Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 5, 2007
Changes in Iran

What is the Farsi word for Kremlinology? I don’t know, so I’ll just write up some facts without much conclusions.

There is a noticable shift in the Iranian government that may well reflect into its future policies.

President Ahmedinejad is under fire for his economic policies. He had ordered interest rates to be cut despite significant inflationary pressure and sacked the ministers for oil and industry. The head of the Central Bank resigned. A new ‘reformist’ Central Bank chief was introduced today, but the important ministries are still headless and there is some conflict with the parliament about the replacements.

Two of the Iranian-American scholars held by Iran on espionage accusations have been freed and are allowed to leave the country. This was likely the influence of the Supreme Leader Khamenei and not Ahmedinejad’s decision.

In a deal with the IAEA a timeplan to answer old questions was fixed. This plus a  remarkable slowdown in enrichment might forestall further UN sanctions. The compact was the work of Ali Larijani, who is a member of the National Security Council on behalf of Khamenei.

Last Friday the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, a 250,000 men military/industrial force, was moved up and away to become a special advisor to Khamenei. No ‘western’ media seems to have an explanation for this move. Our commentator Parviz noted:

[T]he head of the Revolutionary Guards was dismissed last week for having delivered a speech that the Religious Leader (Khamenei) considered too belligerent.

But the ex-patria Iran Press Service writes just about the opposite:

No reason was given for the very important change at the highest level of the 250.000 strong Guards, but some informed sources said Rahim Safavi might have been changed because of his relative “mildness” compared to some other hard line officer, including General Ja’fari.

So was he too hard or too soft? Whatever it is, Safavi is still holding speeches and the new ICRG leader Ja’fari didn’t sound shy in his first press conference.

The most significant recent move though is the election of former president Rafsanjani as head the Council of Experts, a powerful chamber that elects, consults and supervises the Supreme Leader, currently Ajatollah Khamenei. Rafsanjani is a pragmatic conservative Islamic cleric and a very rich man with best relations to the business class. This puts him into opposition of Ahmedinejad who’s constituency are the poor workers and farmers.

All the above steps are limiting Ahmedinejad’s position and assert the position of Khamenei.  Coming within a short timeframe they signal a major shift which
will have some consequences in the foreign policy relations.

Rafsanjani’s election will certainly tame some of the statements coming from Iran that the ‘west’ interprets as bellingerance. But Rafsanjani is certainly not bending his knees to ‘western’ demands.

"Now they (the United States) have started an anti-Shiite wave and we should be careful not to fall into their traps,"added Rafsanjani. "We should not let ourselves be provoked and give an excuse for the enemy."

Still, the U.S. reaction to Rafsanjani’s election was positive:

"We would hope that reasonable individuals in Iran would see the positive opportunity given to it by the international community to enter negotiations and be able to achieve a peaceful nuclear program while still reassuring everyone else that it is not simply a cover for building a nuclear weapon," State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey told reporters.

As far as I remember, the U.S. had previously denied any legitimacy of such a peaceful nuclear program in Iran. Is this a major change in U.S. policy or just a trial balloon by the State Department?

Nothing of the above will likely appease the U.S. neocons who want to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

Regime change to them is not simply a change of foreign leaders, but a change of the political, social and economic system of a foreign country. Iran is certainly not willing to go down that road.

But the changes can be helpful for those in the U.S. who argue for negotiations instead of destruction.

Comments

We all know what the USA means when it speaks of “regime change”. As interesting as these details are, they will have little effect on plans to attempt to take out Iran’s nuclear capabilities in a three-day air blitz.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Sep 5 2007 18:43 utc | 1

About the changing of the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, Informed Comment Global Affairs group blog had a post yesterday, A Change of Guard in Tehran

(snip)
(…)in response to direct questions in this regard both commanders in separate news conferences suggested that the decision for change was made about two months ago. Safavi went as far as to say that Ayatollah Khamenei simply does not like anyone serving at any position for more than 10 years. The move nevertheless reveals a couple of interesting points about the role of military in Iranian politics which is usually overlooked.
(snip)

Includes background, history of the RG, etc. Recommended.

Posted by: Alamet | Sep 5 2007 20:33 utc | 2

War Drummer in Chief Matt Drudge headlines today with:
Iran seals its doors tighter against the West…

Posted by: johnf | Sep 5 2007 20:49 utc | 3

Has anyone seen this, from Huffington Post, Report: Army Planes Mistakenly Flew With Five Nuke Warheads Last Week and the analysis of the same at TPM.

Posted by: Iron butterfly | Sep 5 2007 21:57 utc | 4

The neocon war drum ensemble will love this:
Iran’s covert plan in Lebanon
by Amir Taheri of course, who else?

Posted by: Alamet | Sep 5 2007 22:03 utc | 5

Sunni’s are playing a clever game of chess in Iraq, giving propanganda, high fives and money shots to the Bush caravan in support of the surge. Iran is moving some pawns around, Bush flies off to APEC and maybe screw some Jeff Gannon ass.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Sep 5 2007 22:24 utc | 6

The question is, do Achmedinejad and Rafsanjani (boy that’s a load to type) really represent different constituencies, or is that just their image, and which would the US rather have? A wealthy corrupt representative of the neo-liberal leaning business sector might be better for the ruling elite than a war.

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 6 2007 0:32 utc | 7

If amerika was to attack Iran, an unlikely event but we’ve had that debate endlessly, it won’t be because of the leadership, nor will it really have anything to do with nuclear weapons.
True, amerika may claim that is why but the reality won’t match the claim.
If they did attack Iran it would be to reinforce amerikan domination of oil supply, either outright by grabbing the Iranian stuff or by prising Iran’s clenched fingers off of Iraq’s oil.
Most likely the combination of the above – whereby Iran gets attacked – after a few million dead humans Iran relinquishes control of Iraq and Iraqi oil. amerika then backs off for a while, re-consolidates then cranks it all up again – after Iran has been weakened by a siege akin to the decade of hell Iraq had before the baby muderers finally put their boots on Iraqi soil.
Now I don’t believe that is an achievable goal but I’m sure that view is in the minority amongst the boss baby killers, notwithstanding that they aren’t going to do it.
The thing is, the Iranian leadership knows all this. They know that ‘regime change’ is just a pretext, so knowing that, why waste time making changes to appease amerika? It will be the Iranian population that they are seeking to appease. Not because of any milk of human kindness, nor a desire to satisfy the will of the people, per se, but because the next few months are going to be a real hard staring each other down phase between amerika and Iran. The Iranians don’t want a segment of their population going for the blink.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 6 2007 1:22 utc | 8

