4

Parviz, welcome, glad to have you here!

Posted by: Alamet | Jul 8 2007 14:14 utc | 5

The plan above would be so effective and is so obvious that why it was not done is a very interesting question.
“Khamenei was finally forced to listen to the Radicals (Baseejis, Revolutionary Guards) who had been claiming all along that America would accept nothing less than total regime change.”
On this point the radicals were right. I doubt it would have been much different if a Democrat were in the Whitehouse.
“By instigating a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan, at a FRACTION of the physical and financial cost….”
I think that this is actually a practical impossibility. The US government has reached the point where it is unable to spend money without it firstly benefitting a political constituency.
$300bn by a genuine philanthropist would transform Afghanistan and acheive everything one could hope for.
$300bn spent by the US government would put $250bn in the hands of western banks and corporations, $30bn in the hands of corrupt local elites and $20bn would be spent on local or Philipino labour to undertake projects. On top of this Afghanistan would be left with a $50bn debt to the IMF/World Bank. The political reality is that America could not do better if it wanted to.

Posted by: swio | Jul 8 2007 14:40 utc | 6

b, I’ll comment on your last paragraph first: In the first round of the presidential elections Ahmadinejad was running 5th about an hour before the close of polling. The polling was then mysteriously extended by 2 hours (I write ‘mysteriously’ as the booths were all empty, i.e, there was a disaffected, low voter turn-out as had occurred with the Municipal elections 2 years earlier), and Ahmadinejad suddenly ‘found’ 2 million additional votes, all in the last 2 hours, giving him a chance to run-off against the No. 1 (Rafsanjani).
There were formal protests by Karroubi, Qalibaf, Larijani, Moin and even Rafsanjani, published in the local Farsi and English press, but everyone was told to shut up and the rest was history. The run-off was between Iran’s biggest thief and a dangerous buffoon, and whether Ahmadinejad was again ‘assisted’ or genuinely won is a matter of speculation: Whatever attraction he had for the impoverished masses has long disappeared, and the only thing mobilizing people around him (including ‘pragmatists’, intellectuals and other disaffected groups) is the continuing military threat from America.
As for Afghanistan and Pakistan, you may well be right that it wouldn’t have done any good to have diverted America’s considerable human and financial resources on those countries, but now we’ll never know, and I don’t believe the results woud have been any worse than Iraq. At the very least my points 1, 3 and definitely 4 would still have been valid, and who knows to what extent Afghanistan and Pakistan would have been influenced by an American display of goodwill and genuine statesmanship. The whole world would have been cheering you on, and you wouldn’t have needed a separate thread on America’s unprecedented historical unpopularity.

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 8 2007 15:45 utc | 7

swio, I take your point and understand your negativism. I just suppose I’m a born optimist, and I haven’t lost total faith in the U.S.A.. For all his philandering I think Bill Clinton did a great job in Bosnia and even assisted Blair in preparing the ground for settlement of the Irish conflict. He also made sure Netanyahu lost the election to Barak, before Monica/Tripp turned him into a lame duck.
By the way, Bill is a hero in Iran, because he was the first U.S. President to lay the blame for the 1979 hostage crisis on the U.S. overthrow of the first ever democratically elected Iranian Government (Dr. Mossadegh) back in 1953 (the MI5/CIA’s jointly coded Operation Ajax).
Maybe the solution is a new U.S. leader in the Bill mould. The trick will be to get and keep AIPAC off his back.

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 8 2007 15:53 utc | 8

@Parviz – ok – I didn’t follow that election in Iran and take it by your words. I think Ahmadinejad is quite a nut and his economic policies are near suicidal for Iran. No love there but, like you, certainly no love for Rafsanjani either.
America’s considerable human and financial resources and goodwill and genuine statesmanship – well (I’m German btw), if one looks a bit at the historic cases, those rsources and statesmanship are always used in the U.S. “national interest” and for the recipient often come with some attached explosives (just ask the Vietnamese, Haitians, Serbs or the Sudanese who had their only major pharmaceutical factory bombed for no reason by that hero Bill C.)
I think general U.S. politics are hellbend, Democrats as well as Republicans, to bring down ANY Iranian governement by ANY means unless it’s another Karzai, Abbas or Shah puppet who does what its told to do by Washington.
The best insurance against that are for now U.S. troops trapped in Iraq. But they will leave as they will in Afghanistan. What defense has Iran left after that?

