Iran hails “first Islamist Arab state” in Iraq

Of course, the quote *IS* from Iran's hard-line daily newspaper, Kayhan. Would anyone expect a different comment from them? And does anyone think that the opinions of Kayhan are reliable?

Lets be clear who RUNS Kayhan... is it an independent editorial group of free-thinkers?
No it is the "State Run - Kayhan daily"
http://www.iran-e-azad.org/english/boi/13540321_00.html

So Iran Focus is essentially quoting the propaganda of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government - the same one that calls the Holocaust a myth and that chants for Death to America.

Should we expect balanced or even logical opinions from such sources? Yesterday, Theresa Heinz Kerry was quoted as a source, today Iranian Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government's propaganda sheet. Are either of these credible sources of information or commentary?

I think not.

Jeff,

THK is indeed not credible, although I think in this case she had a point.

What do you find not credible about this story? That Islamists won a majority? Do you think they didn't? Do you think that there is not really a significant force working to establish an Islamic state in Iraq?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Robert -
Kayhan may be correct in its assessment of Iraq.
That is certainly a possibility.
But given that it is literally a propaganda sheet for the Islamist Extremist Iranian government, I would give it the credibility that I would give a raving lunatic in St. Elizabeth's mental hospital here in DC. Again, even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes. But Kayhan has no credibility. It is interesting to read their comments, surely. But given the source, I simply added the context as to who Kayhan represents.

Fifteen years ago, would we have treated a Pravda report regarding assessment of communism as news? I don't think so, nor would I treat Kayhan's here. It is a deliberate attempt to inject an opinion from an Islamist Extremist government into the western news media. Propaganda sheets (and Kayhan is one) always have an ulterior motive. I would ask what is theirs? I think those are fair and logical questions.

Regarding THK's credibility, I would point you to your own posting on Dhimmi Watch:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000960.php
February 23, 2004
Kerry's wife supports U.S. radicals, jihadists

I agree the US government should have been more forceful in its condemnation of Iran. However, THK is certainly in no position to criticize.

We can still have these subjects discussed and have credible sources for discussing these subjects, right? That would be my humble suggestion.

You know, Robert, I am really trying to be careful as to what news sources I use in news that I post on my site.

I am careful not to use the Communist Peoples Daily News, Al Jazeera, etc., even though they have more breaking news. Not to say I have not screwed up, because I have, and I know it. And I am very very selective in using the NY Times and WPost because, they have indeed posted many false stories. But I am trying hard to stay credible by using credible news sources.

It comes down to TRUSTING a news source.
Hard to know, hard to do, and Lord only knows, I know that as much as anyone.

It is a struggle to use "trusted" news sources, still be diverse, and not bury important commentary - even from source you don't trust. I know that and I truly do appreciate your hard work and efforts at this. It is tough, tough, tough. And only people who do it, actually realize that.

Merry Christmas and Thanks for all of your work.

Jeff,

I think perhaps I have not made my intentions clear here.

I am not taking what Kayhan says as fact. I put it up as an indication of the pressures a democratic Iraq will face -- a recurring theme in my work for over 3 years now. And as I said above, I don't think their central assertions are false. Their confidence in the outcome, of course, is an assessment they may come to revise.

I myself would not and do not hesitate to use Pravda or Al-J as I have used this: as an indication of what attitudes and assumptions are prevailing in certain quarters. This does not constitute a statement on my part that they are therefore completely credible news sources.

Cordially
RS

Trying to apply democracy in the Muslim countries will creae Islamic states like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Muslim countries need dicators like Saddam, Al-Asad, Husni Mobarak, ... in condition with that they would be controled by America. Bush is trying to apply democracy in the Muslim countries so that Islam, which is incompatable with democracy, will fall by itself. Bush is using the human wisdom which is foolishness. The Western countries need to go back to the true God and Islam will fall down by itself.
Abbas

Jeff,

An example: I would have quoted Pravda in the 1970s crowing over Salt II. I would have thought that quite newsworthy and credible.

Best
RS

As they say...there goes the neighborhood and with it the region.

Oh well...no one can say US didn't try to save the region from bringing about it's own destruction.

Whatever my misgivings about the reasons behind or the aims of the Americah intervention in Iraq, it has created a scenario which will be a test case for Islam and Muslims in general.

Here there are a disparate group of Muslims, Shiites, Sunnins and Kurds, who will be given a real chance of western democracy, with all of its good points and all of its risks.

What will they do with it?

Will they create the first truly democratic islamic state? Or will it be an Islamic "democracy": that ephemeral entity which precedes the fall into Islamic totalitarianism with the creation of a Sharia law state.