Debs is dead:
why waste time making changes to appease amerika? It will be the Iranian population that they are seeking to appease.
Maybe, but Rafsanjani wasn’t elected by the people but by those in power under strong objection. Personally I think it was a political move made in the war of words between Iran and America. When a third world country is confronted by a superpower the only recourse they have is international public opinion. I agree though that this is not meant to appease America. They sure aren’t going to get favorable ratings from the US war party or it’s best friend in ME:
The survey, commissioned by Bar-Ilan University’s BESA Center and the Anti-Defamation League, found that 59 percent of Israelis still believe the war in Iraq was justified, while 36 percent take the opposite view.
71% of Israelis want U.S. to strike Iran if talks fail
Given that the populations of pretty much every ME country is aware of this, and their general preference to elect leaders that take a hard line against Israel, this would seem to me not a popular domestic move. After all when they did get a chance to vote they elected Ahmedinejad. Palestine elected Hamas and Hezbollah is the most popular party in the ME. More important is the stark contrast in recent political moves in Iran and the US:
Housing and Urban Development Minister Mohammad Saidi-Kia broke the ground for the new building alongside Morris Motamed, the representative of Iran’s Jewish community in parliament, the official IRNA news agency reported.
Iran builds cultural centre for Jews
Thus commenced the smear campaign against the Khalil Gibran International Academy and, specifically, Debbie Almontaser. For the next six months, from blogs to talk shows to cable networks to the right-wing press, the hysteria and hatred never ceased. Regrettably, it worked.
Ms. Almontaser resigned as principal earlier this month. Nominally, she quit to quell the controversy about her remarks to The New York Post insufficiently denouncing the term “intifada” on a T-shirt made by a local Arab-American organization. That episode, however, merely provided the pretext for her ouster, for the triumph of a concerted exercise in character assassination.

the Smearing of Debbie Almontaser
Intersting that America and Israel don’t seem too bothered about what will happen to Jews in Iran under a massive bombing campaign.

Posted by: Sam | Sep 6 2007 3:37 utc | 9

Bernhard, that was an extremely well thought out summary of the situation in Iran. I must add one thing: Rafsanjani was President from 1989-1997. He lost out in the run-off with Ahmadinejad in 2005 because the stark choice was between the corruptest Mullah in Iran and a ‘killer’. The killer won.
However, Ahmadinejad has messed up (everything) big-time, so Spiritual Leader Khamenei has swung the balance back in Rafsanjani’s favour:
Rafsanjani is now Chairman of Iran’s 2 most powerful legislative bodies: The Expediency Council (which decides on all disputes between Parliament and the Guardian Council) and the Council of Experts (which actually chooses the Spiritual Leader himself and is therefore Iran’s most powerful body by any definition).
Safavi was a hardliner and had a big mouth (take my word on this one) so he had to go.
Summary: There are indeed changes occurring here, though the jury is out as to whether the changes are genuine or merely tactical.

Posted by: Parviz | Sep 6 2007 10:36 utc | 10

b, please don’t pay too much attention to foreign media analysis on Iran, particularly Iranian expatriate news services. (As for the BBC, they even managed to confuse this Ja’afari with the Ja’afari who is Larijani’s bodyguard!)
Safavi’s virtually last speech before removal was a very loud and open threat to deliver U.S. forces a sharp lesson. He suggested a Rumsfeld-like preemptive attack. His replacement, on the other hand, and in total contrast to his appearance, is a genuine ‘thinker’ and planner, not some brainless goon. He is Iran’s equivalent to Gen. Petraeus, and he will combine well with Rafsanjani who, for all his faults, is widely considered in Iran as by far the most intelligent of all Mullahs.
So Ahmadinejad’s power has been neutralized, at least for the present, and the elements are in place for engagement with the U.S., if the U.S. is ready.

Posted by: Parviz | Sep 6 2007 11:18 utc | 11

B
Casey’s statement is similar to statements that Rice was making 12-15 months ago – it’s not really possible to sustain the position that Iran cannot have a nuclear programme as per its treaty entitlements.
Sam
Iran isn’t a third world country.

Posted by: dan | Sep 6 2007 11:54 utc | 12

Parviz:
Safavi’s virtually last speech before removal was a very loud and open threat to deliver U.S. forces a sharp lesson.
Considering his new job is senior military advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, I wouldn’t phrase it as “removal”. Some might even call it a promotion. The Iranian press phrased it as “stepped down”. Might have something to do with the US considering to declare the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist orgnization. A political move maybe?

Posted by: Sam | Sep 6 2007 12:08 utc | 13

dan:
Iran isn’t a third world country.
Well that depends on what your definition of a third world country is. It’s not just economics but lets compare anyway:
Iran GDP rank 2006 IMF #32
Iran GDP rank 2006 WB #29
Compared to the US, which is over 225 times the GDP of Iran, for all intensive purposes it might as well be.
Some refer to third world countries as those that are non aligned with the major powers. Even India, which is much larger than Iran, is often refered to as a third world country. World arm sales calculations use this term for example. Iran is not a member of the SCO and the only deal they have is with Syria so they are very vunerable.

Posted by: Sam | Sep 6 2007 12:38 utc | 14

Well, I think the truth lies somewhere in between:
The CIA Factbook places Iran as the world’s 20th largest economy on a PPP basis.
And as for Syria’s being Iran’s only ‘deal’, well that’s absolute nonsense: Iran and China signed a $ 100 billion joint energy agreement, Japan signed a $ 20 billion agreement with Iran and Turkey just yesterday signed a $ 3 billion natural gas agreement in defiance of the U.S.. In all, Iran has signed approx. $250 bilion worth of agreements in just the past 5 years, including deals with Total and Shell (the latter also much to the U.S.’s annoyance).
Iran has IMF-confirmed Iranian Central Bank cash reserves of $ 75 billion (plus another $ 150 billion abroad)
What Dan meant is that Iran isn’t a one-trick pony.

Posted by: Parviz | Sep 6 2007 13:04 utc | 15

And Sam, regarding your comment: Considering his new job is senior military advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, I wouldn’t phrase it as “removal”. Some might even call it a promotion.
Ever heard of the expression “being kicked upstairs?” Well, that’s what happened to Safavi. Believe me, he was removed primarily to cool the rhetoric. Now, if you guys/gals in the U.S. can just remove Lieberman (= send him permanently back to Tel Aviv), maybe the atmosphere may become condusive to civilized discussions between the barking factions.

