Reading

Iran economy facing perfect storm - BBC

"The International Monetary Fund said in August that Iran would face unsustainable deficits should prices for its oil fall below $75 a barrel."

How we lost the war we won – Nir Rosen, RollinStone
Nir shows the dark humor and confusion in NATO's efforts to fight the Talibn:

As we drive away, Ibrahim laughs. The soldiers, he explains, thought I was a suicide bomber. Ibrahim did not bother to tell them that he and Shafiq are midlevel Taliban commanders, escorting me deep into Ghazni, a province largely controlled by the spreading insurgency that now dominates much of the country.

Why I blog - Andrew Sullivan, Atlantic
An excellent piece on blogging as a literary form and its relation with journalism.

Inside Egypt: Nostalgia for Colonia Rule – Angry Arab, As'ad Khalil
What an entertaining book review! Khalil tells it as it is.

Cheap shot

One thing we know about the inner workings of the Iranian government is that no one knows, let alone commenting on personalities. BBC's Jon Leyne commenting on the results of the election in Iran writes:

And the internal battle within the conservatives may rather suit him. He has always been a leader attached to the principle of "divide and rule."

I'm amazed at the assured tone he uses, I wonder what information did have to reach this judgement? It could be true, but that was a cheap shot.

Links for 01-10-2007

• Guardian: Bolton calls for bombing of Iran
  If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change ... The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back
• BBC Editor's: Information from Burma
  Steve Herrman talks about BBC's coverage of Burma - and how they're getting content from there. interesting.
• Guardian: Sex changes and a draconian legal code: gay life in Iran
  I've heard this sometime back, the government actually pays for sex change ... this is really strange. But apparently it has to do with the Shia ruling on the issue.

Ahmadinejad in NY: that was not about free speech

A late comment on Ahmadinejad's visit to NY. Ahmadinejad's address was live on Aljazeera - both English and Arabic - with immediate commentary coming from guests, but I didn't watch it. The next morning, I've asked some friend, some of whom are staunchly anti-Iran - about what they thought of Ahmadinejad and Columbia university presidents attack on him. An overwhelming majority thought Ahmadinejad's address was great.

Respecting your guest and being generous to them is part of Arab and Muslim culture, similarly the act of disrespecting your guest is the most vile act one can commit. The moment Bollinger insulted the Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president had the support of everyone, even those who hated Iran religiously. This was only superseded by Ahmadinejad's reaction to the insults, he responded in a brave and dignified manner.

That's not to say people didn't have things to object to in his speech, many Arabs are alarmed of Iran's growing support of Shia militias in the region - from Hizbollah to Mahdi army - and the perceived Sunni-Shia clash. And the president's response about homosexuality in Iran was equally untrue, I've heard sometime back that Iran is second in number of sex change operations - behind Thailand - and actually the Iranian government pays for it.

The Iranian president wanted to present a different prospective of Iran, that it's righteous and peaceful. He surely had scored big with the Arab public. Arab stations led by Aljazeera took a different prospective than that of the America media, and the guests were also different.

Most of the editorials in NY portrait the host, Columbia university president, as brave but far from it, it was the complete opposite to me. He was simply reacting to the criticism from the media, Jewish lobby, neocon pundits and those who funded the government. And in the process he comprised the whole idea of free speech and the independence of academia from political pressures. The questions is, would he have done the same if it was president Bush?

The pressure paid off, from now on any American academic institution would think twice before hosting anyone with a difference view that what is "acceptable".

I thought this piece described accurately how the whole show had nothing to do with "free speech":

Bollinger, meanwhile, was playing to a different audience. After taking a beating for giving Ahmadinejad a forum, he was eager to show the media, alumni, concerned Jewish organizations and a raft of bellicose neoconservative pundits that he was no terrorist-loving appeaser of Holocaust deniers.

In a narrow sense, both Ahmadinejad and Bollinger achieved their goals. Ahmadinejad showed that he could be dignified in the face of crass American bullies, which will play well abroad -- and may even buttress his dwindling prestige in Iran. And Bollinger showed that he can be a crass American bully, which, in our current political climate, is what passes for "courage."

...

