OT

Ronin:

What did you find out about the Crusader statue? I WANT ONE!

Posted by: CGW at March 16, 2006 7:55 AM

This is somewhat OT, but I wanted to post a really fascinating commentary I saw in the Jerusalem Post. It is by Amir Tahari, an analyst I respect, and discusses his views on the threat facing Israel from Iran. It is controversial, but eyeopening.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395605629&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by: Howard, Fine & Howard at March 16, 2006 8:19 AM

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently called Iran "the greatest challenge of any single country" facing America...

Oh boy! This is our big chance!

If we gave Iran control over our ports instead of the UAE -- then they could see that we are serious about wanting to be partners for PEACE!

Maybe if we hurry up and deal now, we'll get a better break than if we wait till later!

Hey, its only business!

I say these things in jest of course, but I have no doubt that some well placed free-traders are pondering the possibility right now.

Truly sad.

Posted by: witness at March 16, 2006 8:27 AM

Al-Hakim is the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

This statement says all anyone needs to know about whether Islam is a religion or an ideology, doesn't it? If the reader is paying attention, that is.

Posted by: Abscedere at March 16, 2006 8:31 AM

l cant believe how so many of you would believe anything Iran would say, and get taken in by the biased media, who btw hates the US and West in general.
also just because there both Iranian Shias and Iraq shias, does not mean they are in bed with control over Irag. The Kurds will play a very major role in
all of those.

Posted by: Lulu at March 16, 2006 8:33 AM

Lulu-- therein lies the problem-- define "Iraq." There's really nothing to hold it together (other than half-hearted platitudes) except for the Sunni Arab minority in the middle, desperate to hold onto the oil wealth in the north and south.

On the other hand, there is a very real and documented connection between the Shia of Iran and Iraq; Sistani himself has funneled money to Iran.

If the Iraqi Shiites throw in their lot with Iran in any formal, political sense, it would be the end of Iraq as we know it. The Kurds would seize that opportunity to declare independence (I imagine, if pressed, Iran would give up its Kurdish and Azeri regions to gain prime Shia real estate), and I don't think the "Sunni Triangle" would be a viable mini-state-- the Shia would certainly have designs on Baghdad.

It would be great for the Kurds, and awful for the Arabs and Turks. It would be temporarily great for the Shia, except for being more formal accomplices of the regime in Iran, and thus, more an object of military concern to not only the US, EU, and Israel, but also a Saudi Arabia that would be lying awake at night over a greater Shia republic.

Nowadays, that all seems entirely possible.

Posted by: Shinoliite at March 16, 2006 9:31 AM

"There's really nothing to hold it together (other than half-hearted platitudes)..."

Equally true of America's leaders in governing their own country.

I think we should strategically bail! Let Iraq and Iran go to hell; then next time go in with the idea that we are AT WAR and act like we are trying to win the damn thing instead of building a nation!

It can't happen since Congress no longer believes in its duty under the Constitution nor in the sovereignty of the United States.

Congress apparently feels that their just powers are derived, not from the governed, but from United Nations mandates and the so-called "Rule of Law" as interpreted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Brussels.

So my idea -- remains little more than a delusion.

I am afraid that we are trapped and our leaders have learned nothing from Vietnam.

Posted by: witness at March 16, 2006 9:54 AM

OT Ronin:

What did you find out about the Crusader statue? I WANT ONE!

Posted by: CGW

I left the home owner a business card and a brief note. I got no responce, he might have taken it as a joke or fiqured I was some type of nut. I will drive by there again this weekend maybe I will find someone home. If so I will let you know where he got it.

I'd bet Iran wanting to talk is a stall/misdirection tactic. It makes them appear to be "moderate" on Iraq while not giving in on the nuke. My answer would be:

Indentify target
Load sabot
On way

Posted by: Ronin at March 16, 2006 10:31 AM

I heard that the shia of Iraq have a grudge against the shia of Iran because the Iran-Iraq war. Is that true? And if so, is that much of a factor? Also, what about the ethnic arabs in Iran? They seem discontented to me. How likely would it be for these groups to cement into one big and happy Iranian shia superstate?