Posted by: Parviz | Sep 6 2007 13:57 utc | 16

Sam
By all standard, internationally-accepted economic definitions Iran is a middle-income country. It’s also worth noting that Iran is not an international aid recipient, is not heavily-indebted, and has substantial foreign currency reserves. If both the WB and the IMF are assessing Iran as creeping into the top 30 economies then it’s worth pondering that none of the US, EU-25, Australia, Canada, Norway, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Malaysia, Israel, NZ, Singapore, Switzerland, Russia ( who else did I miss? )would ever be considered 3rd world countries – and it therefore makes little sense to apply the term to Iran.
By all other standard metrics – ie life expectancy, literacy rates, fertility rates, access to electricity, education, health and social services, Iran is not far off overall European social levels and compares favorably with the former Warsaw pact nations. You may recall the night-time sat-maps comparing North Korea with South Korea – one a black hole, the other lit-up like an Xmas tree; they’ll never show the same sat-maps of Iran in comparison to its neighbours ( especially Iraq and Afghanistan ) as it would be hopelessly embarrassing.
Iran’s GDP on a $ basis is over $200 billion ( this is widely acknowledged to be an underestimate and fails to capture the role of the UAE as an offshore Iranian financial centre ) – this is about 1/65th of US GDP and not 1/225th. Adjusted for population ( 70 million versus 300 million ) it’s about 1/15th of US; on a PPP basis its about 1/5th ( I appreciate that I’m mixing GNP and GDP figures here – but they’re useful illustrative comparisons ).
Iran is a member in good standing of the NAM countries, the OIC, a key member of OPEC, and has normalised relations with almost all UN countries bar the US and Israel.

Posted by: dan | Sep 6 2007 14:07 utc | 17

Parviz:
And as for Syria’s being Iran’s only ‘deal’, well that’s absolute nonsense
Signing economic deals and signing military pacts are two very different things.
Ever heard of the expression “being kicked upstairs?
Try reading my post. Isn’t that what I implied?
dan:
By all standard, internationally-accepted economic definitions Iran is a middle-income country.
I never said it wasn’t. Do I really have to explain this to you again:
It conveyed as well a second idea, that of non-alignment, for the Third World belongs neither to the industrialised capitalist world nor to the industrialised communist bloc.
It was a military post not an economic post

Posted by: Sam | Sep 6 2007 14:28 utc | 18

@Sam – 9 – Maybe, but Rafsanjani wasn’t elected by the people but by those in power under strong objection.
Assembly of Experts:

Members of the assembly are elected from a government-screened list of candidates by direct public vote to eight year terms.

Iranian Assembly of Experts election, 2006

Ministry of Interior reported an estimated 60% turnout of the 46.5 million eligible voters, reporting “more than 28 million people” as the number of voters who had voted.

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was also a presidential candidate in the Iranian presidential election of 2005, won the most number of votes in Tehran province with 1,564,197 votes, half a million votes more than the second candidate, Mohammad Emami Kashani.

Too me this looks like Rafsanjani WAS elected by the people. I have no idea who, as you claim, “strongly objected” to his election.
Can you enlighten me?

Posted by: b | Sep 6 2007 14:30 utc | 19

@b – Rafsanjani was just elected as chairman of the Assembly of Experts by 41 votes to 34 votes for Jannati. Jannati represented the Ahmadinejad camp, commonly reffered to as the hardliners, which I meant by those that strongly objected. The reason for the strong objection are based on reports that Rafsanjani has spoken of greater Assembly supervision over Khamenei. Not only does this body have that power but they have the power to select the Supreme Leader. This is very significant and represents a huge political shift.

Posted by: Sam | Sep 6 2007 15:19 utc | 20

Sam
I’m fairly sure the impeccably neutral Swiss would be amused to discover that they’re a third world country.
An industrialised communist bloc no longer exists – so I can’t see how that helps in fixing the definition of Iran as “third world” – it also strikes me that when Iran was allied to the US it wasn’t a third world country, but the termination of that alliance axiomatically rendered it so; this makes little sense.
It’s actually quite possible to argue that Iran DOES belong to the industrialised capitalist world, and that US sanctions/threats to those that trade with Iran have a tendency to obscure this reality.
World arms sales are of little relevance to this.

Posted by: dan | Sep 6 2007 15:46 utc | 21

Sorry if I sound snitty in my replies to posts but reading Parviz’s post:
Safavi was a hardliner and had a big mouth (take my word on this one) so he had to go.
Someone could get the impression that he was simply fired and is out of the picture. Failing to mention his new job as personal senior military advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is significant in my opinion. My intention is to inform not to degrade anyone.

Posted by: Sam | Sep 6 2007 15:53 utc | 22

@Sam – 20 – which I meant by those that strongly objected
Oh wait – a parlamentarian chamber elects a leader in a two men race. One wins with 41-34 (+11 abstinations) on you call that “strongly objected”.
So what you wanted to say was:
“Nanci Pelosi wasn’t elected by the people but by those in power under strong objection.”
oh, well …

Posted by: b | Sep 6 2007 15:58 utc | 23

dan:
World arms sales are of little relevance to this.
That’s funny because arms+sales+third+world+countries equals
2,050,000 hits on google

Posted by: Sam | Sep 6 2007 16:07 utc | 24

b:
So what you wanted to say was:
“Nanci Pelosi wasn’t elected by the people but by those in power under strong objection.”

She wasn’t elected speaker of the house by the people. Many Republicans strongly object to her holding that position.

Posted by: Sam | Sep 6 2007 16:11 utc | 25

On more thought on the Iranian election system.
The candidates get “vetted” by some religious committee. Those who do not agree to the central dogmas of the system are rejected.
One could argue that the same is happening in the U.S., though in a more subtile way.
Someone who doesn’t agree with the central dogmas of the system, crony imperial capitalism, has no chance to get elected for lack of money. (Esp. in the Senate) one has to sell the soul/votes to the system (and some special interests) to get enough money to be able to compete in an election.

Posted by: b | Sep 6 2007 16:15 utc | 26

Sam
You can google arms+sales+developed+world or arms+sales+europe and get a couple of million hits too.
Hell, if you google Iran+arms+industry you get nigh on 2 million hits! Does that make them a superpower?
I’m really not sure that any of this is relevant to how we conceptualise Iran’s status as a country.

Posted by: dan | Sep 6 2007 16:34 utc | 27

dan:
I’m really not sure that any of this is relevant to how we conceptualise Iran’s status as a country.
Third world equals non aligned versus say a member of NATO or the SCO which have military pacts that specifically state they will respond militarily to any aggression towards a member State. In other words Iran does not have a major power that will automatically come to the rescue if it is attacked. I think that is very relevant when discussing the possibility of the US attacking Iran. My comments on this thread have nothing to do with Iran’s economic status in the world. I am responding in a thread that contains Neocons, bomb Iran, Regime change and the political changes taking place in Iran as a result of all the warmongering. I repeat it was a military post not an economic post.

