Article

2005-01-03 Terror Networks & Islam

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2005-01-03 12:03:42 AM|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Alastair Wanklyn (AFP): As the world starts a new year, some analysts say the war for Muslim minds, is being lost not only by America but by Al Qaeda too.

This is like saying WWII was about winning German and Japanese minds. We're not trying to win their minds - we're trying to convince them that we have them by the short hairs, and that any fight they start, we can finish. Whenever I read articles like this from the cream of the journalistic profession, the question always comes up - where do they find these men?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 12:49:43 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 12:49:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Atleast we'll win the military war.

Posted by Shaiter Craith3113 2005-01-03 12:59:46 AM|| 2005-01-03 12:59:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Amazing that an article of this length can fail to mention that Iraq and Palestine are the only muslim nations in the middle east that, within another 45 days, will have had free elections during the last three decades.

In Iraq, amid the terror and disruption, billions of dollars are being spent on strengthening national leaders. But in Iraq observers say it is unclear as to who will win that popular support.

This is hilarious. Keep denying it, baby, but elections are coming. You can say it: e-lec-tions. De-mo-cra-cy. And made possible ONLY by the intervention of the US military and the evil neocon masterminds.

Posted by lex 2005-01-03 1:02:55 AM|| 2005-01-03 1:02:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Shiter, the elections will happen, and Iraq will have a constituent assembly and in another year, a new parliament and constitution. Try as you and the MSM idiotarians might to change the subject, the fact is that Iraqi democracy is unstoppable.

Posted by lex 2005-01-03 1:04:49 AM|| 2005-01-03 1:04:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I hope the neocon masterminds have given thought to what happens if the democratically elected Iraqi Shiite majority government resumes ties with its Shiite brethern in Iran.

Posted by joeblow 2005-01-03 2:20:01 AM|| 2005-01-03 2:20:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Joe, it is not like Iraqi shi'a have that special place of love for Iranian shi'a, in their hearts--Karbala and Najaf are the centers of their faith, not Qom.
The black-turbaned Iranian mullahs really do not want to see a free election in Iraq, obviously => else they wouln't try to sabotage it as much as they do.

Posted by Bugaboo 2005-01-03 6:07:48 AM|| 2005-01-03 6:07:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Hey get it right, it's rootless metropolitan neocon master minds.

Posted by Bugarin 2005-01-03 6:48:59 AM|| 2005-01-03 6:48:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 is being lost not only by America but by Al Qaeda too.

some say the radicals, like American conservatives, are losing support

"The war for Muslim minds is lost both by neocons and by Al Qaeda

The greatest lie contains some truth.

Ahh..Gilles, good thinking! Add a little American "hegemonic American pig" pizzaz to your report so it will get attention from the NPR, BBC, loonie-leftie crowd. Appears to have worked.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-03 9:41:23 AM|| 2005-01-03 9:41:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 joeblow: I hope the neocon masterminds have given thought to what happens if the democratically elected Iraqi Shiite majority government resumes ties with its Shiite brethern in Iran.

In an age of ballistic and cruise missiles, nuclear weapons and the existence of the capability for using ordinary industrial materials for mass casualty attacks, punitive expeditions like the invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan) are quintessentially conservative. The postwar cleanup is merely an effort to build a beach head for future operations. Everywhere US forces went during WWII, attempts were made to establish good relations with the locals - Iraq is no different. There are people who say we should be doing more, but I don't really share their views. We did not enter Iraq to free the Iraqis, but to get rid of a long-term potential threat.

Whatever happens with the new government, we have destroyed billions of dollars of Saddam's weapons and munitions, and have over a hundred thousand troops in-country. If we need to re-install the Sunni minority, we can certainly do it. The Sunnis have demonstrated that they are not squeamish about either dying or venturing forth to kill their enemies. Such a move would also have the benefit of being supported by many Sunni Muslim majority governments around the globe. The Shia majority government exists on sufference. What we gave to them, we can also take away.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 10:30:34 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 10:30:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 A truly democratic Shi'a- and kurd-led government at the heart of the region is a setback, not a victory, for the mullahs. And of course for the sunni and ba'athist tyrants in Saudi and Syria. The Iraqi shi'a have about as much love for the mullahs as Poles have for their slavic brethren in Russia.