I keep hearing about the "good" Muslims who do not wish Sharia law and who will not vote for such a state. They are supposed to always be in the majority everywhere. But if so, they have always been a silent majority who do little more than say "tut tut" to every Qur'anic inspired atrocity committed by reactionary Muslims against the west and absoluely nothing else.

It will be a test case for genuine Islamic honesty and goodwill. If Iraq becomes a truly democratic Islamic state without Sharia law then there is hope for Islam and it is possible for some form of rapprochent between Islam and the west to occur.

However,if it becomes a Sharia law state, whether under Iranian influence or not, with a return to dark age barbaric justice as in Iran and Saudi Arabia then the west should take heed here as it will be absolute proof that the Islamic camel cannot be civilised or tamed and will therefor have to be shot if it continues to run amok.

This may well be Islams last chance to prove that it is a genuine "religion of peace".

Whether you believe Iran Focus is a viable news source or not it seems that a later paragraph in the article (not shown above, see original), states:

“The American defeat and withdrawal from Iraq will forever bury the Neoconservative current in the U.S.,…while the formation of an Islamist state in Iraq, which will be a natural ally of the Islamic Republic of Iran and will form a contiguous link between Iran and Palestine through Syria and Lebanon, will bring about a sea change in the geo-strategic balance in the region in favour of Iran and to America’s detriment. This new alliance with its huge size will directly influence all developments in the Arab and Muslim Middle East”.

I think this has been Iran's objective for a long time. It may be to America's detriment but Shi'a hegemony in the ME is going to be a nightmare for everyone.

When the U.S. and coalition forces withdraw in whatever vision of victory that is promulgated it WILL be portrayed as a defeat by the Islamists. All one has to look at is the example of the Gaza withdrawal by the Israelis to see how this is going to play out.

Caratacus

. Muslim countries need dicators like Saddam, Al-Asad, Husni Mobarak, ... in condition with that they would be controled by America. Bush is trying to apply

Abbas, this statement you make l have heard before. you are saying to stop the oppressive cult of islam is to keep incheck with by oppressive dictators?
right now l dont see much of a difference between both their methods. and by your other statements, you dont think Muslims are human enough to want democracy, that only other humans want this, is this a racist idoleogy? when Democracy was first established, women had no votes or control over their life, ownership of property, etc. This evolved over time. l think US troops will be in Iraq for some time, and or the region.

This editorial form Iran claiming the victory of an Islamist state in Iraq is misleading and is meant to reinforce the worldview that Bush's policy of an Iraqy democracy is unworkable. Washington post reporter K.I.Ibrahim--who is in Baghdad and who doesnt have a vested interest in supporting Bushs policies--reports this morning that out of 275 seats, the Shites have 120. This means that in order to pass legislation, and in order to get the votes needed to form a cabinet, they will have to form coalitions with the Sunni's and Kurds. Indeed, Ibrahim also reported that Ayatolla Ali Sistani--Iraqs most influential Shiite leader--is calling for negotiations with the Kurds and the Sunni's. Folks, this is democracy in action, just like Bush intended.

As I mentioned this editorial from Iran--a country that does not have a free press--conveniently suits the worldview of those on this website who believe Bush's policy of democracy in Iraq is unworkable due to Islam's totalitarian impulses and due to factional hostility in that country.

It is quite obvious that Iraq will not become a western style democracy; however it is completely possible to develop a quasi-democracy, such as other Muslim country's like Indonesia, Turkey, and even Bangledash (which recently had solid elections). Although the Iraq project may indeed fail, the current negotiations between the three groups to form a government is evidence that Bush may be vindicated, much to the dismay of those on this website who believe his Iraq policy will ultimately fail

We'll see over the next year what's to come from the Iraq project. Maybe.

Will the West's reception of the outocme in Iraq be realistic? Don't forget that Afghanistan is treated as a success but is in reality a Sharia mess propped up by our tax dollars and heroin exports.

Will the Iraq project be yet another half-assed "success" or will the Shiites make it a plain failure? For my part, it is impossible to imagine a pluralistic deomocracy freedom society springing the sands of Islam.

Look for the government and MSM to concoct some form of optimism about Islam out of Iraq, regardless of the actual result on the ground.

