Iran is working hard to become the leader of the global jihad. By Ilan Greenberg in the International Herald Tribune, with thanks to Twostellas:
BAKU, Azerbaijan: An article denigrating Islam published early last month in an obscure newspaper here in the capital has led to emotional demonstrations across Azerbaijan and in Iran. A prominent Iranian cleric demanded the death of the two writers of the article, who have been imprisoned in Azerbaijan.The article blamed Islam for Azerbaijan's meager development and likened the Prophet Muhammad to a used handkerchief. The ensuing furor echoes the case of the Danish cartoons published in September 2005 that mocked Islam and that, months later, generated protests throughout the Muslim world.
Here, the thunderous rhetoric from village imams and other religious conservatives has sent tremors through the Azeri government and the secular elite of the nation.
"I am for freedom of speech but not the freedom to insult," said Haji Ilgar, an imam at the Jama Old City Mosque in Baku who is often critical of the government of the secular president, Ilham Aliyev. "The only solution is to take this to the courts."
Many Azeris see the roots of the trouble in what they consider Iran's shadowy influence here. The two countries have had an often prickly relationship since Azerbaijan's independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Iran is the regional power, and Azerbaijan is an up- and-coming oil state, tucked between Iran and Russia on the Caspian Sea.
Both Iran and Azerbaijan are Shiite, but Azeris fear that Iran wants to destabilize the country by spreading its brand of militant Islam across the border. Iran is struggling to deal with a large minority — upwards of a third — of Iran's 66 million people who are ethnic Azeri, a beleaguered minority that frequently agitates for more rights and cultural autonomy. Iran does not want them to get any ideas from a secular and prospering Azerbaijan, in this view.
The propaganda campaign by Iran against the secularists (made secular, of course, by the Russians, and by all those Azeris who studied in Moscow and accepted, quite rightly, not only the gift of Russian but the gift of the modern, rational world) needs to be reversed. It is Azerbaijan's secularists who must whip up sentiment against the cruel Islamic Republic of Iran, for suppressing the Azeris under their rule, and pointing out that those Azeris deserve to be reunited, and the lands under them as well, with Azerbaijan. That appeal to an Azeri identity, if done right, can be offered up as an alternative, possibly superior, to that of the Muslim identity that the Iranians stress.
Why should this have a chance of success?
Two reasons. One, the Islamic Republic of Iran is 50% Persian, and contains four identifiable minorities: Kurds, Arabs, Azeris, Baluchis. There has long been trouble for successive Iranian governments with the Kurds, and were an independent Kurdistan were to come into existence, there would be even more, and the Americans have the ability not only to protect Kurdistan, but to supply it with weaponry some of which might find its way to Kurds in Iran.
In Khuzistan, Arabs have intermittently agitated and two were sentenced to die just the other day. The Islamic Republic of Iran will have to be fiercest in crushing any revolt there, for most of its oil comes from that area, and without that, Iran is no longer a threat, or even a middle-sized power, but is reduced to what it was before the oil came along. And while speculation goes on about the Shi'a Arabs of Iraq turning to Iran, the effect of the ethnic Arabs within Iran openly attempting to leave Iran, which might be seen as the remnant of the Persian Empire, and what's more, taking with them the source of great wealth, it is understandable that a debilitated Iranian army (that can also suffer attacks from the sky by all kinds of outsiders, including Sunni Arabs deterined to crush Iran in the easiest way possible -- ending its possession of oil wealth) would have to concentrate most of its efforts in Khuzistan.
One assumes, however, that the Arabs would refrain in this case of re-naming themselves, or being renamed by other Arabs, as the "Khuzistanian people," lest that other re-named group of Arabs be seen, by the West, for what they are.
Then there are the Baluchis, which for most Westerners is a name that confuses, for two reasons: one, it evokes an oriental rug gallery ("over here are the Baluchis") and two, there is a Baluchistan in Pakistan, and few Westerners are sure about whether the Baluchis in Iran are the same, or different, from the Baluchis in Pakistan, and so the usual voluble commentators tend to shut up at this point. They really needn’t. The Baluchis are in southeastern Iran, and they are the same Baluchis as live, equally mistreated and in equal poverty, in Pakistan (which is where the admirable and colorful Baluchi tribal leader was recently murdered by the Pakistanis), with some Baluchis also in Afghanistan. They are not only Sunnis in Shi’a-run Iran, but also are, and have been, the poorest people in Iran, but were for a long time left largely alone. But under the Shah, and even his father, an attempt was made to centralize authority and, while the Shah used the carrot of some improvements in living standards, the Islamic Republic has simply used force to suppress any Baluchi unrest, and unrest there has been, underreported or not reported at all, by a Western press that doesn’t know how to cover so many things, and chooses what is important (ten thousand articles on the “Palestinians” and their “legitimate rights” for every one article devoted to the Baluchis, the Azeris, the Kurds, and even the Arabs of Iran) and what it deems unimportant.
There’s a lot that could be done by the Azeris to turn the tables on the Iranians. They could be conducting a campaign against the troglodytes of Iran, they could be running articles on the medievalness of Iran, and on the mistreatment of Azeris by Iranians, and they could not only let those two journalists out of jail, but accept and repeat their argument, which happens to be true, that links Muslim backwardness, Muslim failures in political and economic and social development, to Islam itself.
