| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Ma'ariv International reports that "the unfolding political crisis in Iran is intimately linked to the goings-on in Washington. The perception that Bush may be a one-term president is what has emboldened the conservatives [that is, the radical Muslim mullahs who run the present government] in Teheran to make a move on the reformists [that is, pro-democracy forces]. No peace talks between Israel and Syria will take place until it becomes clear how important it is to the White House to uncover the WMD Saddam stashed away in Syria shortly before the balloon went up." (Thanks to "Allah.")
The last thing the Iranian conservatives wanted was to provoke the US. Their ultimate fear was to see Uncle Sam’s boys cross the Euphrates to liberate Iran from a regime only slightly less bestial and inherently much more dangerous than Saddam’s. . . . Moreover the Iranian interest was to see the Shiites become the dominant political force in Baghdad.At the same time President Bush seemed assured of a second term. No one, not even the arch reactionary Ayatollah Ahmed Jannati, chairman of the Council of Guardians was willing to risk taking on George W. Bush, who had demonstrated very clearly his willingness to wield a very big stick. The only thing to assure this was to give the appearance that the reformists were, slowly but surely gaining the upper hand.
Events in Washington over the past month changed that perception. The conservatives seem to have decided that Bush could be vulnerable. As a result, they decided to renegotiate their agreement with Khatami, since they believe Iran can afford to get away with presenting a less enlightened image to the world. The result is the current crisis. Supreme leader Khamenei, the leader of the conservative faction, which is between the reactionaries and the reformists, but on the whole tends to side mostly with the former, will not take any decisive step until he has to, meaning until he and his advisors decide what Bush’s chances are. If they decide that his defeat is not a sure thing, the compromise he will arrange will favor the reformists, at least somewhat. If he decides that Iran can take the risk of assuming that Bush will not be reelected, the compromise will, in effect be an ultimatum to the reformists to surrender or else. If he decides to wait and see, he will go along with the reformists’ demand to postpone the election, without necessarily acting to get the Guardians to reinstate the disqualified reformist candidates.
A hint at this was provided last week by foreign ministry spokesperson Reza Asefi, who said that the current row “could seriously impact Teheran’s foreign policy. In Iranian political talk this meant that it might be premature to assume that Bush is a lame duck, and that a premature push for power by the reactionaries could endanger Iran’s recent foreign policy achievements, primarily an informal understanding with the US that Iraq’s Shiites will take control of Iraq when the US departs. . . .
The latter have decided to take out the reformists, having decided that Bush is unlikely to be reelected, and therefore willing to risk US ire, which, as far as they are concerned, will be limited to words if Bush is no longer president. If there is one thing these men do not fear, it’s words. . . .
Teheran’s aim is to see Bush defeated. The thinking in Teheran is that a Democratic president would not have the stomach to go to war in order to save Iraq’s middle class. The result, snap elections won by the Shiites, the formation of a new anti-western Damascus-Baghdad-Teheran axis, armed with a large variety of lethal non conventional weapons,
The Iranians are confident that even if hard evidence of Hezbollah terrorism in Iraq shows up, Bush will not be able to do anything until the elections. However the one potential fly in the ointment the Iranians have so assiduously being concocting is if the Iraqi WMD that have been hidden in the remote corners of the Syrian desert were to be discovered, thus vindicating Bush and all but assuring him of four more years.
This could only happen if either the US invaded, or the regime fell. To ensure neither of these events occur, Iran suggested to Assad that he embark on a peace initiative. For Iran this is a win-win proposition. If the talks eventually fail, they would still have served their purpose, preempting a scenario that could vindicate Bush and assure him reelection. If, by some mischance the talks actually led somewhere, it would be no skin of their nose, since Syria, not Iran would be making the required concessions. In the long run Syria is less important to Iran than Iraq, since unlike Iraq, the majority of Syrians are Sunni Moslems, who intensely dislike the Baath regime dominated by the minority Alawis, who are theologically much closer to the Shiites than to the Sunnis (who unlike the Shiites regard them as heretics). Iran knows it may, and can afford to lose Syria as an ally. It cannot afford to lose Iraq.