Alarmed Pig Farmer,

Afghanistan is a success by the Middle East's standards, not the Wests. Yes they have Sharia, but the important thing is that the Taliban and terrorist training camps are gone, and the current legislative body was elected by a majority. In addition, the West has a military presence there, which certainly serves our interests

Similarly, if one is to completely judge Iraq's developments by the Wests standards, well, things will always be a disaster. Iraq must be placed in a historical context, and, in that sense, the developments there are quite remarkable, provided they continue on the present course. As I mentioned, if in the next 5-10 years Iraq can become a democracy by the Middle East standards--ie, Indonesia and Turkey--it will be a success, and Bush will be vindicated.

I'll give you those points on Afghanistan, Dhimmiwatch in Canada.

However, what little that has been accomplished there, and in Iraq, has been at infidel gunpoint. Also, Turkey and Indonesia are headed in a dark, Islamic direction.

Iraq and Afghanistan seem to have no natural balance; they appear ready to slide back into subcivilization once the soldiers and marines trying to raise them up go home.

DISLOYAL HARVARD DISLOYAL GEORGETOWN DISLOYAL USC DISLOYAL COLUMBIA

The question is whether Islam can organically sustain a civilized, pluralistic society. And this ain't a Western standard, it's a global standard. Technology has brought us mass communications and WMD. Mix those two ingredients with the deep-seated flaws of Islam and you get one big explosion.

We can no longer tolerate Islam as it is. Some hope to reform the ideology, which is mortally naive. I think that it must be deactivated and removed, much like a syphllitic's suppurating sore.

With an actual democracy in the Middle East, there is always a chance that Islamists may indeed win the electoral popular day. However the problem of veracity I have with this Iranian publication is the purported support of the Kurds. The Kurds are for the most part Sunni Muslims ostracized by Arabs, Turks and Shi'ites all. Nobody for some reason in that region wants the Kurds to have political power or a homeland. I doubt very much the Kurds would support an Islamist agenda from Iran or anywhere for that matter.

"much to the dismay of those on this website who believe his Iraq policy will ultimately fail..."
-- from a posting above

Should those of us who regard the Jihad, and what prompts it, as world-wide in scope and endless in duration, be delighted if Iraq settles down and does not become a constant source of Sunni-Shi'a friction? Is that an outcome Infidels should welcome? Should Infidels have tried desperately to stop Nasser's Egypt and Saudi Arabia from fighting a proxy war in the Yemen? Should Infidels have tried to stop Morocco and Algeria from coming to blows over the Sahrawi Liberation Front or whatever it called itself? Should that eight-year-long war between Iraq and Iran have been deplored, and should the American government, should NATO, have tried desperately to stop it?

Why doeshe oldest rule of warfare -- the rules which tell you to practice divide-et-impera, divide and conquer, or in this case
divide the enemy so as to better defend yourself -- not apply today?

Did the Marshall Plan, which was intended, and fit, a very particular situation, in which the enemy had been completely smashed and now had somehow, along with its victims, to be rebuilt, not because that enemy deserved it, but only in order to prevent a new enemy that had already snatched up all of Eastern Europe, from acquiring power in Western Europe.

That enemy -- the "Jihad and all those who believe in it" (make of that circumlocution what you will) -- was not smashed. Rather, one local despot was smashed. Islam is back in fashion, all over the former vilayet of Basra. And the main problems now are two: the nuclear weapons project of Iran, and the islamization of Western Europe. Iraq is a misallocation of resources -- men, money, materiel. And it is even worse -- it is preventing action, diverting attention from, hindering resolve about, Iran.

Pluck victory from those famous jaws of defeat -leave Iraq now. Let a few ululate with claims of "victory." In Teheran, and in Riyadh, as a much more sober tone about Islam is injected into speeches, and other things are hinted at (including intervention in the southern Sudan and Darfur), and immigration of Muslims into the entire West is stopped, period -- this will soon show, if anyone doubted, that the withdrawal is not a sign of defeat, but rather -- a sign of something colder, harder, and necessary. No more inattention to the tenets of Islam, to Hadith and Sira as well as Qur'an, no more pretending that the "reformers" can reform those immutable texts, no more nonsense about placating the sensibilities of those who may, geographically, be within the West, but do not wish that West well -- but rather, wish it Islam, wish that Islam may "dominate and is not to be dominated." And 1350 years of history offer evidence of what, for non-Muslims, that means -- always and everywhere.

"The question is whether Islam can organically sustain a civilized, pluralistic society. And this ain't a Western standard, it's a global standard."