Posted by: Sam | Sep 6 2007 17:07 utc | 28

b:
One could argue that the same is happening in the U.S., though in a more subtile way.
Someone who doesn’t agree with the central dogmas of the system, crony imperial capitalism, has no chance to get elected for lack of money. (Esp. in the Senate) one has to sell the soul/votes to the system (and some special interests) to get enough money to be able to compete in an election.

Yes but Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul regularly get elected in that same system. The people can elect either one of them to run the country if they so choose.

Posted by: Sam | Sep 6 2007 17:16 utc | 29

Very relevant, and closely paralleling b’s post:
Pepe Escobar
From al-Qaeda to al-Quds
And a non-USian antiwar activist’s perspective
Why Bush Can Get Away with Attacking Iran

(snip)
The only thing that might stop the war would be for Americans themselves to threaten their own government with massive civil disobedience. But that is not going to happen. A large part of the academic left long ago gave up informing the general public about the real world in order to debate whether Capital is a Signifier or a Signified, or worry about their Bodies and their Selves, while preachers tell their flocks to rejoice at each new sign that the end of the world is nigh. Children in Iran won’t sleep at night, but the liberal American intelligentsia will lecture the ROW (rest of the world) about Human Rights. In fact, the prevalence of the “reassuring arguments” cited above proves that the antiwar movement is clinically dead. If it weren’t, it would rely on its own forces to stop war, not speculate on how others might do the job.
(snip)

Posted by: Alamet | Sep 6 2007 17:25 utc | 30

Sam
That’s an utterly arbitrary definition that you’re advancing.
So SCO observers, such as Iran, Pakistan and India are all third world countries, but the ‘Stans with full membership aren’t? I would assert that the ability to NOT be entangled by military alliances reflects a country that has sufficient strategic weight/power to be free of such things; this is clearly one of Iran’s goals.
I think that you’re making a mistake here – Iran isn’t a member of a military alliance because it does not wish to be so, and, more pertinently, it does not need to be so; it would compromise its position as an independent actor and return it to its prior status of a “client”, something which it clearly wishes to avoid. Under your schema this makes Iran a third world country by default – but this makes little actual sense in the real world.
The reality is that Iran has a complex set of relations with China, Russia, Japan, India, Europe and others, and by remaining “independent” of all of them, hopes to maximally leverage its position/preserve its autonomy.
No one believes that the US is actually going to invade Iran – because it transparently lacks the “power” to do so; even if it weren’t stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan it would be an extremely unlikely scenario.
Whilst it’s easy to launch bombers against Iran in the abstract, it’s phenomenally difficult for the US to do so in the real world, because any such action requires engineering third-party consents that are almost impossible to obtain, and results in immediate/near-term second and third-order consequences that few wish to experience.
Americans are perfectly happy to indulge wars of choice when there is no inconvenience to anyone; the consequences of attacking Iran are going to make the past 4 years in Iraq, which isn’t exactly popular anymore, seem like cake.
After some 21/2 years of periodic Iran attack hysteria and the ever-present drumbeat of US threats, menaces and propaganda, I find it amusing that one of the argument for its imminence is now based on the fact that the Bush administration is “running out of time”.

Posted by: dan | Sep 6 2007 18:12 utc | 31

Xymphora disagrees with Bricmont

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 6 2007 18:28 utc | 32

I think “third world”, “non-aligned countries”, “neutral countries” are terms that are very much leftovers from the cold war. As such they not very useful these days in describing the present world order.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Sep 6 2007 18:35 utc | 33

@askod – The ‘non-aligned countries’, some 120 are NA, are still meaningful. But you will hardly gain that from the U.S. aligned ‘western’ press.
Did you know they are just now have one of their regular meetings?
Non-Aligned Countries Condemn Israeli racial Practices in Occupied Syrian Golan

The ministerial meeting of non-Aligned countries on Human Rights in Tehran condemned Wednesday the practices of the Israeli occupation in the occupied Syrian Golan and the Palestinian territories aiming at canceling the culture, geographical and population status.
In a final statement concluding discussions in Tehran, the ministerial meeting denounced Israeli inhuman practices against the Palestinian people, calling international community to take required steps to end this unbearable situation.

US trashes Iran agreement at own peril

This week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was thoroughly trashed by the Western media over its recent agreement with Iran, an agreement that, ironically, was warmly embraced by the majority of nations that are members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). The North-South gap has turned ballistic, and there is no bridge over this troubled water.
“NAM respects the recent report by the IAEA’s director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, on Iran,” the Cuban foreign minister and current head of NAM, Felipe Perez Roque, told the press after the conclusion of a two-day NAM summit in Tehran.

Posted by: b | Sep 6 2007 18:47 utc | 34

The countries are indeed significant, and I know NAM still is operational. I was more concerned with the terminology and what it signifies, that is a non-alignment to one of the (two) formal blocks of world politics.
OTOH, I am not sure what terminology would be illuminating and shared. And in a sense you go to discussion with the terminology you have got, not the terminology you would like.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Sep 6 2007 18:58 utc | 35

dan:
That’s an utterly arbitrary definition that you’re advancing.
Yah I guess the top newspapers in the USA and Britain are “utterly arbitrary” then too eh? As a matter of fact they use that “utterly arbitrary” definition in thier headlines no less:
Russia first in selling arms to third world
The New York Times
Published: October 29, 2006

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/29/news/weapons.php
Russia becomes largest arms seller to Third World
Independent, The (London)
Oct 31 2006

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20061031/ai_n16830425
Just what do you suppose they are “advancing”? Obviously you didn’t bother to click on the links I provided to show the common use of the term:
Despite criticism that the term has no objective definition and that it is out-of-date, colonialist, othering, or inaccurate, its use remains common.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
Are they “utterly arbitrary” then too?
dan:
I think that you’re making a mistake here – Iran isn’t a member of a military alliance because it does not wish to be so, and, more pertinently, it does not need to be so; it would compromise its position as an independent actor and return it to its prior status of a “client”, something which it clearly wishes to avoid.
Which just so happens to be the very definition of a third world country regardless of the reassons it wants to be. Read the definition in above link. I’m really sorry I typed those words.

Posted by: Sam | Sep 6 2007 19:18 utc | 36

I just want to say that, disputes over semantics notwithstanding, I really like the topic of this thread, and would like very much to see more opportunities for us to explore and learn about Iran and its internal politics, society, etc.
Thanks, b.

