Iran's Azeri minority are Islamophobic.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at May 23, 2006 6:44 PM

Like I remarked in another thread, hope this escalates. That way, 75% of Iran's population gets caught up in this.

Given that we aren't likely to get Turkish co-operation, let alone support, for an attack on Iran, does this mean that we can count on Azerbaijan instead? Or does Moscow get to step in and say, "Nyet"?

Marisol/Hugh

I know that within Islam, Arab is considered the superior race due to Mohammed being an Arab, but how does that project on to the Farsis? All of the great Imams, even the Mahdi, were Arabs, afaik - or am I mistaken?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 23, 2006 6:56 PM

Infidel Pride-- internalization of the oppressor; when the enslaved becomes the master, he's as brutal, or more. (Or, as one of my better profs in college put it: "S*** rolls downhill.")

Seems like the Persian Iranians see themselves as the last word in Shia Islam; they have the clerics, they have the government, and they'd like to believe the Azeris-- Shia fraternity not withstanding-- will put up and shut up.

Posted by: Shinoliite at May 23, 2006 7:06 PM

Just let them fight amongst themselves...

Posted by: payingattention at May 23, 2006 7:14 PM

Seems like the Persian Iranians see themselves as the last word in Shia Islam; they have the clerics, they have the government, and they'd like to believe the Azeris-- Shia fraternity not withstanding-- will put up and shut up. Posted by: Shinoliite

I know this - Punjabi Muslims dominate Sindis, Pathans and Baluchis in Pakistan, Malay dominate all Malaysia, including Muslim converts from Tamils and Chinese, Pashtun dominate Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeg in Afghanistan, et al. I believe that this is simply a case of the pluralities or majority factions flexing their numerical muscle - much like the Shia in Iraq are doing with their new "democracy", rather than a projection of Arab supremacy onto Farsis.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 23, 2006 7:14 PM

I'll take cockroaches over Mahmoud and the mad mullahs anyday.

All they do is steal a few crumbs in the dark, while these theocratic maniacs threaten to incinerate nations with the pilfered light of a thousand suns.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 23, 2006 8:54 PM

"pilfered light of a thousand suns."
profitsbeard, my compliments on that sentence. This made my day. I seek relief from our grim reality in poetry, and this sentence, though a single one, is very eloquent.Tx.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 24, 2006 7:45 AM

I doubt anything will come out of this. The Azeris are pretty well represented in the Iranian elite and have been pretty well assimilated into Persian culture. Khameini himself is an Azeri. The Azeris in Azerbaijan are also very different from the ones in Iran. The ones from Azerbaijan tend to be more secular by comparison to their Iranian co-ethnics. This cartoon controversy suggests that there might be trouble in paradise but I think it's wishful thinking to infer that secssion may happen in the future. It is neither in the interest of Azeris nor the Persians, hence the damage control being done by the Iranian government. The Azeris would lose their status only to join a failed state whereas the Persians would lose an ally (the most important and most populous minority in Iran) which would lead to destabilizing their government. The Azeris may face some discrimination or racism but I think it's quite a leap to suggest that they are "oppressed". Although Islam does encourage tribalism (of the ethnic and religious sort), I think this tension is result of Persian arrogance rather than the teachings of Islam. The Persians are not like the Arabs and it is difficult to find a theological justification for their "supremacy".

Let me add that I am not a big fan of Azeri self-determination because that will lead to a stronger Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan will then be able to position itself more effectively as a "little Turkey" and turn American policy against another Christian nation, Armenia. Azeris deny the Armenian genocides, so they should not be encouraged by America, nor should they be supported. The last thing we need is another greasy Turkey.

Posted by: igor at May 24, 2006 9:59 AM

"I am not a big fan of Azeri self-determination because that will lead to a stronger Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan will then be able to position itself more effectively as a "little Turkey" and turn American policy against another Christian nation, Armenia. Azeris deny the Armenian genocides, so they should not be encouraged by America, nor should they be supported. The last thing we need is another greasy Turkey."
-- from a posting above

Would this "Azeri self-determination" suddenly produce a viable state, after a few months or possibly a year of intermittent fighting? Of course not. Nor would any Azeri enclave necessarily become part of an enlarged Azerbaijan. Isn't it more likely that Azeri resentment, if properly fanned, and with the encouragement provided by an independnent Kurdistan (not Iraq the Model, but rather Kurdistan the Model, which is not what Bush had in mind), will lead to a long, draining campaign, on-again-off-again attacks on Iranian forces, greater repression by the army and basiji, over several years diverting and draining men and materiel from the Islamic Republic of Iran? The longer the ethnically-based local revolts, and the greater the effort required to suppress them (and the Iranians cannot afford to lose Khuzistan to the local Arabs), the better for Infidels.