Posted by lex 2005-01-03 10:34:48 AM|| 2005-01-03 10:34:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 The Iraqi shi'a have about as much love for the mullahs as Poles have for their slavic brethren in Russia.
I don't get your comparison. The Shiite in Iraq and in Iran have the same religion, a rather big common denominator I'd say. As well the Shiite in both countries have tribal inter-relationships that pre-date the artificial boundaries set up between the 2 countries.

Chalabi ( yes, that Chalabi) just held a joint press conference with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the Shiite cleric who heads the election slate of the powerful alliance,United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite dominated coalition. to assure the Sunnis and Kurds that everything will be swell after they win the Iraq elections. Unfortunately,Chalabi had just returned from Tehran and it was Chalabi who fell out of grace with the US for purportedly revealing secrets to Iran and Hakim, "like many Shiite leaders, lived in exile in Iran during the reign of Saddam Hussein"...so I'm not sure how reassuring this press conference was.

ZF, the US would never want to install another Sunni despot in Iraq after all our sacrifices to remove Saddam, so I don't think such a veiled threat would cause much worry for the Iraqi Shiites.

My point is that perhaps instead of threatening Iran, we may need to form good relations with the Shiites there in the very near future, because we could lose Iraq if we don't. Maybe Iran may turn out to be our ally at the end of the road (along with the Shiite dominated Iraq) to counter-balance the increasing hostility from the Sunni dominated Syria and Saudi Arabia, the latter especially if it falls into the hands of religious Sunni fanatics like OBL? The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

One of the best defences we may have in the region against OBL and the Sunnis gaining dominance in the ME due to oil giving Sunnis in SA economic success to buy fire power is the antagonism to Sunnis by Shiite dominated countries like Iran and Iraq.

To assume that democractic elections will suddenly wipe out religion's influence in the ME is a pipe dream. Even if the idealistic neocons have not considered "Plan B", I think that other GOP'ers in the WH, DOD, Pentagon, and CIA certainly have. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Posted by joeblow 2005-01-03 11:07:13 AM|| 2005-01-03 11:07:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 joeblow: ZF, the US would never want to install another Sunni despot in Iraq after all our sacrifices to remove Saddam, so I don't think such a veiled threat would cause much worry for the Iraqi Shiites.

I think the only major problem that non-lefty Americans have with Saddam is that he wasn't pro-American. An anti-American democracy in Iraq isn't going to go over well with ordinary Americans. We did not invade Iraq only to have it replaced by another anti-American government. It makes no sense to make peace with a government (Iran) where we have no influence over the levers of power - that is on the verge of becoming the only nuclear power in the Mid East - it's a pipe dream that head-in-the-sand Arabists and Buchanan-style isolationists have raised without any particular justification. There is no problem with Iran we can't solve without a thorough ~~reaming~~ bombing.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 11:15:43 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 11:15:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 ZF: There is no problem with Iran we can't solve without a thorough ~~reaming~~ bombing.

That should have read: There is no problem with Iran we can't solve *with* a thorough ~~reaming~~ bombing.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 11:25:04 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 11:25:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Maybe we are killing enough of the slack-jaw mouth-breathing islamofacists to make a dent.

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-03 11:42:48 AM|| 2005-01-03 11:42:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 What part of being generous with your own money don't you understand?

I understand it all. It's a southron thing. You?

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-03 11:43:08 AM|| 2005-01-03 11:43:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 There is no problem with Iran we can't solve without a thorough reaming bombing.
That's not going to happen. Forget about that option, ZF. No President, no Congress would authorize that. Heck we got all wobbly about Abu Grau and how it hurt the poor Muslim self-esteem and how we are a compassionate people, and you think the powers that be would bomb Iran to smithereens? Right...and I've got a gas efficient Suburban I'd like to sell you...

It's not an Arabist or isolationist or whatever other mindset you'd like to associate with the "plan B" scenario that I've described. No, ZF, it's called PRAGMATISM in the event the Shiite Iraqis don't keep their word to sever relations with Iran, which I suspect they won't.

Iran is never going to be a full fledged secular government, nor do I think Iraq will either. Why would they? Their religion has been around for thousands of years.

But that's not necessarily a bad thing for our interests there, especially if the Sunni fanatics want to get power hungry with their religion. One offsets the other.