Israel and the US however, were not taken for a ride. This means that all options are still open. The current administration is not about to see a virulently anti-western conservative dominated Iran become the ultimate benefactor of the war. American blood was not shed in order to facilitate unprecedented Iranian hegemony over the region. If, in order to prevent such an outcome it becomes imperative to vindicate the Bush administration by proving estimates of Iraqi non-conventional capabilities were essentially correct, then an invasion of Syria cannot be ruled out. The pretext would be either proof of Syrian complicity in allowing Hezbollah to operate in Iraq, or allow Israel to initiate a war with Syria over its support of terrorism.
For this reason Bush is willing to let Sharon make the road map as obsolete as the horse and buggy, despite the blow to his prestige. Both men may need a war with Syria to ensure their political survival, and the world may need it to take out another link in the axis of evil, and to prevent the emergence of an Iranian dominated Damascus-Baghdad-Teheran axis, which would soon become a Islamic regional superpower that could, and probably would pose as much of a threat to the west as it would to Israel.
The higher the probability of the Iranian domestic balance of power being shifted in favor of the ultra-conservatives, the greater the likelihood of a war with Syria becomes.
Posted by Robert at February 9, 2004 12:37 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
So the mullahs recognize there is a greater threat to their theocratic regime with a Republican in the White House as opposed to a Democrat? Geez...I'm shocked. The whole world knows that a Democrat in the White House translates into a UN (French, Russian, Chinese) veto over USA national security. When November 2004 rolls around here is all one needs to ask oneself when going into the voting booth: Who would Osama vote for, Bush or Kerry? Oh, and remember those folk that spat on the returning vets from Vietnam in the late 1960's and early 1970's: Who are they voting for, Bush or Kerry?
Posted by: Mark at February 9, 2004 3:06 PMThe problem with moderate muslims is that they can turn radical in a blink of an eye,most of them usually do.
Remember the story of most of the 9/11 terrorists?!
Most of them used to be moderate muslims,they have spent many years in western european countries or in the US....one would think they were studying,they were trying to better themselves and to enlighten their mentality,by being exposaed to western values.
However,exactly the opposite occured...they turned from moderate muslim to radical ones and became deadly in the process.....
Any moderate muslim could and would do it given the right circomstances...
Haas any of you,though,heard of a radical msulim who turned moderate?!...ofcourse not!
New definition of Iran-Contra:
Iran sells arms to hostage-takers in Lebanon. Money diverted to the campaign of "moderate forces" in the US. Grand Ayatollah denies knowledge of contributions to Kerry campaign.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at February 9, 2004 3:58 PMPresident Bush has my vote. We will absolutely not be safe with a Democrat in office. They are foolhearty to think that they can reason with Islamic extremists.
That is one of life's foolish errands. Besides, Kerry was on television just last week stating that the way the war and foreign policy has been handled was arrogant. However, Senator Kerry has been quoted fully supporting the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Again, I will be voting for Bush to run America for another four years. Our lives depend on it. Kerry hasn't made any compelling reference with regard to his stance on our National Security, so I'll go with what I know.
D.C. Watson Ohio USA
is there any verifyable documentation of protesters spitting on returning vietnam vets? i would like to be pointed to either video,police reports,newspaper articles from the time,or interviews with people who can back up there alligations.
i dont want this to come off as a attack against the word of veterens or your comment but i just want to find some good info on this matter
thanks
Posted by: joseph at February 9, 2004 4:07 PMhave you guys watched "bowling for columbine" by michael moore? you guys are really paranoid man!
Posted by: onan the son of yehuda at February 9, 2004 4:42 PMNo one is ever more alert and ready than they are when they're paranoid. 9/11/2001 was very real, not a paranoid illusion.
D.C.
