Ahmadinejad - a gnat on the butt of a buffalo?

In the wake of all the media fuferah over the Iranian president's visit to the UN, plus the now infamous Columbia University speech, the two burning questions on my mind is why the heck are we paying so much attention to this gum flapping weasel??

First of all, Ahmadinejad's power in Iran is a somewhat limited role. He is still merely the puppet of the Ayatollah Khamenei - perhaps tandamount in import to a gnat on the butt of a buffalo. And for one of those rare instances, I am in concurrence with the NY Times article by Michael Slackman, pointing out the chain of command and nuances of power that exist in Iran. Why the heck do we bother giving him so much press?

Unlike in the United States, in Iran the president is not the head of state nor the commander in chief. That status is held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, whose role combines civil and religious authority. At the moment, this president’s power comes from two sources, they say: the unqualified support of the supreme leader, and the international condemnation he manages to generate when he speaks up.

“The United States pays too much attention to Ahmadinejad,” said an Iranian political scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “He is not that consequential.”

snip

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s power stems not from his office per se, but from the refusal of his patron, Ayatollah Khamenei, and some hard-line leaders, to move beyond Iran’s revolutionary identity, which makes full relations with the West impossible. There are plenty of conservatives and hard-liners who take a more pragmatic view, wanting to retain “revolutionary values” while integrating Iran with the world, at least economically. But they are not driving the agenda these days, and while that could change, it will not be the president who makes that call.

“Iran has never been interested in reaching an accommodation with the United States,” the Iranian political scientist said. “It cannot reach an accommodation as long as it retains the current structure.”

As for the whys on the misplaced notoriety and headlines, I guess we'd have to ask those geniuses in the media who pick the stories, then... all of them simultaneously... slamming them down or throats 24/7. sigh...

INRE the fervor over the Columbia U invitation to speak. I stood with the opinion that it was in poor taste to give this man a platform, however it was within their rights to do so... but not without repercussions. It was also notable that the same university uninvites Gilchist of the Minutemen, and bans the ROTC from the campus... but free speech again raises it's value for the foreign Iranian president.

Obviously this is not a place I'd want my kid to attend.... talk about inconsistent and misplaced educational values.

But that aside, they did it. And I suppose to redeem his poor decision to the world, Lee Bollinger introduced Ahmadinejad with a lengthy tirade and critique.

Now I'm no fan of the Iranian weasel, but this behavior still bothered me. It was like extending a dinner invitation under the guise of friendship and open conversation, only to find out you're the main course for cannibals. Poor behavior for the host country.

And this same attitude was seized upon by the Iranian press.

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranians on Tuesday called the combative introduction of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by the head of Columbia University "shameful" and said the harsh words only added to their image of the United States as a bully.

In a region where the tradition of hospitality outweighs personal opinions about people, many in Iran and elsewhere thought Columbia University president Lee Bollinger's aggressive tone - including telling Ahmadinejad that he exhibited the signs of a "petty and cruel dictator" - was over the top.

Nice goin', Columbia U. Altho many erroneously believe that the US was beloved by the int'l community until Bush took the oath of office, it just goes to show that just about anything the west does hinders it's reputation with Islamic countries run by despots. Once the invite was extended, Columbia was damned if it reneged, or damned if it went thru. In the future, they should confine themselves to education and stop dabbling in foreign diplomacy. Because they sure didn't do the US any good....

As the the value of the man speaking anyway.... well, the logic escapes me. Bizarre that after so many campaign promises and "words" by politicians, we still havn't learned that words mean nothing, deeds mean everything. So whatever Ahmadinejad said, or did not say, at Columbia U or the UN means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things. One need only see the failure to implement of his own campaign promises in Iran.

Of course, we can compare the same words vs deeds test to our own politicians. And speaking of America's disconnected elite, Congress decided to show a rare moment of "getting along" by a bipartisan vote to tighten Iranian sanctions and designate Ahmadinejad and Khamenei's army a terrorist group. Vote in the House? 397 to 16.

Now wonder who those 16 were.... any guesses?

Iran & British sailors - why taken, and why released

Probably one of the best analyses of the hows, whys and ending of the Iran/British hostage scene comes from Iranian commentator/author, Amir Taheri in his article today in the UK Times, Here’s a way to deal with the scorpion.

Contrast Taheri's perspective, founded on familiarity with his Iranian historic culture, with Kenneth Timmerman's ideas in his FrontPage Mag article "Why Iran Released the Hostages." Timmerman places more emphasis on British economic pull out of a trade show in Tehran, and the fact that the USS Nimitz was steadily steaming towards the Persian Gulf to add it's strength to the existing warships already present. Granted, there is logic to this. But it is western logic. I don't believe we can assume Iranian strategy follows the path of our western logic.

Frankly, Taheri's explanation of Iran's behavior makes far more sense than the speculation of the sundry talking heads playing the "why" game in the hostage release aftermath.