Posted by: b | Jul 8 2007 18:48 utc | 9

Youse guys forgot: Afgnahistan has no oil resources.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jul 8 2007 18:55 utc | 10

Parviz- thanks for posting.
It’s hard to believe that ppl in the U.S. and its govt are so stupid that they can’t see that an invasion of Iran could very well be the tipping point in so many factors — but they’re here. It’s also an acknowledgement of their blindness to claim that Iranian students would support a U.S. invasion.
One of the biggest blunders among so many from the Bush junta was flipping off Iran’s offer to help…but of course, if this had been the case, the neo-cons couldn’t have pressed on to their real agenda of destruction and domination.
And while talking tough about the gwot, the Bush junta was getting those bases out of Saudi Arabia — another irony from those who talk about not “giving in to the terrorists” — if they could, they would have tried to put bases in Iraqi either way, it seems to me.
I don’t think the U.S. wants Afghanistan to have an economy that’s not based in large part upon poppy production because such commerce is how the CIA has financed illegal ops for years.
But it’s great to read something from someone familiar with the players who can also maintain some optimism. Look forward to reading your voice.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 8 2007 20:23 utc | 11

@ralphieboy – Pipelineistan, Part 1: The rules of the game

Afghanistan itself has some natural gas in the north of the country, near Turkmenistan. But above all it is ultra-strategic: positioned between the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia, between Turkmenistan and the avid markets of the Indian subcontinent, China and Japan. Afghanistan is at the core of Pipelineistan.
…

Texan oil companies, esp. UNACOL for which Karzai was working, were negotiating with the Taliban for pipeline routes in 2000. There were no result UNACOL found sufficient so things had to be changed …

Posted by: b | Jul 8 2007 20:28 utc | 12

b, if U.S. troops leave Iraq it could well result in partition, meaning that Iraq would return to its pre-1932 natural state. (The Brits cobbled Iraq together from the remains of the Ottoman Empire and created a more manageable entity — = reverse ‘divide and rule’– but ingeniously declaring Kuwait an independent state).
I disagree with you that this wouldn’t benefit Iran. Yes, on the surface Iran would face secessionist pressures from Kurdistan in Western Iran, maybe also from Tabriz in the North-West, Baluchistan in the South East and Khuzestan in the South-West, but you’ve got to remember that ‘core’ Iran hasn’t changed for 2,500 years. That’s an extraordinary demonstration of cohesion. It wasn’t created 75 years ago by the British! So Iran would survive in its present state, conflicts, skirmishes and occasional demonstrations notwithstanding.
What amazes me is that Israeli spy Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute recently declared that economic pressure could be successfully applied to Iran as it was to North Korea!?! N. Korea succumbed to U.S. pressure on account of a single sum of $ 25 million blocked in a Macao bank. Iran has $ 70 billion official forex reserves and an additional $ 150 billion held in private accounts by offshore foundations (mainly religious) controlled by the Mullahs. So stupidity apparently has no limits, especially among the Neocons.
Back on topic: My original post was on what SHOULD have happened. Now I will tell you how to bring peace to the Middle East: America must leave Iraq. Iraq will either get its act together immediately or become a failed state for a few years (not for very long, because ‘failed states’ are usually inherently poor ones like Zimbabwe and North Korea). When the bloodletting eventually subsides Iraq will get its act together. All the while Iran will deal cautiously with the Iraqi Shi’ite majority, but will be focussed mainly on mounting problems at home that will be exacerbated by the withdrawal of the scapegoat (America) for all the nation’s problems. Reform or a quick revolution (= more like a coup d’etat) will follow, in which a Yeltsin-like figure (maybe Qalibaf) seizes control from within, to be replaced by a quasi-democracy after a suitable interim period.
All this is possible only after America leaves Iraq.

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 8 2007 21:36 utc | 13

fauxreal, thanks for pointing out that “It’s also an acknowledgement of their blindness to claim that Iranian students would support a U.S. invasion.” The students have been seized, imprisoned and tortured for believing that America was going to bring democracy to Iraq, Syria and Iran in short order. Those L.A.-based satellite channels and VOA are despised for having encouraged Iranian students to demonstrate in the belief that America would stand behind them. All they got for their bruises and pulled fingernails was the sight of America bargaining with Iran to cease uranium enrichment and actually enlisting Iran’s help to bring stability to Iraq! The Mantra of ‘regime change’ was suddenly off the menu!
Iranian citizens, eventhose who are fiercely anti-regime, don’t trust Americans any more than the Afghan Northern Alliance does. Once bitten, twice shy.

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 8 2007 21:48 utc | 14

“Iranian citizens, eventhose who are fiercely anti-regime, don’t trust Americans any more”
Its funny how almost every group has to learn through its own bitter experience the danger of trusting Americans. It seems that people all over the world never learn from the experience of others and only realise that the freedom and democracy stuff is subordinate to national interest after they have been betrayed. The myth of America as the protector of freedom lovers everywhere is so powerfully attractive to oppressed people that they fall for it again and again.
“Maybe the solution is a new U.S. leader in the Bill mould. The trick will be to get and keep AIPAC off his back.”
I think your solutions on the ME are good but the trick is figuring out how to make them politically possible in the US. Where almost all solutions fall down is in getting the US to the right thing.