A democratically elected government can still work in Iraq with Shiite religious influence and such a government can still be America friendly. Sistani, the religious Shiite cleric, has been a definite asset to the US and UK. Without Sistani's cooperation, Iraq would have quickly descended into a civil war. With the Shiite religious influence in the Iraqi government, it may not end up as the same as we envisioned on the drawing board. But it may be easier for us to adapt to the Iraqi's concept of democracy than for them to our picture of perfection. After all, it will be their country not ours. Iran may follow suit if they see Iraq's model and be moderated by Iraq. The mullahs are not going to give up power, but they may be willing to share power with elected Shiite politicians.

I think my version of Plan B is a heck of alot more realistic than yours.

As for Israel, now that Arafat is gone and there's a chance that Palestine will get its own state with a semi-normal leader, who knows, maybe Iran will reach a civil, albeit not a friendly-loving, relationship with Israel because the Palestinian rallying anti-Jewish point will have dissapated. Israel doesn't need to be embraced by Iran or Iraq. Israel just needs to have a civil businesslike relationship with them, much like what they have going with Egypt and Jordan and Turkey.

Posted by joeblow 2005-01-03 11:45:33 AM|| 2005-01-03 11:45:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Alastair Wanklyn is a MSM wanker.

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-03 11:48:13 AM|| 2005-01-03 11:48:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Shipman: I understand it all. It's a southron thing. You?

If you do, it's not immediately apparent, since you seem intent on taking other people's money (taxpayers) to pay for causes you find worthy. The other aspect I find interesting is that you think of your pet causes as a duty that other people must fulfill whether or not they like it. Not ponying up for your pet causes is viewed as some kind of character flaw. Your mother must be so proud.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 11:51:43 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 11:51:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 joeblow: Without Sistani's cooperation, Iraq would have quickly descended into a civil war.

Unlikely, given that Shiites don't seem to have the stomach for war. Heck, Sistani couldn't even prevent his people from being killed by al Sadr. The guy's a paper tiger whose importance has been inflated by the media. If he were at all effective as a leader, al Qaeda and the Baath Party would have been wiped out by now. Shiites are trying to kill the other side's leadership - they're just not having much success doing so. The postwar period is an illustration of why Sunnis have been able to hold on to power all these decades after Ottoman and British rule - they just wanted it more, and were willing to do whatever it took, including fighting to the death.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 11:58:41 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 11:58:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 The Iraqi shi'a have about as much love for the mullahs as Poles have for their slavic brethren in Russia.
I don't get your comparison. The Shiite in Iraq and in Iran have the same religion, a rather big common denominator I'd say

Ummm... rather LESS- I would think.

The Iraqi Shiites are Arabs.
The Iranians are Persians.
Iraqis speak Arabic, Iranians Farsi.

Plus there was that nasty war they had within living memory.

Personally, I could imagine the relationship between the 2 peoples amounting to the Iranian people saying "Could you send over those nice American- trained Shiite battalions and give us a hand with these black-turbanned nutters?"

OK, it's a loooong shot. But optimism is good every once in a while

Posted by Thinens Elmomotch9757 2005-01-03 1:29:54 PM|| 2005-01-03 1:29:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 With Iraq some form of democracy, Najaf switches back to the holy city and Iran loses a lot of tourist $.

Posted by anonymous2U 2005-01-03 1:51:28 PM|| 2005-01-03 1:51:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 The Iraqi Shiites are Arabs.The Iranians are Persians.Iraqis speak Arabic, Iranians Farsi.
Odd that the (Arab) Shiite Iraqi leaders like Hakim who heads the powerful United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite dominated coalition, found refuge and lived in exile in Iran during the reign of Saddam Hussein. Somehow these Arab Shiites and Persian Shiites were able to speak the same language then, yes? Chalabi, another Iraqi Shiite (secular) seemed to be rather cozy with the Iranian Shiites, according to our US gov't. Somehow the language/tribal differences were breeched in that instance as well, yes?

Unlikely, given that Shiites don't seem to have the stomach for war.
I think Shiites have the stomach for war, oh yes, especially to pursue revenge against the Sunni Baathists. Were it not for Sistani's co-operation with the coalition troops, the Shiites would have loved, loved to respond to each and every Sunni provocation that's been going on all these months. They have not responded because the Shiites are chicken. IMO and based on what I've read, Sistani has kept the Shiites on a short leash.