Taheri cites early Islamic conqueror history to explain mullah strategy of warfare.

The seizure of hostages is based on an ancient tradition first practised by early Islamic conquerors. The Arab general Saad Abi Waqqas realised that Muslim fighters were awestruck by the Byzantine soldiers in the early stages of Islamic conquests in the 7th century. He solved the problem by putting captured Byzantine soldiers on show to demonstrate that the “Infidel” were fragile men, not mythical giants.

Why the Brits? Because of the recent change in the rules of engagement by Bush, and the limitations of the British rules of engagement. Bush, with the new revitalized surge, told our guys to engage when provoked. Britain prohibits engaging the Iranians, even in self-defense. Woof...

The mullahs remembered the Abi Waqqas stratagem last summer amid growing rumours of an impending US attack on the Khomeinist regime. Their first aim was to capture some Americans. Last September, they set a trap for a platoon of GIs from the 101st Airborne Division patrolling the Iraqi border with Iran. The Americans had been led into the trap but after an intense shooting match with the Iranian force sent to capture them, they managed to flee to safety.

President Bush’s decision to change the rules of engagement for US forces in Iraq with the new “surge” strategy, allowing Americans to kill or capture any Iranian perceived as a threat, made it more difficult for the mullahs to do an Abi Waqqas. As a result, the British, whose rules of engagement prevent them from fighting Iranians even in self-defence, were chosen as the softer target.

Well there's a valuable lesson. The ability to fight back deters the attackers. Go no... (yes - that's sarcasm)

Taheri labels Iran vs West as a low intensity war waged for over three decades now. And thruout that time, the West remains passive in response. Also, with criticism high on preemptive military action in the wake of Iraq, Iran knows full well that the int'l community would not sanction aggression against Iran. They did not need to take hostages to prove that Britain or it's ally, the US, would avoid military response. So why did they?

Taheri cites some reasons the western media doesn't even think of. In the shadow of increased UN sanctions, Ahmadinejad proved he was easily capable of raising tensions a few notches at will. And while the world was focused on the hostage crisis, he used that time to do some quiet, internal purges of some prominent "dissidents", trying them for "damaging state security".

So what to do about Iran? Taheri has suggestions there as well... a taste of their own medicine.

The debate on what to do about the mullahs hits a deadend because it is limited to two options: regime change or surrender. Those who blame the West for the world’s evils urge surrender, in atonement of sins supposedly committed against Iran over centuries. They hope that once the mullahs are given everything, they would start behaving reasonably. This argument ignores the fact that the Khomeinist regime’s political DNA would not allow it to act reasonably. A scorpion does not sting because it wants to misbehave but because it is programmed to do so.

snip

The alternative, however, is not one of surrender or regime change. The Western democracies could give the Islamic republic a taste of its own medicine — and engage it in the kind of low-intensity warfare that Iran itself indulges in. The mischief must not be cost-free. It would be resisted though diplomatic and economic means as well as through support for the democratic and reformist forces inside Iran. Throughout history, adversaries end up by adopting aspects of each other’s strategy.

His final paragraph is the ovation getter tho.

The Islamic Republic wants a Khomeinist Middle East. The “Infidel” want a democratic, pro-West Middle East. The two visions are incompatible. Eventually, one must win as the other loses. As the British celebrate the return of their hostages they would do well to decide which vision deserves support.

Wise words indeed. But will they be heeded?

AP recounts ties between Iran & Iraq militia

Today's AP article, Shiite Militia May Be Disintegrating by HAMZA HENDAWI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA is filled with accounts of Iran-Iraq ties, told by various Mahdi Army commanders and Iranian dissident groups.

Among the topics: Sadr unable to reenter Iraq because of US check points; offers of stipend to breakaway militia members; funding, arming and training by Iranian Quds; masquerading under cover as a relief agency.... lots to read here.

Nothing that, in reality surprises me. However this may come as a big surprise to the ISG authors who believe Iran does not benefit from chaos in Iraq, and the fools in Congress who believe we can deal with terrorists by diplomatic talk. .

"No evidence" Iran is arming Iraq

Can the left hand ever speak to the right hand in this country?? Jeeezzz...


Here's an AP article today... "US General: No evidence Iran is arming Iraqis - Pace contradicts claims by other U.S. military, administration officials" Gen. Pace says that they are finding materials manufactured in Iran in the weaponry used in Iraq.

“That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this,” Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. “What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers.”

His remarks might raise questions on the credibility of the claims of high-level Iranian involvement, especially following the faulty U.S. intelligence that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

If one believes Debka, Iran has been playing in Iraq as far back as August 2004... Read the line up of Debka reports in the link, and ask any sane person upon completion... is Iran (as well as Syria) heavily involved in defeating not only American coalition troops, but the elected Iraqi gov't as well? Does that include not only training and providing fighters, but also providing weaponry?