Why would Iran-Iraq-Syria would pose a threat to "the west"?! They like to help Palestinians but other than that those countries have nice relationship with the west except for USA because it doesn't help Palestinians. I agree with previous poster, you guys don't know the difference between bin laden and recycle bin.
Posted by: ABV at February 9, 2004 6:36 PMTo Joseph
I still smell the rancid spit from the anti war girl at Oaklands airport.
I will never forget it.
i find it hard to believe that the majority of spit on veteran stories are true being that a majority of the war protesters where protesting the govt and not the troops also alot of protesters where calling for bringing the troops home so they did not have to die in that country.
but i want actualy verifyable proof of spitting on soldiers welcoming parties i want to see footage of it happening or pictures just something to see that i actually happened and not potentially fake stories.
Posted by: joseph at February 9, 2004 9:41 PMThese "Peace" protesters are baffling. They'd rather criticize the U.S. than the oppressors. After the U.S. left Vietnam, the communists slaughtered 2.5 million people. Kerry supported withdrawing support from the south after we'd left. Have the leftists ever criticized the communists for the Vietnam slaughter? Does Michael Moore even know about it? The protesters would rather criticize the U.S. (for whatever reason they find convenient at the time) for going into Iraq (never mind that we liberated 30 million people) than they would the true oppressors in the middle east...Syria, Iran, Yasser Arafat (the definition of self-serving corruption) et al...Is there anyone on the left who is intellectually honest in their criticism? Very few that I'm aware of. The left's ignorance of history is staggering...
Posted by: John LeBlanc at February 9, 2004 11:39 PMMy vote goes to Bush.
He is the only one that somehow aknowledges where the danger comes from(Islam),and he is the only one ready to do something about it.
I would never vote for a tree-huging,weakling,democrat.
Joseph, I don't have footage, but I lived in San Francisco during the era and I can guarantee that the soldiers returning from Viet Nam were treated as criminals, not heroes. The left despised them, called them baby killers, refused them service and, yes indeed spit on them. They were heroes every bit as much as their fathers who fought in WWII but the communists were able to divide America on this issue and it is still divided. I cry every time I think about those boys and I am angry 50,000 of them died for nothing, because people like John Kerry waved the North Viet Nam flag and helped America to turn against them. Now he thinks he can win this election on his "war record"?
Posted by: Christina at February 10, 2004 12:42 AMIf you can't prove spit, you must acquit.
Posted by: Amas Abubu at February 10, 2004 1:27 AMIt's sad to see legitimate concern over human rights violations being morphed into a misguided partisan PR. I thought ignorance, anger, and loathing was somethign you were trying to criticize on this website, not bolster. Shame on you.
I live in Washington, DC. Watched the Pentagon smoke on 9/11. My dissertation work was studying post 9/11 multi-faith dialogues in the communities around the Pentagon. So, just to get this out of the way, don't think I'm unfamiliar with the very real security threats and genuine fears.
Actually, it is because of those security concerns that I very much will -not- vote for Bush. His foreign policy has been daft and reckless--chasing imagined threats and, in the process, ignoring some far more substantive ones.
Look, if you want a lucid discussion of terrorist threats with weapons of mass destruction--as one aspect of this--check out the recent issue of Foreign Affairs, where there's a great article by Graham Allison on the very real threat of nuclear terrorism, and the very significant failures of the Bush regime to target what matters, opting more for political spin than genuine steps to increase our security.
I live in DC, certainly one of the more likely targets for such a strike, and it's for that very reason that I *won't* be casting my vote for Bush.
p.s. Stop with the liberal bashing. The ugly fact is that neither political party or general ideological ilk has a great track record of foreign policy with serious priority placed on the link between corrupt regimes, human rights violations, and terrorism.
http://www.saag.org/papers10/paper917.html This is a very good inelligence letter, well researched on Nuclear Jihad. Americans better wake up to the Pakistani nuclear threat. I hope.