Posted by: Bea | Sep 6 2007 19:23 utc | 37

a swedish kind of death:
OTOH, I am not sure what terminology would be illuminating and shared. And in a sense you go to discussion with the terminology you have got, not the terminology you would like.
That’s the thing. It is the terminology I have been using for as long as I can remember and I’m an old guy. I am not a writer or a reporter or a professor I’m just a dude in Canada sitting in front of a computer. I didn’t even know it was considered colonialist until I looked up the definition on wikipedia. I do realize that the term can be misleading but when I wrote it it made perfect sense in my own head. I do understand the confusion but after explaining it so many times I don’t understand why there is still an argument.

Posted by: Sam | Sep 6 2007 19:42 utc | 38

Sam
According to your logic Tajikistan and Mongolia aren’t third world countries, but Switzerland, Malaysia, Costa Rica and Sweden, for example, are; common use of the term would specifically exclude Switzerland, Malaysia and Sweden from the ranks of third world nations and specifically include Mongolia and Tajikistan. Common use of the term “third world” refers to economic and social criteria – not formal military alliances.
Presumably, if the US withdrew from NATO tomorrow it would immediately become a third world country – as France did in the 1960’s?
I read your Wiki definitions and they strike me as outdated, specious and inadequate. In the case of Iran, it is simply inaccurate – and appealing to an outdated definition of cold-war construction doesn’t alter that.
Russia sells lots of weapons to third world countries – as does the USA, France, the UK, China, hell, even Iran – it also sells to lots of non-third world countries too. Presumably the fact that the US sells/gives military hardware to Israel – itself not party to any formal military alliance – renders the latter a third world country too.

Posted by: dan | Sep 6 2007 19:51 utc | 39

I give up. You are right dan. I’ll email the New York Times and the Independent and wikpedia and the millions of links I provided in the Google search and demand that they retract their statements. Does that make you feel better?

Posted by: Sam | Sep 6 2007 20:09 utc | 40

Sam, you have a really strange way of debating things. Dan’s post No. 31 really hit the nail on the head. Forget about economics: Even in military terms Iran is NOT a 3rd World country. If America thinks it is, then they should attack it and find out. Iran has an army that, despite a self-destructive Revolution and civil war in 1980, managed to withstand everything that U.S.-supported Iraq managed to throw at it for an astonishing period of 8 years, longber than WWII. Iran was bankrupt and was subjected to global military sanctions at that time, while France supplied Iraq with state-of-the-art Exocet missiles and Mirage jets, all to no avail.
Almost 30 years later Iran has created a military industry of unimaginable proportions, in response to constant U.S. threats, and is immeasurably stronger than 27 years ago when Iraq launched its surprise invasion (to much cheerleading by the U.S.A.). Its Shahab 5 missile has an effective range of 3,000 km and it has produced its own surface to sea missiles in case the U.S. launches Tomahawks from the Persian Gulf.
I really don’t know what point you are trying to prove, Sam: Not one of America’s so-called allies has granted permission for the U,S. to launch any type of attacks on Iran from their bases, while Iraq and Afghanistan have both repeatedly (most recently Karzai on the White House lawn) expressed appreciation of Iran’s assistance, and neither would cooperate with the U.S.. Iran is far removed from the image of the lonely pariah, 3rd world state which nobody would align itself with in the event it was attacked. You have no idea how unpopular America has become globally, and any type of pre-emptive attack on Iran would backfire far more gravely on the U.S. than did the illegal and barbaric invasion of Iraq.
I imagine the idiots in the White House have understood Iran’s inherent strength, its ability to withstand any sort of attack and, finally, its capability of responding, both conventionally and unconventionally. Don’t even THINK about going that route ……. and please do a little genuine research before writing absolute rubbish about Syria being Iran’s only friend.

Posted by: Parviz | Sep 6 2007 22:01 utc | 41

Don’t even THINK about going that route ……. and please do a little genuine research before writing absolute rubbish about Syria being Iran’s only friend.
Sam is NOT going to attack Iran personally, Parviz, so you can be a little less defensive about what route he goes. This blog is supposed to be about people sharing their ideas and opinions, and hopefully learning from each other, so don’t attack anyone personally for having opinions you disagree with, and don’t fault them for not knowing what you know — that’s why we are all here.
This discussion might be technically helpful, and better than ad hominems:
Middle Power
Again, there are consensus views about different countries at different times. Power analysis is not black and white.

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 7 2007 2:21 utc | 42

P.S.
I have learned a lot from everyone on this thread. Thanks all.
I’m still trying to piece together what has happened with North Korea relations over the past year or more from a non-US-biased perspective.

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 7 2007 2:23 utc | 43

iran third world??
what does that make omaha?

Posted by: annie | Sep 7 2007 3:34 utc | 44

omaha?! my natal city. beef and bombers (SAC). confluence of the “inch deep and a mile wide” Platte River and the Muddy Mo.

Posted by: catlady | Sep 7 2007 3:46 utc | 45

Sam and Parvis: One more stat. Iran has the lowest external debt as a function of GDP, of any country in the world. The United States though has the highest external debt, which in my book makes living in North America more of the ‘3W’ experience.
Alamet: Not only are effete intellectuals cocooned in bubbles of senitia and pensiona, but oddly, if you listen to the financial intellectuals, they also “get” Neo-Zi’s meat grinder strategy, yet unlike ivory towers that sychophant off merely analyzing Neo-Zi think-speak, financial elites make book off them.

Posted by: Dass Kaapita | Sep 7 2007 4:27 utc | 46

Thanks Malooga for reminding people that I am not going to attack Iran. In fact I think my comments so far on this blog have indicated the exact opposite but given this discussion, now I’m not even sure of that. Maybe if I wrote non-aligned instead of third world this would not have happened but the fact my subsequent posts tried to explain that is what I meant and that term has common usage as such, doesn’t seem to matter much to some people. I’m used to the flame wars having been a regular resident at first at a hockey board then the whiskey bar, soldiers for the truth and today in Iraq, trying to explain how stupid invading Iraq would be and is. However this is the first time I have ever been accused of wanting to attack Iran.