And whether or not the secularists in Azerbaijan do this sufficiently (or for that matter if the beneficiaries of Kemalism in Turkey do this sufficiently to beat back Erdogan and to make sure that the Islamic parties are blamed for Turkey’s being kept out of the E.U.) may depend on the intelligence of the American government in figuring out that it ha to weaken, to soften up Iran by encouraging all of these minority peoples within that state, in order that it will be easier to deal with its nuclear project.
Why would it be easier to deal with – i.e., destroy or damage it sufficiently to put it out of commission for a long time – that nuclear project, if local revolts were taking place? For many reasons. First, there may even be people of Azeri, or possibly (more unlikely) Kurdish descent, who have some useful knowledge about that project, or the placement of the facilities, and who might now have better reason to weaken the central authority if they see a chance for their own minority to gain its independence. Second, any large-scale uprisings, especially if they were to take place simultaneously, from several different peoples, all over Iran, would preoccupy the regime and force it to divert resources and attention. And in that diversion, it is possible that the regime will have to stop putting so much effort into its nuclear project or, alternatively, that it will be easier for the West to attack that project in an atmosphere of local mayhem and revolt.
Does the Pentagon have an office devoted to helping increase the sense of identity, and the sense of resentment, of Azeris, Kurds, Baluchis, Arabs in Iran? If it doesn’t, that is one more telling failure. If it does, I will be glad to stand in the corner, dunce cap on my head, happily corrected.
"I am for freedom of speech but not the freedom to insult," said Haji Ilgar, an imam at the Jama Old City Mosque in Baku who is often critical of the government of the secular president, Ilham Aliyev. "The only solution is to take this to the courts."
Too bad this guy doesn't practice what he preaches. His first sentence has two contradictory clauses. He's for freedom of speech but against the right to insult? How many times has he called non-Muslims evil or the descendants of apes and pigs?
Hugh, aren't you playing with fire when you suggest that Azeris in Iran need to be reunited politically with their brothers in Azerbaijan? The Middle East has clans and tribes all over the place. Most were purposefully divided by their Ottoman conquerors or by the British and French who took over from them. Would you suggest redrawing the entire map of that area, giving each ethnic group its own country? That's what I'm getting from your comments. It's great to weaken Iran, but wouldn't we really be encouraging tribal warfare as a result?
Which is better, to work with the countries as they exist today or to redraw all the lines and deal with the inevitable conflicts that will follow? Maybe we could protect an independent Kurdistan, but should we? Wouldn't that send the wrong signal to others, given that the US cannot be the protector of every persecuted minority in the world? We don't have the resources, human or political, and we have no allies who will join us in this effort, since too many people stand to lose as a result.
I don't think weakening the Islamic Republic of Iran by encouraging insurrection among its discontented (made discontented by the Islamic Republic of Iran, not by anything done by Infidels) minorities, the Azeris, Kurds, Baluchis, and Arabs, is "playing with fire." It is a perfectly comprehensible and intelligent policy, and those who are inhibited -- perhaps because they are close to Persians in exile who don't like the idea of Iran being reduced or possibly dimidiated in size even if they are opponents of the regime -- even about contemplating such possibliities are wrong.
"Playing with fire"? I don't see that. What I see is clumsy, Baby-Huey-like actions, with no cunning and no ruthlessness and no imagination being applied to the matter at hand. Cunning, ruthlessness, imagination do not amount to "playing with fire."
Don't plan on any dunce cap wearing anytime soon.
Yes, there is...actually it's a unit/division, but it's been muzzled,as contingency plans evaluated such a venture would not only NOT provide stability, but only replace one set of problems for an even bigger set of problems,and it proved not to be worth it, hence, it being "put on the back burner"...at least for now.
(PS- sorry,I had a much longer and detailed reponse that proved far better in shedding somelight on...but...well...it's like this: I had it all ready to post, and some relatives burst in my door, including my little niece who adores me to death, being chased by our cat, who is persian-himalayan alpha male...and promptly landed on that dreaded button marked "OFF", wiping everything out...so I just dropped this shorter one and will expand later...lmao, sorry Hugh.
I think I'll get back to ya...as soon as I can secure the door of the den from kids, cats, and "loving" relatives...some of whom said tosay hi to Hugh Robert & all...bbl, folks...sheesh lol
Talk about one of lifes most embarassing moments, lol)
Merry Christmas one and all.
:-D
However, if the Persians in question above are not going to abandon Islam, and insist on de-coupling the Ayatollah's from Islam, then the above solution is a good one. Let there be this great Muslim civil war, and let Azerbaijan support an Azeri separatist movement, Kurds rebel supported by Iraqi Kurds, and let the two Balochistans also join in, and let Teheran and Islamabad try to figure out how to deal with that last problem, given Sipah-i-Sahaba's hostility to Paki Shia.
Also, since Bob Gates is looking at increasing US troop strength, one way they might split Iran from the Iraqi Shia would be to have the non Sadr portion of the Shia alliance support the Khuzestani movement: after all, like the Khuzestanis, and unlike the Farsis, they are Arab. Let them look at incorporating that territory that Saddam tried to conquer in the 80's on the basis of their Arab features: downside - such an extension would become more Islamic, not less. That should stop the Iranian support to the Shia death squads; however, it would do nothing about Sunni infiltration into Iraq from Saudi Arabia and Syria. If a program could be developed that would similarly snap the connections between the Sunni and the Saudis and the Ikhwans (of both Syria and Egypt), then this stupid democracy project might have a better chance of success. I don't support it, but if that's the only thing that will stop US money and lives being wasted in Iraq, so be it.
So can we look at ways to similarly disintegrate Syria and Saudi Arabia?