Tag Archives: iran

Dec 30 2011

Iran and America play chicken in the Persian Gulf

According to a high-ranking Russian naval official, the combat potential of a US naval group that has entered the Strait of  Hormuz is more powerful than the Iranian Navy and coastal forces in the region. “The Iranian Navy’s combat resources are incomparable with the potential of the US aircraft carrier group that has entered the Strait of Hormuz and are incapable of opposing it” Deputy Navy Commander Adm. Ivan Kapitanets told Interfax on Thursday.

The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and escort ships have entered the area of an Iranian naval exercise east of the Strait of Hormuz.

Captain of a US vessel in the Persian Gulf who wanted to remain anonymous has said that in the event of war, US naval forces would “smash” the Iranian coastal installations within hours. “The Iranian Navy is coastal and can only protect the country’s interests in the coastal waters but in open waters they are no match for us”.

The Russian naval commander agrees with the US statement that “there can be no comparison between the fire power of America and Iran given Iran’s limited offensive military hardware.”

While painting a different picture, Seyyed Mahmoud Musavi, the Iranian Navy’s deputy commander for operations, said that the Iranian Navy was ready to confront foreign naval groups in a real war scenario, while the Iranian Navy held maneuvers in the Persian Gulf.

Despite the tense situation and strong rhetoric on both sides, Kapitanets believes that it is in neither countries strategic interest to go to war and will therefore show restraint.

“The US’s actions are certainly provocative, but the matter is unlikely to go as far as direct military confrontation,” he said. “Certainly, the situation in the region is very complicated, but it is unlikely to grow into military action.” The Iranians say the exercises are within the norms of international law and should be respected. “We are ready to confront the violators who disregard the security perimeters set for the drills in line with international law,” said Musavi.

Dec 1 2011

Britain and Iran face-off as diplomatic ties reach a new low

As the clock ticks, Iran now has less than 24 hours to evacuate its diplomatic staff from London. The British – Iranian tumultuous relationship has hit a new low in light of the Wests crippling sanctions aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

But beyond this latest diplomatic stand-off one must understand that from a domestic point of view the theocracy in Iran is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The regime knows full-well that the slightest behavior change and a move towards rapprochement with the West will weaken its legitimacy from within specifically because of its 32 years anti-Western rhetoric. Those hardliners who for over 3 decades have towed this line, will inevitably put themselves at great risk of prosecution in the court of public opinion in Iran if they shift from this position. Behavior change in their view is political suicide as it will inevitably lead to regime change and regime sympathizers such as the Supreme leader will not accept this political discourse.

So, now realizing that the regime in Tehran is incapacitated to change because of its innate nature and therefore unwilling to budge, is the West ready to push for regime change by supporting the people of Iran who are ready to start a new chapter of better relationships between their country and the West. It’s time for a new beginning.

Nov 30 2011

Iranian revolutionaries storm foreign Embassy in Tehran, AGAIN

History once again repeats itself but this time instead of the arch nemesis being America, it was the English whose Embassy was attacked and taken over by a group of radicals in Tehran, Iran sometime yesterday.

While 1979 is still fresh in my mind, as a political commentator and observer of history I couldn’t stop wondering, why the British Embassy, why now, and who were these people that instigated such an undiplomatic act that is nothing short of a declaration of war given that an embassy, according to codes of international relations, is considered part of a guest nations sovereign territory on a host nations soil.

There are two ways to look at this turn of event, one is from the Islamic regimes point of view that wanted to send a clear message to the West that the days of dictating its will on Iran are over and that with the backing of Russia and China as key allies (alternative trade partners) Iran is able to stand its ground and maintain its independence.  In which case this act, as undiplomatic and senseless as it was, intended to send a retaliatory response to the latest round of hard sanctions imposed by the West on Iran.

And the second point of view is that of a power struggle between the more prominent international actors over Iran, namely Russia, England and the United States.  In other words, one has to wonder whether the Embassy attack had Russians fingerprints all over it who encouraged this move as a preemptive strike to force the British out of Iran, or maybe it was the Americans who wanted to get back at the British for their role in the 1979 US hostage takeover, or could there have been other international state actors or non even none state actors in the mix who wanted to create a rift between Iran and England.

Time will tell but I can say this with relative certainty, things don’t look good in Iran and it’s not about to get any better and the Islamic regime is starting to feel the international pressure.

 

Nov 6 2011

Let’s play cowboys and Iranians

For 30 years a restaurant in Texas has had a picture of  a dead man with a beard hanging from a tree surrounded by what appears to be a lynch mob with guns, on its wall.  The caption at the bottom of this horrifying image reads “Lets play cowboys and Iranians”.