Posted by: Sam | Sep 7 2007 6:07 utc | 47

Sam, you’re the fastest back-pedaller I’ve ever come across. Then what did you mean by
“Iran is not a member of the SCO and the only deal they have is with Syria so they are very vunerable.”???
I strongly objected to your statement that Iran is ‘very vulnerable’ because it purportedly has no allies other than Syria. Iran is one of the strongest nations in the world economically (20th acc. to the CIA itself), and frighteningly strong militarily in all but nuclear weapons. It is a net international creditor and has never in its 2,500-year history defaulted on its foreign debt (unlike Germany, Britain, the U.S., Russia, Turkey and most of South America). So how, by any stretch of the imagination, can you describe Iran as ‘very vulnerable’???
The reason I took umbrage at your statement, and went out of my way to prove that Iran is the regional giant economically AND militarily, is precisely to warn how stupid a U.S. attack would be. My statement “Don’t even THINK about going that route” was intended to prevent you and any others from underestimating Iran’s strength, which most of your posts appeared to do. I never accused you personally of cheerleading an attack on Iran but issued the warning generically to “you”, whoeverer “you” are. I hope you will spread the message of Iran’s innate strength to Congress and the Senate, to prevent them from initiating a regional Armageddon.
Nothing pesonal against you, Sam, just about one of your dismissive statements. Peace.

Posted by: Parviz | Sep 7 2007 8:21 utc | 48

P.S., Iran is a hero in the Non-Aligned Movement, which comprises almost 70 % of the world’s population and comprises 2/3 of the U.N. membership. My idiot of a President is feted everywhere he goes, and if push came to shove Iran would definitely have this large global presence behind it.
If the U.S. launches any kind of pre-emptive attack, or tries a highly transparent Gulf of Tomkin ploy, it will have to spend more than the $ 2 TRILLION already spent on Iraq (estimated by Nobel Economics Laurete Joseph Stiglitz) to put out the resulting fires.
It will be the end of civil society in the U.S. as you know it, because a U.S. economy that is already breaking at the seams with debt will go belly-up quicker than you can say “bankruptcy”.
Yes, Iranians will suffer too, but we are used to it following 120 years of colonialist exploitation, the U.S.-1953 coup against our democratically elected, secular government and the 8-year war that resulted from the the U.S.’s encouragement of erstwhile ally Saddam to invade Iran. But how will Americans cope with a 21 % Prime Rate (remember 1979-80?), 20 % unemployment and 18 % inflation? Is that what the Neocons really want?

Posted by: Parviz | Sep 7 2007 8:32 utc | 49

Parviz:
Sam, you’re the fastest back-pedaller I’ve ever come across. Then what did you mean by
“Iran is not a member of the SCO and the only deal they have is with Syria so they are very vunerable.”???

Iran, Syria Sign Defense Agreement
I strongly objected to your statement that Iran is ‘very vulnerable’ because it purportedly has no allies other than Syria.
If Iran has signed military pacts with other countries please do enlighten me.
I never accused you personally of cheerleading an attack on Iran but issued the warning generically to “you”, whoeverer “you” are.
So you are warning me now? I promise I wont attack Iran.

Posted by: Sam | Sep 7 2007 8:37 utc | 50

Firstly, I don’t see the logical conclusion between the two parts of your statement:
Part One: “Iran is not a member of the SCO and the only deal they have is with Syria”
Part Two: “so they are very vunerable.”
Please re-read your own illogical sentence, especially the word “so”, because even if Part One of your statement were true (which it isn’t) Part Two is absolute rubbish, as I have proved in other posts. I think it was Dan who stated that Iran DOESN’T NEED defence treaties because it can take care of itself quite satisfactorily, as it proved during the 8-year war with Iraq when the entire globe assisted Iraq and nobody supported Iran. Iran, 27 years later, is militarily a hundred times stronger (I kid you not).
Finally, you’re still living in the past, like most Pentagon planners and Neocons: Iraq was hated equally by Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan (a mutual defence treaty with any of these would have been a joke), but when it came under U.S. occupation citizens from all 3 countries rushed to repel the ‘crusaders’. If Iran gets attacked by the U.S. it won’t need any treaties to attract support, because you have not the slightest inkling of America’s unpopularity in the Middle East. If any U.S. friendly dictator (the Saudi Royal Family, Egypt’s Mubarak or Kuwait’s Al-Sabah family) so much as lifted a finger against Iran, these unpopular dictatorships would get toppled lke dominos and the U.S. would be not just practically but legally isolated through popular anti-American uprisings, and crippled economically through $ 300/bbl oil. The U.S. is playing with fire, and fortunately most people on this excellent Board recognize this.
As for Part One of your statement, Iran and Russia signed a military cooperation agreement in 1989, and Russia would not stand still while America attacked its main ally in the Middle East. Just the announcement of some stupid radars in the Czech Republic turned Russia ballistic, so an unprovoked attack on its most important regional ally could start WWIII.
A final sobering thought: Even the U.N. would be treaty-bound to defend Iran in the event of a U.S. attack (You should read the U.N. Charter), and you can be damned sure the NAM (constituting 2/3 of the U.N.’s membership) would demand this while assisting Iran in every way possible ……….

Posted by: Parviz | Sep 7 2007 11:15 utc | 51

P.S. regarding Part One of your ludicrous statement:
Iran and Turkey signed a mutual defence pact in August 2007, Iran and Afghanistan signed a defence pact in July 2007 and, finally, Iran has received formal observer status at the SCO, which is the precursor to full membership and mutual security guarantees. So Iran has its immediate neighbours, plus China, firmly on its side. Now, what was that casual comment about Syria?

Posted by: Parviz | Sep 7 2007 11:28 utc | 52

Malooga, I appreciate your advice to calm down, but Sam was unnecessarily provocative in belittling the power of the Iranian regime (which I incidentally abhor). And by doing so, he is spreading the kind of nonsense that people said about Iraq and which misled people into thinking it would be a walk in the park.
So Sam hasn’t been doing anyone a service by minimizing Iran’s power to strike back, as well as the global support it will receive in being seen to have stood up to a bullying America.
And when I wrote “Don’t even THINK about going that route” I was referring to all readers collectively. I know that most of you are well educated, experienced professionals and highly perceptive. (The Iranian security services told me so ……) 😉

Posted by: Parviz | Sep 7 2007 11:37 utc | 53

third-world, under-developed
i think we are capable of coming up with more accurate & respectful terms that do not discount/subordinate the relevance of peoples & their history.
and also the use of the word “bush-man” to describe a certain ethnic group of short people in Southern Africa. I am not sure how much it bothers them though.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 7 2007 14:07 utc | 54

Parviz:
Iran and Turkey signed a mutual defence pact in August 2007, Iran and Afghanistan signed a defence pact in July 2007
Bullshit