I guess we'll have to wait for a bomb package, tidily wrapped up with a pink bow, addressed to al Qaeda or Sunni Ba'athists, 123 Main Street, Baghdad, Iraq in order to believe. Heaven forbid we admit the obvious.

UPDATE FEB 15th, 2007 - Press not so skeptical anymore?

Elite Iranian Corps Enmersed in Iraq

Iran likely does not want a direct confrontation with American troops in Iraq but is backing militiamen to ensure Shiites win any future civil war with Iraqi Sunnis after the Americans leave, several experts said Thursday.

The Quds Force's role underlines how deeply enmeshed Iran is in its neighbor -- and how the U.S. could face resistance even from its allies in Iraq if it tries to uproot Iran's influence in the country.

snip

The chief U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, said Iranian and Iraqi detainees in U.S. custody said in interrogations that "the Quds Force provides support to extremist groups here in Iraq both in the forms of money and in weaponry."

U.S. forces detained six Iranians in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil in January, one of whom military officials say is the Quds Forces' operational commander in Iraq, Mohsin Chizari.

"All of these efforts in which we have picked up these Quds Force officers are part of these efforts in which to disrupt these supply networks," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday at a Pentagon briefing.

U.S. military officials have said the Quds Force is supplying "rogue elements" of the Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia led by an anti-American cleric.

But the Quds Force's help appears to go beyond militiamen attacking U.S. troops. It supplies training and some weapons to the Badr Brigade -- a militia linked to Iraq's biggest Shiite political party -- and smaller Shiite factions in the south, an official with a Shiite political party in Iraq who has close knowledge of militia activity told The Associated Press. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

snip

In addition to supplying weapons to Iraqi militias, the Quds Force has been recruiting Iraqi Shiites, giving them up to $150 a month and sending some to Iran for training, the Shiite political party official told the AP.

Caldwell acknowledged that detainees had said, under interrogation, that Quds operatives were supplying weapons to factions in the U.S.-backed Iraqi government. He said U.S. officials had asked political parties and government officials about the material.

Yeah... that's right... "no evidence".

So why are the naesayers working so hard to deny the obvious? They are absolutely terrified that the admin is "making a case" for military action against Iran.

Consider the AP headline today, "Pelosi: Bush lacks power to invade Iran".

'scuse me, but who the heck in the WH administration has ever suggested invading Iran? Isn't this akin to screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre for no reason??

This is nothing but pure speculation and political guessing games with one goal in mind... to further enflame an already war-weary public. Which is a *very* interesting concept since, other than military families, the US "public" hasn't had to suffer or ration one thing out of our selfish little lives for the war effort.

These "no war with Iran" BS headlines and talking points from our Congressional members is a serious departure from truth, honesty and ethics. Ranting about avenues not even proposed merely for politican gain *should* be beneath our elected officials.

I have a difference thought as to why we are be advised to Iran's deep involvement here... aside from the "we just have to know everything" media attitudes permeating our times. Instead I believe the more Iran can be linked to Iraqi chaos, the better the chance to involve more of the hard-headed int'l community sluff-off's. It is one more case against Iran for the UN (worthless entity that they are) to consider. It's also another reason to continue our strong economic clampdown on those trading with Iran... which is working better than the Iranians like. It's part of the reason the country and clerics are getting disgruntled with the Iranian Presidential rhetorical antics, and asking him to tone it down.


Then again, despite Iran's efforts to muddy the Iraqi waters, the int'l community will continue to give them a pass. Afterall, they have always proven to be long on criticism, and way short on performance and honoring promises.

Al Sadr bolts to Iran

While members of the U.S. House of Representatives take turns weighing in on President Bush's planned troop surge in Iraq, the focus in Iraq is not on the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country's most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army.

According to senior military officials, al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

Al Sadr commands the Mahdi army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house."

Sources say some of the Mahdi army leadership went with al Sadr.

snip - continue reading at link above

Ah yes... bomb the house, and the cockroaches head for the neighbors' houses. Thus why I call tracking and hunting terrorists "the cockroach theory".

It is also a good reason to keep the pressure on other Middle East countries to climb aboard the WOT intel wagon. Oops... uh oh. We have to make sure they aren't ruled by terrorist regimes to do that. What a concept. Spread democracy and instigate regime change, trading despots for elected governments. All part of our own self-defense. Now where have I heard that before?


UPDATE 2-18-2007

Iran officials claim he ain't here!, and use the report of Al Sadr's notable absence from Iraq to accuse US military officials of stating such as "...part of the US psychological warfare against Iran...".

Referring to the US propaganda against Iran, he said, "US officials first announced that al-Sadr had escaped from Iraq then they said he had the intention of travelling to Iran but Tehran did not grant him visa.

Oh right... *no one* gets in or out of Iran without a visa.... Who the heck are they kidding?

What may be a more accurate report is Al Sadr is likely in Iran, but the country's head honchos either don't know where, and probably wouldn't tell us if they did.