Sorry, no. "Free speech at its best" is when someone really does speak truth to power, and power stops blathering long enough to engage with inconvenient ideas. If an Iranian professor, inside Iran, had said what Bollinger said to Ahmadinejad, that would have been brave.

Or -- stay with me here -- if Bollinger had invited President Bush to Columbia and made those same unvarnished remarks to him, and Bush had toughed it out and struggled to answer half a dozen unfiltered, critical questions from an audience not made up of his handpicked supporters . . . . Well, that too would have been free speech at its best.

Unfortunately, that's not the kind of thing you're likely to see in America.

American media and Ahmadinejad

Iranian president, Ahmedinejad's visit to NY had attracted much publicity but it has also shown the worst in America's media; editorials in washingtonpost, NY times, New Yorker, Fox ... etc. all have tried to outshine one another in disrespecting and insulting the Iranian president Of course, this was expected. The Jewish lobby mobilized all its efforts to undermine Ahmedinjad, as much as they could, so nobody can hear what he has to say; they knew he would shatter the image painted by the media.

A washingtonpost editorial describes Ahmadinejad as:

Holocaust-denier, authoritarian leader and sponsor of terrorism

That's low. Ahmadinejad is the elected president of Iran, a painful fact to admit for some. And of course he isn't authoritarian; Iran is run a complex system based on consensus. And Iran doesn't sponsor terrorism anymore than US does.

But the editorial continues to try - in vain - to belittle the man:

Thus the speech at Columbia: Here he is, the allegedly undemocratic Ahmadinejad, taking questions from students! At an American university! Look who's the real democrat now!

You showed him, didn't you!

The columnist is Anne Applebaum, who earlier this ye wrote a column praising Ayan Hirsi, and calling her a role model for the Muslim youth. What else did you expect.

What is disheartening is that people Applebaum were genuinely afraid of what Ahmadinejad had to say, and after he leaves NY, they'll continue talking about free speech.

Khatami's blunder

Khatami is having tough time ahead of the parliamentary elections due next year because of a Youtube video showing him shaking hands with a woman. He denies it and says the video is fake. See it for yourself:

US plans to sell sophisticated weapons to Arab states

This is a big development, US is planning to sell billions of dollars worth of sophisticated weapons to Arab countries to defend themselves against Iran, or so the argument goes. To assure Israel, US will give a $30 billion military aid for the next 10 years and 13 billion for Egypt.

This isn't about sending signals to Iran, it seems US administration has decided to attack Iran. If Iran is attacked they're likely to retaliate against US bases in Saudi, Qatar and elsewhere in the region. So arming these countries with sophisticated weaponry such as satellite guided missiles makes sense.

Condi and Gates will fly to Saudi next week to pressure Saudi to support the Iraqi government but also discussing other issues in the region; suppressing Hamas and the upcoming Lebanese presidential battle. Iraq war might have been only the begining.

Unsettling Iran

The pending conflict between Iran and US has been making headlines, even more than before, in the past few weeks. Aircraft carriers moving into the Gulf, troop surges, hundreds of Iranians arrested in Iraq and the nuclear standoff had everyone speculating an imminent, inevitable US strike against Iran. Other say, an Israeli strike more likely. But of course everyone knows it isn't that easy, even for the Bush administration.

It has surfaced that US, along with Arab Sunni states afraid of Iranian influence, is supporting separatist movements to destabilize the Iranian regime. A large portion of Iran isn't Persian, there are Arabs in the south-west, Baluchis in the south-east, Kurds in west and Azeris in the north-west, these ethnic groups make up more than 40 percent of the population in Iran, only the Azeris are Shia. None of these are adequately represented in the government and are treated as second class citizens (apart from Azeris again). In the past two years the number of attacks on Iranian security have increased.

So far the situation isn't that worrying for Iran but if the attacks increase and the US, along with Sunni states, decide to push this, it could be disastrous for Iran. Arabs are also becoming more vocal in demanding more rights for Arab-Sunni minority in Iran.

For the benefit of Iran

For decades, Arab states worked to position Iran as an outsider in the Middle East. However, this dynamic has been shifting since the collapse of the USSR. In Central Asia, the Soviet Union's fall led to the independence of countries with deep cultural and historical ties to Iran. Many of these nations share linguistic and religious similarities, with large Muslim populations. Notably, Azerbaijan, alongside Iran, has a Shia majority. Additionally, Iran has cultivated strong relationships with both Russia and China, expanding its influence further.