Posted by: Sam | Sep 7 2007 14:33 utc | 55

Parviz, while I admire your national pride, there are some things that I do see different:
– the U.S. has the capacity for an air attack that would cripple Iran economically and literally bomb it back 50 years.
– the U.S. has the capacity to block any sea transport from/to Iran
– the U.S. has indoctrinated its public and those of its “western friends” to think negatively of Iran
– the “Arab street” hasn’t done even a tiny bit to support Iraq. What makes you sure they would do something for Iran? Saudi Arabi is blowing anti-Iranian propaganda to its people for at least three years now.
– military strength: after the second wave of a U.S. air attack there will be no Iranian air force and navy left.
I read a report from someone visiting Isfahan. He saw ant-air missiles positioned in the open field and not ready to move. They would be gone 5 minutes into any war. DOn’t compare the possibilities with the Iran/Iraq war. That was a replay of 1917 ditch fighting in Flandern. The rules are different by now.
The ground troops will only survive if they are dispersed and well hidden and if they put up lots of fake targets (like the serbs did). Of course the U.S. can not launch a ground campaign. It doesn’t need to. It will criple Iran, blockade it for 10 or 15 years, no fly zones and all, and then come in to pick up what’s left. Worked with Saddam too.
The wild card is Iranian asymetric capacity. If such is available and used smartly, it could make a real difference.
Iran should try to calm things down and it looks like that is already happening. Please no more Ahmedinejad talking about “filling the vacuum when the U.S. leaves”. Such talks alarms every Arab and they will pay big money to keep the U.S. where it is. The guy is an idiot in economic policies and certainly in media communication. I know Rafsanjani is a corrupt plutocrat and no good alternative. Get rid of both.

Posted by: b | Sep 7 2007 14:55 utc | 56

jony_b_cool:
i think we are capable of coming up with more accurate & respectful terms that do not discount/subordinate the relevance of peoples & their history.
Have you read my posts? It was never meant to degrade Iran in any way shape or form. Please read my numerous above explanations. I already apologized for something I didn’t even know was thought of as derogatory. What do you want blood?

Posted by: Sam | Sep 7 2007 14:56 utc | 57

moonie UPI “analysis” helping to spread iran-phobia as a pretext for increased u.s. intervention in africa
Analysis: Iran looks to Africa

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 (UPI) — Iran’s growing ties with Africa may reflect economic necessity under pressure of international sanctions, but it also may signal an attempt to secure uranium supplies and spread its own brand of Islam.
Iran has long paid attention to Africa. In an address to this week’s meeting in Tehran of the Non-Aligned Movement, which includes almost every African nation, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran was dedicated to African development, a sentiment that echoes previous statements to the African Union and a policy dating back more than a quarter century to the time of the Shah.

As a source of cheap labor and construction material, as well as being home to some of the world’s largest uranium mines, Africa is also very attractive to an Iran suffering international sanctions.

Not only is Iran interested in conventional economic endeavors in Africa, but it may also be interested in the continent as a source of uranium for use in nuclear power, and potentially nuclear weapons. While Iran has its own reserves of uranium ore, which it has been mining since at least 2003, Tehran’s involvement in Africa’s uranium mining may be troubling to Western nations concerned with the nuclear proliferation threat posed by Iran.
The Iranian government owns a 15 percent share in Namibia’s Rossing uranium mine, the world’s largest open-pit uranium mine, although the uranium produced is not sold to Iran, according to the company’s Web site.

Iran’s interest in Africa may not only be driven by practical business reasons. A desire to spread its own brand of Shia Islam may also motivate Tehran, according to James Phillips, a Middle East analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, a Washington think tank.
“Iran’s radical regime sees itself as the vanguard of Islamic revolution throughout the Muslim world and it seeks to expand its influence, particularly in opposition to Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi influence. So there is kind of an ideological competition going on with Saudi Arabia, as well as ideological confrontation with the United States and the West,” Phillips said.

sounds like a job for AFRICOM, man :p

Posted by: b real | Sep 7 2007 15:13 utc | 58

you have not the slightest inkling of America’s unpopularity in the Middle East
Sooooo true. We are pariahs there. And we did not used to be, even 6 or 8 years ago.
I think we should cool the emotions on this thread and focus on the facts, which are interesting and very important. I agree with Parviz that Iran is a lot stronger than we in the US seem to think it is. I also agree with b that in fact that US ability to devastate Iran and rapidly bring it to its knees is probably greater than Iranians realize. But what is missing from your thinking b, is what would happen the morning after. Yes, we could take out their military, but then what? How would the rest of the world respond, and what would be the costs to our interests — both economic, political, and military — all over the world? What Parviz is pointing out is that just as in Iraq, where the devastating “knock ’em to the ground” initial strike was not enough by a long shot to obliterate their retaliative capability, and in Iran’s case, that is more true by a factor of many many times. So yes, we can cripple Iran, but at what cost to us — in the long term? I fear that Bush doesn’t care about the long term because in his mind, “In the long term, I’ll be dead.”
With all due respect, I think that whether or not Iran is a third world or non-aligned country is a moot point right now — let’s focus on what matters, which is stopping any possibility of this heinous plan from ever being actualized. What can we do, or learn, or communicate, to contribute to THAT goal?

Posted by: Bea | Sep 7 2007 15:18 utc | 59

Sam,
The Iran-Turkey pact mainly concerns border security in Makou, West Azarbaijan, but a much wider pact is under permanent discussion. Turkey has also refused to allow its territory to be used by the U.S. either directly or via fly-over for an attack on Iran.
As for Afghanistan, it is being helped by Iran rather than the other way round and ceratinly wouldn’t lift a finger to help the U.S..
But you still haven’t justified your claim that Iran is “very vulnerable”, when nothing could be farther from the truth.

Posted by: Parviz | Sep 7 2007 15:37 utc | 60

Sam,
that was a general comment.
and i do not use the term “third-world” myself but I also acccept that most people who use it do so in good faith.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 7 2007 16:44 utc | 61

bea, that was a great summary of the pros and cons of attacking Iran. Yes, b, probably effective short-term but disastrous for America long term, as Bea explains. Bea, you summed it up perfectly, as was your conclusion that we men should stop the pissing contest and concentrate our efforts to prevent an attack.
In my own way, by joining this Board and emphasizing Iran’s military prowess, general economic strength and rsourcefulness I’ve been trying to discourage just such an attack which would strengthen the Mullahs while decimating the civilian population. So it’s not a question of ‘national pride’ but fear that the Neocons will again drastically underestimate Iranian resistance (not just asymmetric but conventional) and keep America unpopular well into the next century.
Iran has to effect regime change by itself. Period.