Posted by joeblow 2005-01-03 1:53:25 PM|| 2005-01-03 1:53:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Your mother must be so proud.

You damn straight she is.
Anything else?

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-03 2:22:21 PM|| 2005-01-03 2:22:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Or as mom's would say, Damn straight Pilgrim.

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-03 2:23:08 PM|| 2005-01-03 2:23:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Lotta Rantburgers evidently having a tough time competeting in the sweated labour market is all I can figure.

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-03 2:24:35 PM|| 2005-01-03 2:24:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Just a note, regards the Iraqi Shi'a who've been sheltered in Iran - a marriage of convenience is seldom a love affair. And this wasn't afforded Yagoub (Joe) Iraqi, who did the bleeding and dying in the Iran-Iraq conflict which lasted 8 years. That's a long time. In fact, the real causes are centuries old. So the love lost between the Persian and Arab is not as much a debating topic as it might seem from Western eyes with limited memory and none of the "traditions", heh.

I know of nothing more muddled than the Muslims vs the World // Shi'a vs Sunni // Persian vs Arab // Iran vs Iraq // Qom vs Najaf // Clan vs Clan // Tribe vs Tribe // "And your sister's ugly!" vs "Oh yeah, how would you know - she's veiled!" miasma present here. Usually, "follow the money" will yield the connections that "endure" - and Arabs can squeeze a Dinar / Rial / Riyal / Shekel / Euro / Dollar harder than anyone I know - and yes, I know them, up close and very personal.

Farsi and Arabic are, indeed, similar enough for them to communicate. One limitation of Arabic that cheezed me was that the have no letter "P" - Farsi does. Arabs, in fact have one hell of a time pronunciating the "P" - instead using "B". When you moniker is "Paco" and they call you "Baco" it sorta rankles, y'know?

Okay, that's all, please carry on.

Posted by .com 2005-01-03 2:27:39 PM|| 2005-01-03 2:27:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Odd that the (Arab) Shiite Iraqi leaders
like Hakim who heads the powerful United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite dominated coalition, found refuge and lived in exile in Iran during the reign of Saddam Hussein. Somehow these Arab Shiites and Persian Shiites were able to speak the same language then, yes? Chalabi, another Iraqi Shiite (secular) seemed to be rather cozy with the Iranian Shiites, according to our US gov't. Somehow the language/tribal differences were breeched in that instance as well, yes?

Joe, you are talking about elites, I am taking about cultures. That is my point, the Iraqi and Iranian Shiites are more different than they are made out to be here in the West.

Were it not for Sistani's co-operation with the coalition troops, the Shiites would have loved, loved to respond to each and every Sunni provocation that's been going on all these months. They have not responded because the Shiites are chicken.

Isn't that a contradiction?

I agree about Sistani's short leash. And as far as the Iranian *leadership* goes, I've no doubt that they will send over as many of their little bully-boys as possible to spin things up.

(OT: Whenever I look at the Iranian 'government', I don't see a government: I see a bad remake of The Sopranos)

Posted by Thinens Elmomotch9757 2005-01-03 2:45:20 PM|| 2005-01-03 2:45:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 .com, one tiny note... Farsi and arabic are mutually unitelligible. One is an indo-european language, the other is a semitic one. Yes, farsi borrowed quite a bit of terms from arabic throughout the centuries, but it would be like saying that because romainian lingo borrowed quite a bit of russian words, a Romanian and Russian would have no trouble to understand each other speaking their respective languages.

Posted by Bugaboo 2005-01-03 2:56:33 PM|| 2005-01-03 2:56:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Thx for that dot;)

Posted by Lucky 2005-01-03 2:56:58 PM|| 2005-01-03 2:56:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 joeblow: Were it not for Sistani's co-operation with the coalition troops, the Shiites would have loved, loved to respond to each and every Sunni provocation that's been going on all these months.

I'll have to disagree with you on that. Muslims aren't pacifists. Sistani has shown that he can't even protect his own people, let alone go after his enemies. The people who are saying that Sistani is restraining his people are the same folks who are decrying Iraq as a quagmire and a mismanaged one at that. They are the same empty suits who warned of the angry Arab street. Make no mistake about it - Arabs are angry, but their anger hasn't overcome their fear of death or even imprisonment. When bin Laden said that Muslims love death as Americans love life, he was expressing an ardent wish, not the reality that we live in.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 2:58:05 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 2:58:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 graphic is just..too..funny!