Why do you assume that the Azeris in Azerbaijan who, thanks to 70 years of Soviet rule, are not nearly as observant as the Azeris in Azerbaijan, would wish to incorporate the Azeri-populated lands to the south? And even if they did, why would this cause the United States to "turn away" from Armenia? The United States has been remarkably indifferent to the fate of Armenia, remarkably ungenerous (it apparently feels it has to be the sole support of the permanently hostile "Palestinians," as well as of Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, and does not have money to support either Armenia or Georgia, Christian enclaves that suffered over centuries from Muslim attacks, and suffering today from being surrounded by Muslim states. Fostering, or at least doing nothing to discourage, every conceivable division among Muslim states and among Muslim groups within those states, is unlikely to damage the interests of Christian states nearby. They can only benefit from such divisions.

That Americans should be encouraged to support Armenia is certainly true. But that support will not diminish if Azeris in Iran were to start campaigning for autonomy, or even independence. Anything that weakens circumambient Muslim states and peoples will help Armenia, Georgia, and the Christian ethnic groups in the Caucasus.

Posted by: Hugh at May 24, 2006 11:40 AM

You're right Hugh, I didn't really think of "Azeri self-determination" in those terms and your predictions seems plausible. If the Azeris did revolt (save the Azeri-Iranian loyalists who are part of the elite inner circle), it could prove to be a very long guerilla war. And also, how many Azeri scientists would quit working for Iran's nuclear project out of loyalty for the Azeri nation? And let's not forget, the Azeri nation is not in Azerbaijan (7 million), but in Iran (16 million).

Some of the Azeri dominated provinces that are in close proximity to Azerbaijan have hinted that they would like to join, and the Persians have been discouraging this for a while. I said in another post that it is not reflective of the Iranian Azeris as a whole. Things could change if we see some sort of hyper Azeri national consciousness in Iran but I think that is unlikely.

Let's say it did happen though and that Azeri-Iran (parts or most of it) did join Azerbaijan, the Azeris being Muslims would think that they helped America instead of acting out on their own ethnic interests and that America "owed" them for destabilizing Iran. Azerbaijan is very pro-Turkey and anti-Armenia. They would fashion themselves as Turkey 2.0, "secular", "moderate" (that secularism being a result of Soviet hegemony rather than a homegrown Kemalist program and that moderation a result of ignorance and a diluted Islam due to the lack of Arab/Persian contact), and "pro-West" (only insofar as the West agrees with Azeribaijani interests). Just like how America thinks that they must put the Palestinians on welfare for the rest of their existence, they would also think they would need to demonstrate "more fairness" towards the Azeri vis-a-vis the Armenians. It's true, America has ignored Armenia but the combination of Azeri and Turkish bellyaching, instead of being indifferent, they may end up treating Armenia almost as bad as Serbia (in a political sense). Despite the sad history of both countries, they are Christian and "offensive" to the "moderate" Muslim countries, therefore they are expendable.

I'm glad you brought up Georgia. It needs to be kept afloat despite its corruption. But the only thing America can do is offer monetary support. Georgia should be left to the Russians. Afterall, they certainly wouldn't want the Chechens to fill in that void if Georgia ever collapses.

I agree that a weakened Iran would help Armenia and Georgia in the long run. But it's quite a gamble. If the Azeris become the new Turks and new Kurds (i.e. the only grateful Muslims), that could bode badly for the Armenians in the political scene. It would be a disgrace to abandon a Christian ally in order to satisfy the delicate feelings of our "moderate" Muslim "allies". That is why I'm skeptical of supporting the Azeris, in any capacity.

Posted by: igor at May 24, 2006 1:16 PM

"A frequent component of da'wa sales pitches is the notion of Islam as an egalitarian religion, where ethnic differences do not matter. Tell that to the mullah-controlled press in Iran, which, of course, cannot really afford to make any more enemies at the moment, particularly within its own borders."

absurd. since when are the actions of Muslim governments evidence for Islam? Which Christians when promoting his or her religion points to the actions of Bush and Blair or other Christian presidents? The comment doesnt even make sense in this context since the Iranian govt has closed the paper. Oh wait it's state run - as if every single thing written in a state run newspaper is checked by Ayatollah Khamenine and Ahmedijad himself before publication!!

"But in a projection of the Arab-supremacist mentality that pervades Islam-- particularly Sunni Islam-- apparently the Azeris, by not being Persian, are second-class Shia as well."

OK so Islam is Arab supremicist - which is why the Azeris are being treated bad for not being Persian - nothing illogical in that comment. In fact this attidtude has to do with Perisan nationalism - promoted by the anti-Islam Shah - the Iranians who are the biggest persian nationalists are invaraibly the most anti-islam

Posted by: truth speaker at May 29, 2006 10:17 AM