Posted by: Eric Mudai at February 10, 2004 3:28 AMWell then we won't be aquitting any radical Muslim trash that was involved in 9/11/01 now will we? since they admitted to these atrocities. I agree with John LeBlanc.....What the left fails to realize is...that if they whined and bitched in some of these countries they're so against us going into like they whine and bitch here....they'd have their tongue's cut out.
For that reason alone, they should take a less myopic world view, and appreciate the fact that the United States gives us freedoms that aren't available to us in the Middle East, and other parts of the world. It'd be a great event for the left to realize that sometimes war is necessary in order to protect our way of life.
We have a cancer here. That cancer is radical Islam, and it must be eliminated, by any means necessary. The left in my opinion, is not a group of stupid people, not by a longshot.
I just don't feel that their tendency to develop tunnel vision is giving them a broad enough perspective of what we need to protect ourselves from.
Posted by: D.C. Watson at February 10, 2004 8:32 AM
I know that I am voting for Bush. It just sounds wierd hearing "the terrorists want Kerry".
That would be a good Bush campaign rally.
I am glad that Saddam is finally in prison, but I wish George the first would have done it over a decade ago. I think George W. is a much better leader then his father.
Bush has to stay president for the sake of the US, and the world.
The liberals are such liars. They can't seem to come up with their platform on military intervention. They are like Clinton, oh just lob a couple of missiles over there that will stop them. They have no integrity and only worry about what they think is popular not what is right and just. Maybe 9/11 would never have happened if Clinton would have taken care of business.
the funny thing is if clinton had invaded iraq
the liberals and republicans would have chewed him up....
they sure did over kosovo
and to actually believe that "our" world is going to end if bush does not get re-elected is kinda foolish thinking.
Posted by: joseph at February 10, 2004 3:59 PMJohn Kerry: USA has "exaggerated the threat of terrorism". To me that is the defining issue between the current Democrats and liberals and George Bush. Regarding some of the comments here that there is "liberal-bashing", actually I find the issue is simple. The current Democratic candidates have stated clearly that the government "has exaggerated the threat of terrorism". For example, John Kerry clearly stated this on 1/29/04 during Presidential Debates. I heard him say this on television, and I invite those who dispute that to look at the transcript at the Washington Post at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html?nav=hptop_ts
If you believe that the US government and the President have exaggerated the threat of terrorism, then you will feel such stories are inappropriate. But I would ask you also, if you really believe that, why are you drawn to a Web Site such as "Jihad / Dhimmi Watch"? To me, that does not make any sense.
I would imagine you are here, because you are genuine concerned about the threat of terrorism, and do not feel that that threat has been "exaggerated" at all. If that's the case, how can you not comment on a political position that views terrorism is not such a big deal?
To the person in DC, I also live in DC. And I will vote for George Bush unlike you. The reason comes directly to this point. I view terrorism as a threat to my family here in DC and in NYC. I would agree with you that the current administration has been somewhat rough in foreign policy, but the truth is, in many cases, it had no other choice.
But how can anyone visiting this Web Site feel that terrorism is not a threat? And how could anyone who felt that terrorism was a serious threat support a Presidential candidate who thought it was not such a big deal?
By the way, I am a registered Democrat of 25 years, and most of my life, a liberal Democrat, and have been a liberal activist worker on the Jesse Jackson campaign among others.
But look - I am an American first. The safety of our nation and our families has to come first. And so it is a "fair" and important issue to be discussed here.
To say that the threat of terrorism is "exaggerated," is as ludicrous as saying that 9/11 only occurred in our imagination...
Posted by: John LeBlanc at February 10, 2004 11:35 PMHere's some an article citing those Joseph implies to be liars.
Oh my, no pictures. Must mean it never happened. Kind of like anything the CIA can't confirm isn't true -- until they confirm something, then they're liars, because they couldn't even keep us safe from 9/11, so we shouldn't trust them.
Posted by: Tom at February 12, 2004 12:52 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)