Posted by 2b 2005-01-03 3:04:02 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:04:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Bugaboo - Thx - I was going on what the Saudis told me - i.e. that it was "easy" so I assumed there were phonetic similarities without regard to the written form. Oops - never trust a Saudi, ever? Lol!

Posted by .com 2005-01-03 3:15:52 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:15:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Whenever I look at the Iranian 'government', I don't see a government: I see a bad remake of The Sopranos
Yes! Very funny. You captured the Iranian mullahs' motivations very well in that image. That's what I've been saying or trying to express and failing. The Iranian mullahs have a transparent desire to continue to wield power. They can't be blind or deaf to the unhappy under currents that exist in the restive Shiite circles within their country nor can they ignore the threat from the Sunni fanatics in neighboring countries {SA, Yemen}led by OBL. The mullahs hate the US but they love power, so if it means they need to follow the Iraqi example of Shiite dominated gov't,( and I think Sistani will be a power broker in that gov't) hey why not? Give a little and not loose alot. That's a pretty good deal if I were an Iranian mullah mulling the future ME political landscape over ( bad pun.)

Posted by joeblow 2005-01-03 3:16:50 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:16:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Hey, Gen'l Lucky! :)

Posted by .com 2005-01-03 3:17:24 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:17:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 The vast majority of Iraqis, shi'a or no, ardently desire free elections and know that the date is fast approaching. This is the most likely reason for the shi'a restraint we've seen.

Why would the mullahs be excited by the prospect of a nation so determined to exercise democratic control that it's willing to refrain from attacking people who are killing them? Isn't the lesson obvious to the mullahs' restive subjects as well?

Posted by lex 2005-01-03 3:17:41 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:17:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 .com, it is likely that the Saudi (or more of them) heard some Iranian cleric speaking arabic with a thick persian accent and thought.. "Hey! I can understand!"

BTW, Farsi uses the same arabic script as Arabs, which may give an impression the languages are similar. Farsi, though, is missing a bit of sounds that are common to Arabic, especially those that sound like one is clearing ones throat. That goes vice versa, as someone already noted about the 'p' consonant.

Posted by Bugaboo 2005-01-03 3:32:04 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:32:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Bugaboo - Thx. Lol - the proper pronunciation of Dhahran and Tehran illustrate your point rather nicely, heh.

Posted by .com 2005-01-03 3:38:55 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:38:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Whenever I look at the Iranian 'government', I don't see a government: I see a bad remake of The Sopranos Yes! Very funny. You captured the Iranian mullahs' motivations very well in that image. That's what I've been saying...

Remember all that noise we've been hearing about the new Iranian "young conservative hardliners"?

I pictured it as a revolt of the Capos when the Dons told them that the families were 'going ligitimate.'

" Whadaya mean I have to *manage* a pizza parlor? Why can't I shake 'em all down like youze did..."

Posted by Thinens Elmomotch9757 2005-01-03 3:53:08 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:53:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 joeblow: The mullahs hate the US but they love power, so if it means they need to follow the Iraqi example of Shiite dominated gov't,( and I think Sistani will be a power broker in that gov't) hey why not?

Democracy in Iran means that the mullahs lose power. I still don't see how we have any levers over Iran. Iran has buttons it can push in Iraq, but short of an invasion of Iran, we have no real influence on the Persians. And after Iran becomes a nuclear power, we will have none whatsoever. We have little enough over North Korea, despite the fact that they have no economy to speak of. Iran has oil, which completely negates the use of the economic lever. I think joeblow thinks we only have to speak out, and the Iranians will fall into line. The problem is that we can't make any credible threats to Iran, especially if the Iraqi government aligns itself with Iran. This is why talking to the Iranians is a pipe dream.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-03 3:59:59 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 3:59:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 ZF - we should acknowledge the Iranians aren't a friend or even a neutral, they're an enemy and have said so, publicly many times. I'd open up covert ops to destabilize them (kill a couple MM's) as well as take their playthings away....accts in Switzerland mysteriously empty out, ya know? Open broadcasts to the population via radio and TV (over the jamming)...put them on defense...