Alarmed Pig Farmer, this is a profound statement, but lets contextualize it. According to the left, a civilized pluralistic society includes the right to unfetterd access to kill unborn babies, the right for gays to legally marry, the right to comprimise the principle of merit (affirmative action), and, most egregiously, the right to deny and dismantle the Wests Christain foundation and heritage. Although I am proud of our civilization, I find these developments in the west to be counter to our society's longterm interests, yet others would argue that they are central to a "civilized, pluralistic society"

I would argue that there are some priniciples that are global and non negotiable, such as the United Nations declaration of Human Rights,and perhaps Iraq will not reach the standards outlined in this precious document. However, Iraq already has a vibrant free press, a growing free market economy, the most progrressive constitution in Arab history, and the three factions are negotiating a government. This is excellent progress in the context of the Middle East, and may lead to a civilized, although not completely pluralistic, society.

Here's an idea - how about if we wait until the Iraq election returns are actually tallied, before we give more credibility to the Iranian government propaganda sheet?

In the meantime, my question remains, since this was consciously put out and approved by the Iranian Islamist Extremist government (the "State Run - Kayhan daily"), what is the hidden agenda of this propaganda?

That is the curious question this raises.
Why did the Iranian government feel the need to issue this propaganda and what is their goal?

"That enemy -- the 'Jihad and all those who believe in it' ... was not smashed."
-- posted by Hugh

Exactly.

PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH

"This is excellent progress in the context of the Middle East, and may lead to a civilized, although not completely pluralistic, society."
-- posted by Dhimmiwatch in Canada

I hope and wish that your estimate is right, but I can't believe that this is so.

It has been several years since Osama bin Laden issued his call for global Jihad, and its crescendo is still building. Perhaps with the passage of time things will cool down.

However, every time that hopeful thought tugs at my optimistic nature, I am reminded of demographic Jihad and every Moslem's unapologetic intent to impose Sharia here, there, and everywhere.

So long as Islam and Moslems continue to exist, ugly outcomes seem to surround all possibilities.

What's the bet that one day, Iraq will become part of Iran, and that it was all made possible by the war in Iraq.

The Shiite Arabs in Iraq, yes. But whither the Sunni Arabs and the Kurdish Arabs?

Whoops. Meant to say Kurdish Sunnis.

so, basically, the iranian media is hoping to cause a rucus that will subdue and re-oppress the people of iraq, while feeding the american media their monday headlines.
the iraqi's have seen their world under a dictator, have seen what lengths the islamist will go to to keep them enslaved, and have tasted freedom from both.
iran is getting backed further into a corner everyday.expect them to lash out even more in 2006.and iraq? don't misunderestimate the people.

This is the end result of the Neo-Con domination of the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

They've created an Islamic state in Iraq and when the Assyrian Christians are wiped out, the blood will be on their hands.

Now they've got Syria in their sights as the next target to destroy. Maybe this is because Syria is now the ONLY country in the Middle East that doesn't have a state religion and its two million Christians look to the secularist government as their protector against the Muslims.

So what do the Neo-Cons propose? To destroy the Alawite regime and bring "democracy" to Damascus. That way the Muslim Brotherhood can take power and build Sharia totalitarianism there.

You're so right, Provo.

The neocons never let themselves be bothered with reality. Instead, they work the simplistic good guy/bad guy dynamics set up in our mistaken media.

No wonder Bill Kristol always wrinkles his brow before answering a question. Brief moment of confusion.

Dhimmiwatch in canada writes:
"I would argue that there are some priniciples that are global and non negotiable, such as the United Nations declaration of Human Rights"

I beg to differ. I have read it

http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm

and I find therein much that I disagree with.
For example, Articles 12, 24, 25, ...

Typical worthless UN trash.

It's a fairly straight forward matter. The Ayatollah's of Iran, whenever they can distract themselves from agonising over when the opportune moment to wipe out the Zionist Entity will come, are concerned with what they see, probably rightly, encirclement by Great Satan - in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and of course with the US involvement in the Caucasus countries - however Iraq, with its insurgency and its large shi'a population represent the best opportunity it has to disrupt US strategy in the region (as much as there is one).

Through the insurgency the American military is bogged down and prevented from putting its full force into crushing the demented pseudo-Hitler currently residing in Tehran. Through the ballot box it sets itself up a cosy little client state... a couple of decades later than Khomeini envisaged but still it'll give them increased leverage in the region if they pull it off, pocketing a second vote at OPEC and UN can't be a bad thing after all for any aspirant regional power.

Granted I am probably in error when I try to suggest that the Iranians are following a methodical, dare I even say rational policy, with a view to dominating the Near East, considering after all that President Ahmadinejad likes to communicate with the Mahdi by throwing letters down a well, and the destruction of Israel is up there with tax cuts and kissing babies as a vote winner. Nonetheless from a strategic point of view it's not rocket science to see the benefits of subverting Iraq... unfortunately for everyone the Mullahs are taking an interest in rocket science as well these days.