Posted by: swio | Jul 8 2007 23:24 utc | 15

for Iran, the class system that preceeded Mossadegh is gone. Under Mossadegh, Iran might have began an evolution into a Eurocentric-type democracy, who knows possibly ala Turkey or more likely its own distinct flavor. Thats gone too. The class system of the Shah era is gone. A class system topped by the Mullahs holds for now.
Its humbling to consider what the mindless vain-ness of a few in topppling Mossadegh has brought to a highly tangible civilization with roots going back thousands of years.
For a nation that has never been colonized in recorded history, Iran has demonstrated an incredibly extra-ordinary ability to morph from one class-system to another.
And from what we know of the Persians love for poetry, science, arts, literature, they discovered chess, their tolerance for religious diversity, the undisputable democratic aspiration of the Iranian peoples …. maybe we do’nt really need to bomb them back into the stone-age.
then again, we could nuke ’em and not have to worry about them any more.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 9 2007 1:57 utc | 16

Reform or a quick revolution (= more like a coup d’etat) will follow, in which a Yeltsin-like figure
That is the guy who sold out Russia wealth to his daughters best friends, i.e the oligarchs, and straved the population, right?
From the Wall Street Journal(!) found here

“Between 1992 and 1994, the rise in the death rate in Russia was so dramatic that Western demographers did not believe the figures. The toll from murder, suicide, heart attacks and accidents gave Russia the death rate of a country at war; Western and Russian demographers now agree that between 1992 and 2000, the number of “surplus deaths” in Russia–deaths that cannot be explained on the basis of previous trends–was between five and six million persons.”

I don’t wish any country to experience a Yeltsin like figure … for Russia, it was a major catastrophy …

Posted by: b | Jul 9 2007 4:41 utc | 17

By ‘Yeltsin-like figure’ I meant someone who is prepared to stand on top of a tank and rally the masses, someone with credibility (which Yeltsin originally had in abundance). I never expected Russia to turn into Switzerland overnight, considering their millenia of dictatorships and the extraordinary tensions that existed in the Soviet Union before its collapse.
b, my point is that getting rid of the Mullahs MUST be an inside job. The Iranian diaspora abroad is rife with Chalabi-like opportunists, Shah-hangers-on and Communists (MKO) who have virtually zero credibiity inside Iran. And they all hate each other, which is why not a single serious opposition movement has emerged during the past 28 years.
So once we get a regime ‘reformist’ to defeat the radicals we can then hope and pray that the next stage is an improvement on Putin.
And jony_b_cool, for your information we didn’t invent chess but Backgammon, polo and wine (the latter 7,000 years ago in the Jiroft region). What bitter irony that the Mullahs banned alcohol in the country that invented it! Cheers!

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 9 2007 5:28 utc | 18

my point is that getting rid of the Mullahs MUST be an inside job
That’s certainly fine with me …
—-
The U.S. military said Iran is giving weapons to “Al Qaeda in Iraq”. Dear Generals, now please explain this: Al Qaeda Front Group in Iraq Threatens to Go to War With Iran

Posted by: b | Jul 9 2007 6:32 utc | 19

Well, this goes to prove how stupid American politicians, and especially the Military, are: Iran helps America ro defeat the Taliban, then America gets rid of Iran’s arch-enemy Saddam Hussein. So Iran and America have common interests, yes? NO: Iran makes a comprehensive peace offer which the White House rejects out of hand.
Al Qaeda then turns Iraq into a terrorist training ground, recruiting people and weapons from the Sunni Baathists dismissed from the Army by idiot Paul Bremer. Iran sits on the sidelines, letting America cook in its own stew, despite the fact that its Shi’ite allies are getting killed and Shi’ite mosques destroyed.
Looking for a scapegoat for the mess, America then claims that Iran is arming its Sunni enemies and thereby feeding the insurgency (???#$@!*^!!! expletive deleted).
Now the Pentagon claims Iran is supporting Al Qaeda while the Pentagon’s own TV mouthpiece, Fox News, states exactly the opposite.
And the beat goes on ……………

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 9 2007 7:19 utc | 20

Lessons in propaganda:
Yesterday the Washington Post ran a very speculative piece including a picture on page A01:
Tunneling Near Iranian Nuclear Site Stirs Worry
Today the Washington Post runs this well founded piece without picture on page A12:
Slowdown Seen in Iran’s Nuclear Program

Posted by: b | Jul 10 2007 7:47 utc | 21

Thanks, b, but it gets even worse than that: Dan Rather is airing a special report http://www.hd.net/danrather.html on the CIA’s use of guerrilla fighters to destabilize Iran, doing everything within its power to destabilize the country by supporting extremist elements, mercenaries, Al-Qaeda, Jundullah and the MEK (all 3 listed by the E.U. and the U.S. as “terrorist organizations”).
America has aligned itself, yet again, with terrorists to achieve its Machiavellian aims. The U.S. Administration has created and funded these organizations, apparently oblivious to the long term, Osama-like consequences. If one wants to investigate terrorism’s causes, one need look no further than U.S. foreign policy.
The CIA is short-sightedly strengthening terrorist organizations that America will once again have to confront further down the road. There are many more 9/11s in the making. The theme of this thread has not lost its relevance.

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 11 2007 6:15 utc | 22

Back to Main