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-03 4:10:07 PM|| 2005-01-03 4:10:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Frank G is abosolutely correct and his strategy is the one constantly pushed by Ledeen over at National Review. There are a lot of levers that we can pull that are not overt military ops. These must be engaged as soon as the election is complete. It is one of the failings of the Bush adminsitration that they have not been undertaken to date as far as I know. As Ledeen says...Faster please!

Posted by Remoteman 2005-01-03 7:35:36 PM|| 2005-01-03 7:35:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 If you knew they'd been undertaken, they wouldn't be covert. I believe we are in the Farsi broadcasting business. The effectiveness of hits, beyond the immediate target, is debatable.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-03 7:38:32 PM|| 2005-01-03 7:38:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Ledeen and company are full of shite (if you know what I mean), they live in some pollyannish analysis paralysis world where everything works fine until the first bullet is fired.

As the EU-3 has aptly exhibited, there are not shortcuts in the war on terror. It's called eradicate by extraction (by their short hairs). The rest is fluffy bull shit.

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-03 7:50:48 PM|| 2005-01-03 7:50:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Democracy in Iran means that the mullahs lose power. I still don't see how we have any levers over Iran.
Yes, democracy in a multi-cultural society might mean that the Iranian mullahs would lose power. But in a homogeneous society like Iran, mullahs would still keep power albeit restrained but nonetheless real power - kind of like the Church of England before the Reformation. A transition to a democratic Shiite Iran might even be smoother than that of Iraq with its 3 tribes. Do any of you believe Sistani will not exert power in the new government? The only reason the Shiites responded to Sistani was their love of him the cleric, as religious leader. Anyone thinking that the Shiites showed restraint because of their love of democracy is dreaming.

So what's the leverage we have over the mullahs? It's a successful Shiite Iraqi government, where there's a religious influence and nobody in the neocon circles in DC gets their shorts in a twist over it. That's our leverage with the Iranian mullahs, because around the corner from them is a Sunni fanatical extremist group led by OBL, that is supported sub rosa by Sunni nation states called Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.

Why do we believe that that wack job in N.Korea would never use nuclear weapons but we worry so much about the mullahs who are not wacky, just wanting to keep their power? Maybe the mullahs did pursue nuclear weaponry for the reasons they stated: a) to protect themselves from Saddam b) to protect themselves from the US c) to protect themselves from Israel. If I were them, maybe I'd do the same, act defensively. So if they see that threats a-c are not there-Saddam is gone; the US is letting the Iraqis run themselves; Israel has built a wall around itself and has no "imperialistic ambitions" as the Arabs have claimed and in fact, Palestine has its own state, what's the only emerging problems on the horizon? a) a restive Iranian population b) a fanatical and expansionistic Sunni ideology.

If I were an Iranian mullah, I'd cut my losses and take my chances with facilitating a democratic government at the time I choose and where I could still wield a good deal of power,rather than chance losing 100% power to an violent overthrow by Iranians or by a take over by Sunni fanatical influence.

I'm just saying that Plan B may not be the end of the world - that is if Iraq is not a perfect pluristic Western textbook democracy, but rather has a good deal of Shiite religious influence on government.

English pluralism was not ancient like that of the Ottoman Empire. It was not a negotiated settlement like that of Germany or, with some qualifications, France. It was not a foundation principle of a new country, like that in most of the United States. Rather, English pluralism was the result of a gradual wearing away of a unitary system through concessions made because it seemed right to make them.

Robert E. Rodes, Law and Modernization in the Church of England: Charles II to the Welfare State (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991) p. 147.

Posted by joeblow 2005-01-04 12:07:20 AM|| 2005-01-04 12:07:20 AM|| Front Page Top

17:23 Liberalhawk
17:23 Liberalhawk
00:07 joeblow
23:58 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:45 lex
23:43 tipper
23:41 Asedwich
23:39 Zenster
23:35 Zenster
23:26 Zenster
23:20 lex
23:17 lex
23:16 lex
23:14 lex
23:13 Mark Z.
22:41 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:16 Frank G
22:12 Seafarious
22:09 2b
22:05 Aris Katsaris
22:02 Frank G
21:59 2b
21:58 2b
21:58 Frank G