Posted by: Parviz | Sep 7 2007 16:45 utc | 62

a US army general (I think it was Zinni) was disqualified from his role as the leader of the Iranian forces because he was able to effectively repel & attack the USA side in war games.
however, the real attack will be quite diffeerent from the war-game scenario as it will probably not include a ground-attack. Still, the point is the USA does not have a monopoly on military advantage.
the fact is that even if the USA flattens Teheran (and other cities) fom the air, killing millions, the mullahs will not concede. In fact they may not have to do much if anything to keep the Iranian people from continuing to resist.
what will come first ? Capitulation by the Iranians or serious & extensive damage to US interests in the ME as well as total & outright condemnation by the world community potentially acccompanied by severe responses by China, Russia etc. By the way, Venezuela has promised to stop oil exports to the USA if Iran is attacked.
thats one reason why air-wars are ineffective for this type of mission. Boots on the ground can send the enemy on the run while creating a dynamic of incremental success over time that an air war cannot provide. In war, time-on-your-side can be just as important as munitions.
it would be a big mistake to view conflict with Iran strictly in terms of military strength and/or the ability to blockade. By the way, blockades are internationally acccepted to be acts of war. And the uSA would be wise to consider the value of a blockade very carefully because it cannot accuse Iran of aggression while it has Iran blockaded.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 7 2007 17:54 utc | 63

@jony_b_cool
The war game you refer to was done in 2002 with General Paul Van Riper sinking the U.S. fleet. But there is a caveat.
War game was fixed to ensure American victory, claims general

When the US fleet sailed into the Gulf, he instructed his small boats and planes to move around in apparently aimless circles before launching a surprise attack which sank a substantial part of the US navy. The war game had to be stopped and the American ships “refloated” so that the US forces stood a chance.

The caveat is that van Riper playing the Iranian role did an pre-emptive attack against an invasion fleet. A preemtive attack is of course a huge political risk and an invasion fleet will not be there when the concept is “shock and awe” by air-attacks.
Another interesting war game was done by ret. Air Force General Sam Gardiner for The Atlantic. It was described in an Atlantic 2004 piece: Will Iran Be Next?

Posted by: b | Sep 7 2007 18:16 utc | 64

Thanks, b, for the link (Will Iran Be Next?). The 6-page report demonstrates the total confusion among U.S. military experts as to the outcome of any type of U.S. military attack, as summed up in the opening passage:
Iran is bigger, more powerful, and richer than Iraq, and it enjoys more international legitimacy than Iraq ever did under Saddam Hussein.
The above are the points I’ve been emphasizing in all my posts. If the U.S. lifts so much as a finger against Iran there won’t be a single “pro-American Iranian” left and the U.S. will plumb new depths of global unpopularity. Iran is fed up with being sacrificed on the altar of The Great Prize. These atrocities have been going on since the U.S. overthrew the legitimately and democratically elected secular government of Dr. Mossadegh back in 1953. No Iranian can forget that particular atrocity and the torture and killings that ensued under the U.S.-installed Shah. No Iranian can forget America’s encouragement of Saddam Hussein to invade Iran in 1980, resulting in one million fatalities.
America, just leave us alone and let us get rid of the Mullahs by ourselves, not today, not tomorrow but in due course. We had absolutely zilch to do with 9/11, and you should have exclusively targeted the Saudis and Pakistanis (the real perpetrators) who danced in the streets while the Twin Towers collapsed (and in contrast, I might add, to spontaneous pro-American demonstrations by Iranians holding a massive candlelight vigil in Tehran’s Mohseni Square).
Observing U.S. politicians posturing in front of the cameras is like watching a 3rd rate Hollywood movie with poor actors, a poor script and depressingly aimless conclusion.

Posted by: Parviz | Sep 8 2007 9:14 utc | 65

ex-CIA radical Michael Scheuer: Syria and Iran: The Threats That Aren’t

How does one explain the U.S. governing elite’s fear of Iran? Here we have a country that admittedly is led by one of the world’s more histrionic politicians, but one that also is ringed by U.S. military bases and surrounded by an overwhelmingly more numerous Sunni world that hates Shi’ites far more than it hates Westerners. Iran‘s Islamic regime, moreover, is helplessly watching the final stages of the march of its energy resources toward oblivion, and preparing for the impoverishment and resulting internal political instability that event will usher in.
So where in this portrait is the threat to the United States? While Iran is a threat to Israel, there is surely no threat to America in Iran’s less-than-impressive military forces, nuclear development program, or unattractive public diplomacy. No, the threat to the United States comes from two sources. First, the relentless “Iran is the new Nazi Germany” propaganda pushed by Israel and the American citizen Israel-firsters, and, second, the multi-decade failure of the U.S. Congress to seriously address the national-security issues of energy, borders, and immigration.

Posted by: b | Sep 8 2007 10:58 utc | 66

Michael Scheuer is superb. His books “Imperial Hubris” and “Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America” should be required reading for anyone who wants to know how the U.S. got into this mess.
Another great source is the new book by professors Walt/Mearsheimer, expanded from an original 81-page essay, showing the extent to which Israel dictates U.S. foreign policy, and the obvious lobbying power of AIPAC.
Iran is the victim of some extraordinarily transparent propaganda, but if 70 % of U.S. citizens swallowed the White House link between Saddam and Bin Laden they’ll believe anything.

Posted by: Parviz | Sep 8 2007 12:38 utc | 67

THIS IS BREAKING NEWS !!!
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118912609718220156-Z0Iy3Ywp9pUdzCdCgf_4JU5QzP4_20071006.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
Today’s Wall Street Journal lead article clearly shows that Iran is unashamedly pro-Jewish. Such a pro-Jewish T.V. programme could never be shown in Saudi Arabia whose government the United States defends to the teeth.
Like the vast majority of the globe Iran is pro-Jewish and anti-Zionist. In contrast, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.,. (America’s allies) are anti-both.
Please relay this message (the above link) to everyone on your respective private distribution lists.
Finally we have a prestigious, main-stream media publication confirming everything I’ve been saying for the past 6 years.

Posted by: Parviz | Sep 8 2007 14:17 utc | 68

Parviz@68
from the link:
Mr. Fatthi, 48 years old, is a well-known director of historical fiction for television. In the past, his work has focused on Iranian history. But he also dabbles in comedy, winning international critical acclaim two years ago for a hit feature, “Marriage, Iranian Style.”
He says he came up with the idea for “Zero Degree Turn” four years ago as he was reading books about World War II and stumbled across literature about charge d’affaires at the Iranian embassy in Paris. Abdol Hussein Sardari saved over a thousand European Jews by forging Iranian passports and claiming they belonged to an Iranian tribe.

this is an inspiring story. Hopefully it will be aired outside Iran eventually.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 8 2007 21:21 utc | 69

cool link parviz, thanks

Posted by: annie | Sep 8 2007 22:43 utc | 70

Of course, everything the WSJ projects about the Iranian media manufacturing consent is even more true about our own.

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 8 2007 22:53 utc | 71