Posted by: JaimeZepeda at March 16, 2006 11:51 AM

If you think of things like softening oil prices beginning to manifest, ME stock markets in a complete meltdown, the failures of Iran to humiliate and oust the USA from Iraq, the recent reporting to the UNSC of Iran's nuclear program, the attention of the world on their bigot in cheif Ahmadinejad, and all the increasingly brash and eager discussions in America calling for the carpet bombing of Iran's clandestine nuclear programs...

Well... perhaps the arrogant Iranians are waking up from their daydeams -- perhaps the Mullahs flinched -- perhaps they're remembering how easily and quickly we toppled the local strongman in Iraq with our hands tied behind our backs...

Posted by: jsla at March 16, 2006 1:04 PM

Shinoliite, all the countries in the middle east are have been carved out over the centuries, by the British, etc,that is why Saddam wanted Kuwait. There is enough division in Iraq to block out Iran. we just need to stand back let them kill each other, pick up the pieces, and broker a deal for them.
cant give up now.. when they are killing each other in numbers we would not be allowed to do in the PC environment. what would Clinton have.. you cant put your head in the sand, they will keep coming.. we have to totally destroy them with democracy. they will be warring with each other till some sanity comes.

Posted by: Lulu at March 16, 2006 1:06 PM

I smell an Iranian Rat!

My suspicious nature must be at work again, because I don't believe a word of it. Didn't Ahmadinijad just proclaim "harm and pain" to the west not one week ago - and now his chief nuclear negotiator wants the US to sit down and talk with them? My middle-finger is sore from scratching my head.

Posted by: champ at March 16, 2006 1:42 PM

I heard that the shia of Iraq have a grudge against the shia of Iran because the Iran-Iraq war. Is that true? And if so, is that much of a factor? Also, what about the ethnic arabs in Iran? They seem discontented to me. How likely would it be for these groups to cement into one big and happy Iranian shia superstate? Posted by: JaimeZepeda

Iraq is fraught with tensions, not only sectarian, but racial, tribal and political.

Recommended reading:
The Iranians by Sandra Mackey
The Reckoning: The Legacy of Saddam Hussein, by Sandra Mackey (actually prophetic)
And "The Shi'is of Iraq" Yitzak Nakash (a scholarly dissertation, heavily footnoted, bibliographed and boring, but worth the time reading).

Saddam motivated the Arab Shi'a of Iraq by invoking their Arab identity against the Persians, he also bribed tribal leaders, and of course there was the Mukhabarat and his prisons. Still in all his army was unmotivated fighters, that's why the war drug on for 8 years.

Their is a historical antipathy between Persians and Arab, that has not gone away, especially on the part of the Persians. But Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs are trying like hell to stuff that antipathy (manifested in the Shi'a Sunni divide) on the back burner, appealing to a pan Islam sentiment, in which of course they see themselves as the leader supplanting the Sunni..especially the Wahhabi leadership (secular and sectarian).

The Sunni leadership is aware of the Shi'a motivations and under their breath, wish to (and I suspect work with) America to estop..Europe on the other hand is dependent on Persian oil and Persian trade-- Germany and France have factories in Iran and are trading partners.. Most of Europe exports to Iran and the mid east, as well as Pakistan.. Muslim countries are insatiable and valuable markets for these corporations and entrepreneurs.

The mass graves of al Hilah and Babylon are full of Shi'a bodies, put there by Sunni triggers and gravediggers.

The Sunni's have run Iraq since the Arabs conquered it, and the Shi'a have always been exploited second class citizens. Worse under Saddam, as his power was based not only on Sunni's but on his Tikriti tribe and it's allies which constitued the backbone of the Mukhabarat, Republican Guard and Army Command.

The Sunni Tribes owe the Shi'a tribes a huge blood debt, and in Arab/Islam blood debts MUST be repaid, either in compensation or in blood.
They also owe the Kurds a blood debt.. and this blood debt and loss of Sunni power is the prime reason for the "resistance" and bloodshed. The only "resistance" in Kurd Iraq is from Arab Terrorists.

Then there are tribal issues, clans, loyalties, competition and even inter tribal blood debts, nto to mention that each Shaykh or Tribal leader is jockeying for position and his piece of the pie.

SCIRI (Ayatollah's al Sistani, Al Hakim and Prime Minister Ja'afri) are Persian Shi'a and Iranian backed and supported.

The spoiler is Moqtada al Sadr, who pretends to be a Mullah (and whom the Iranian Mullahs scoff). His claim to fame is his father and uncle and grandfather all of whom were noted Ayatollahs, and members of secret societes (first against the British, then against Saddam), his father and uncle were assassinated by Saddam.