Anyway, as said elsewhere the usefulness of quoting Kayhan is that it at least shows the intentions of the Iranians to all but the most willfully blind. Unfortunately the US State Department and British Foreign Office can be counted amongst the ranks of the sightless.

"Nonsense. Islamic countries reject this fantasy-product of the UN and already declared their 'very own Islamic human rights' bill, which is,-you guessed it,- based on Sharia and Koran."
--posted by Sheik yermami

You took this quote out of its context, and invented your own so u could bash it with what most people know: that Islam as it is practiced by most of its adherents and human rights do not go well together.

U also claim the this document is a "fantasy product of the UN" yet the principles outlined in that document are derived from the judeo-Christian heritage and form the foundation of Western civilization. Although this document was codified in 1945, the principles in it--such as the inalienable dignity of the human being--are timeless and are based on the words of Jesus Christ.

Cultural relavitism-- Became a strategic communist construct. Developed during the Cold-war, adopted and promoted by fellow-travelers and sympathizers to protect themselves and defend the Soviet Union.

The evolution of Marxist "thought" has been revised via the "Baron-Wallerstein revision". Cultural relavitism helps remove the responsibility for backwards, disfunctional societies from those societies and places the blame on the "capitalist" countries, mainly the USA. They are the new "proletariate" revolutionaries. And that is why BinLaden says that the goals of the socialists and the jihadis converge-- they both ultimately want the destruction of the USA. Both believe they can take care of the other once the USA is turned into a 3rd world hell-hole.

That's nothing new-- The U.N. was totally compromised as soon as the Soviet Union became involved. And with Algier Hiss being an agent of the Soviet Union the cards were stacked against us from the beginning. It was simply a sham organization which the communists, and now the islamists exploit.

Sheik, of course the UN is a corrupt institution, and, as the Iraq invasion demonstrates, the West does not need their permission for regime change. I was not talking about the UN and its corrupt members; I was talking about human rights and their applicability within the present war against the sons of allah, as Oriana Fallaci calls jihadists. And even a leftist liberal will tell u Islamofacists reject any human rights. That was not the debate. The debate was whether the Bush administration could transform Iraq into a constitutional democracy,or whether constitutional democracy is compatible with Iraq, not whether Jihadists will accept human rights. I argued that Iraq and Islam are probably not compatible with western style democracy, but a quasi democracy such as Indonesia or Turkey is possible.

u should read more carefully before u comment on someones argument

The fact is, the U.N. is probably the greatest and most influencial propagator of the cultural relavitist myth. The U.N. was a Hegelian Dialectical process vehicle that facilitated compromise with and legitimization of evil.

I need to make a correction...

It appears that David Horowitz pulled a fast one with his reference of Bin Laden's "socialists" quote. Bin Laden was referring to Saddam's regime.
More Pragmatism.("something is true, only if it is useful")

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2751019.stm

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16103

"Although this document was codified in 1945, the principles in it--such as the inalienable dignity of the human being--are timeless and are based on the words of Jesus Christ."

Yes,well, I dare say that Christianity is becoming more and more socialist with each passing year. The UN declaratoin of human rights is fine up to the point that it starts dealing with "economic rights", such as a right to food, a right to housing, a right to education, etc. The whole thing is as much a recipe for enslavement as the lunatic Jihadists with their Qur'an. But at least the socialists aren't running around shouting "Alahu Akbar" and chopping peoples heads off. That's a plus, I guess.

The Iranian leaders might be evil, but by no means stupid. Those whoa re watching Iranian news and information realise that Iran is following a very detailed and carefully crafted plan in the middle east to expand its domain of influence, and like it or not, thw two US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have had great benefits for Iranian leaders so far.

Iran is working hard to dominate Iraq, and so far has been able to have many of its own men at he helm of both Kurdish and Shiite groups. Arab world, in particular Sausi, Egypt and Jordan, are watching the developments with great concern.

Iranian observers consider Iranian president's outragous anti-Jewish comments along the same strategy, not just the words of a nutcase who's talking to his god. The purpose of those speeches was to ignite the ignorant arab mass behind the cause in order to block the Arab leaders, media and politcians from creating a number 2 enemy of Iran next to Israel.

If any government in Iran, other than IRI, had interfered in Iraq as much, by now the Arab world would be fuming at this attempt at dominating another arab country. But now that the Iranian president has positioned himself as champion of the fight against Israel, any arab politician who attacks Iran would be treated by his ignorant people as being an Israel puppet.

It is important to realise that one's enemies are not fools.