Before 9/11, Iran came close to war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. As a result, Iran supported the US-led overthrow of the Taliban from the outset. The new Afghan government has since maintained friendly ties with Tehran. However, the greatest geopolitical gain for Iran was the US invasion of Iraq. Saddam Hussein, Iran's archenemy, had long mobilized Arab support against Iran, most notably during the Iran-Iraq War, which lasted a grueling ten years. Arab countries backed Saddam politically and financially, leaving Iran isolated in the Middle East. Excluded from Arab trade zones, agreements, and the Arab League, Iran had little say in regional matters, including the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The US removal of Saddam was a significant win for Iran, but it was only the beginning.

Iran’s Influence in Post-Invasion Iraq

Before 9/11, much of the Iraqi opposition, particularly Shia groups, were based in Iran. Many prominent Shia clerics, including Ayatollah Sistani (born in Iran), have strong connections to the country. Following Iraq’s elections and the rise of Shia leadership, Iran quickly established influence over Iraq’s government, political parties, and security forces—a fact widely acknowledged by observers.

Arab states, which once held significant sway in Iraq, now find themselves with little stake in the country. This shift has alarmed Arab leaders, exemplified by Jordan’s King Abdullah coining the term “Shia Crescent” to describe Iran’s growing influence in the region. The concern is that a stable and Shia-led Iraq could wield tremendous influence across the Middle East, further enhancing Iran’s power.

Iran’s Strategic Moves

Iran has capitalized on these opportunities. Its relationships with Afghanistan and Iraq have strengthened significantly, and it has leveraged its alliances with Syria and Hezbollah to insert itself into the Arab-Israeli conflict. Few dispute that Hezbollah is not only supported by Iran but was also created by it. The recent conflicts ignited by Hezbollah have unfolded with, at minimum, Iran’s tacit approval.

Challenges to US and Arab Responses

Both the US and Arab states appear increasingly powerless to curb Iran’s rising influence. Speculation about a potential US attack on Iran persists, but such action seems unlikely. Iran's strategic position, opposite the Gulf's vital oil and gas fields, coupled with its military capabilities, would allow it to inflict significant damage even if it were ultimately defeated. This strategic reality has led the US and Israel to propose the idea of a “new Middle East”—one that excludes Iran.

Whether such a vision is achievable remains uncertain, but it is undoubtedly a development worth watching closely.

Arab leaders fear Shia rise

Arab leaders are increasingly fearful of the expanding influence of Shia power in the region, which they largely attribute to Iran. King Abdullah of Jordan famously warned of a “Shia Crescent” stretching from Iran through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The rise of Iraq’s Shia leadership, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and the recent Hezbollah attacks have only heightened these concerns.

Why Are Arab Leaders Concerned?

The fear of Shia power is not rooted in sectarianism alone. Arab states have longstanding grievances with Iran, particularly stemming from the Iran-Iraq War, during which most Arab countries supported Iraq. They know Iran has not forgotten this.

Additionally, there are significant Shia minorities in the Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE. Bahrain, in particular, has experienced Shia-led demonstrations, highlighting the potential for unrest within these nations.

Iraq: The Major Concern

The primary focus of Arab leaders’ unease is Iraq. As one of the largest and potentially wealthiest Arab countries, a stable Iraq would wield immense influence in the region. Iraq’s Shia majority, closely tied to Iran, adds to this concern. During Saddam Hussein’s rule, many Iraqi dissidents—primarily Shia—found refuge in Iran, and several prominent clerics, including the influential Ayatollah Sistani, are originally from Iran. Since the fall of Saddam, Iran has deeply penetrated Iraqi politics and society.

The Lebanon-Israel Conflict

The ongoing Lebanon-Israel conflict has further exposed divisions between Arab governments and public opinion. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt have condemned Hezbollah’s actions, even though the majority of the Arab populace supports the group. Hezbollah’s ties to Iran and its role in the conflict have only fueled Arab leaders’ fears of Tehran’s growing regional influence.

---

Filed Under: Arab, Islam, Shia, Persian Gulf, Middle East