He gains Shi'a respect because of his black Turban and his "religious inheritance from his family.

Black turban means he is a descendant of Muhammad (of which there are millions who make that claim, so common that the Title Sayyid once bestowed has become a saluation equivalent to Mister) In an interview I recorded on Arab TV, Al Sadr was called Shaykh, but a Shaykh he is not.

Al Sadr is an Arab, not a Persian, and he uses his Mehdi Army as an instrument to power and to get a place at the table in the government.

He is dancing a tight rope, trying to position himself as a leader with Hezbollah and the Sunni insurgency. He refuses to admit that there is a civil war (but everyone involved does including our Administration).. He, like all of the Muslims and Arabs, blame the violence on the "occupation", which is one more reason to leave.. when parties are fighting and killing each other the outsider who tries to restore order and stop the fighting is accused of being responsible for the fighting in the mind of the Muslim.

It's a no win situation.

I just heard that the U.S. is sending in 700 more troops from Kuwait, and plan to keep a couple of military bases after we leave, if we ever do.

The military bases are necessary, but the Pentagon , if they were smart, would locate them out in the desert with a clear view till the earth's curvature and keep all Muslims of every stripe outside the perimeter, but like Viet Nam they will foolishly hire locals to do the menial work (the tail in the tooth to tail), and to "win friends" (impossible with Muslims) by bolstering the economy.

Posted by: Nariz at March 16, 2006 2:00 PM

Thanks for the background, Nariz.

I came across this ethnic/religious map of Iran-- sheds some light on the ethnic rivalries and religious alliances:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iran_ethnoreligious_distribution_2004.jpg

I'd also be interested to find out what impact lingering resentments have between Shia in Iran and Iraq, but-- getting back to Lulu's comment-- it seems more common there to identify oneself with religion over and above nationality.

That, combined with the actual situation on the ground, with Sistani's contacts in Iran, and Iranian military meddling (both confirmed and suspected), makes me believe divisions in Iraq-- particularly the Shia bloc against the rest of the place-- would benefit, rather than hamper Iran.

Posted by: Shinoliite at March 16, 2006 5:07 PM

Lulu,

Only some of the Arab countries of the Middle East were "carved out" (or created) by the British. Iran, Turkey, Yemen, Oman and Egypt all have had their natural borders and nationalities even though at times wars changed that.

As for the Iraqi-Irani Shias dispute, the only dispute came during the height of Arab nationalism, Nasser and Baathists; which has died out now. In essense, teh shia parts of Iraq always relied on Iran to survive. The business that Iranian pilgrims brought to Iraq over centuries, the mosques and shrines that were all built by Iranians, and the clerics who mostly come from Iran or have studied in Iranian seminaries.

Historic ties between Iran and Iraqi shias are strong, and will only become stronger as Iraq is relying more and more on Iran for their business, industries and tourism.

The Kurdish areas also have strong relations with Iran, as both kurdish groups were long supported by Iran against Saddam. If an independent Kurdistan is formed in Northern Iraq, it will be a US ally at least in the short term. That sounds like a good plan for the US administration, although in that case they would risk losing the whole southern part of Iraq to Iran.

Posted by: SeenathePersian at March 16, 2006 5:53 PM

RE: Their is a historical antipathy between Persians and Arab, that has not gone away, especially on the part of the Persians.

Very true Nariz, as many forget that Iranians are Persians and not Arabs, but unfortunately, they are ruled by the Mad Islamic Mullahs.

There are demonstrations every week of the people versus the Mad Mullahs and many dissidents are publically hanged > why doesn't the UN and the MSM focus on these atrocities.

Posted by: learjet0450 at March 16, 2006 9:14 PM

Nariz, and others:

Thank you for educating me on the complexities of this extremely important topic. That is what I really appreciate about this site: the high level of intellect and knowledge (not mine; I just like to give my old two cents worth now and again) that make following Jihadwatch an important and worthwhile activity.

Posted by: JaimeZepeda at March 16, 2006 9:27 PM

Iran wants to talk -

Sounds like a cloak-and-dagger move by Iran. They only want to appear open for discussion, and then they'll reveal their true intentions.

Posted by: champ at March 17, 2006 1:54 PM