Now if anyone knows American history they will tell you that white Americans have not exactly been the nicest of people to other races since the country’s inception in 1776.   The indigenous population of America were gunned down by the thousands and removed from their lands, Chinese Americans were forced to work on railways and in mines, African Americans going back to the days of slavery picking cotton from the fields, and even Japanese Americans who had nothing to do with World War 2 where quarantined on farms in suspicion of  being spies or sleeper cells.

And so, while there are many examples of crimes against humanity that white Americans have committed over the centuries and have tried hard to make up for, I don’t think this picture falls into that category, and here is why.

In my view this image and its message is less about hate for Iranians as much as it is  a reaction on the part of an American citizen who has been demonized by a foreign country.  Now why is that?

Well, since the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran and the coming to power of a fanatical group of mullahs and leftists who saw Western liberal democratic values as a threat, America has become a target of wrath.  During the past 32 years the regime in Tehran has called for the destruction of America, has held American diplomats hostage, has bombed American interest around the world through its terror network, and has shown its hate and resentment towards America by symbolically burning the country’s flag and chanting “death to America” at every anti Western rally orchestrated by the state and at every Friday prayer.   And so it is only natural for any patriotic American to feel devastated and angry by the irrational behavior of a country that has set its goal on the destruction of everything America stands for.

Having said that to my fellow Iranians, which includes Iranian Americans, who are raising awareness of this picture on social media I would say,  if we really want to bring this picture down from the walls of this restaurant all that is necessary is  to focus our energy on bring about a regime in Iran that makes us proud and does not damage our good name in America or in any other country around the world.  I don’t think the American is at fault here.
Get political and get moving.

Nov 4 2011

US Congressional committee okays sweeping new sanctions on Iran

Amid growing tensions in the Middle East, including speculation about a possible Israeli attack on Iran, a key US Congressional committee passed  two bills last Wednesday that would impose sweeping new economic and diplomatic sanctions on Tehran.

The legislation, which includes sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank and strict curbs on official diplomatic contacts between Washington and Tehran, was approved unanimously by voice vote of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives.

Without a doubt, such legislation making headway in Congress is likely to further tensions in the region, particularly in the wake of US accusations last month that “elements” of Iran’s government plotted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington DC and word of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu actively considering an attack on Tehran’s nuclear facilities.

My personal opinion on this new round of HARD sanctions and its impact is the following:

a) Israel is done waiting for the International community to make up its mind in how to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and would rather take its chances now rather than later when Iran becomes nuclear with capabilities that as stated by President Ahmadinejad could “wipe Israel off the map”.

b) The United States has finally come to the conclusion that the current regime in Tehran is incapable of engaging in a constructive dialogue with the free world simply for the  fact that it is inherently in opposition to liberal democratic ideals and is hellbent on its own version of how the “new world order” should look like based on expansionist Islamic laws.  And

c) By putting a choke-hold on the oil and banking sector controlled by the IRGC, the free world will certainly increase the chances of an internal revolt that is secular and democratic (the green movement).

It will be interesting to see how the regime in Tehran reacts to this round of hard sanctions.

Nov 3 2011

Israeli getting ready to strike Iran

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is seeking cabinet support for a military strike on Iran,

Haaretz newspaper has reported after day of speculation on plans for such an attack.

The report, citing a senior Israeli official, said Mr Netanyahu was working with defense minister Ehud Barak, to win support from members of the cabinet who oppose attacking Iranian nuclear facilities.

While the talks are ongoing to rally such support, Israel test-fired a ballistic missile from a military base on Wednesday, Israel Radio said.

The report said the launch was carried out from the Palmachim facility. It quoted a Defence Ministry statement as saying the launch was aimed at testing the missile’s propulsion system. Israel has Jericho missiles widely believed to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

The reports of Mr Netanyahu pushing for a military strike on Iran came after days of renewed public discussion among Israeli commentators about the possibility that the Jewish state would take unilateral military action against Iran.

Haaretz said that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Barak had already scored a significant win by convincing Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to throw his support behind a strike.

Meanwhile, in Iran media reports have quoted General Hassan Firouzabadi, head of the Armed forces that, the country is on high alert and if an Israeli strike is made Iran will retaliate with a “punishing offensive”. “We consider any threat, even those with low probability, as a definite threat and an act of war, he said, as quoted by Fars news agency.

Clearly the tensions in the Middle East region have reached a new high and this time between two regional players with significant influence. The question now is, is this more rhetoric and hype oozing between Tehran and Tel-Aviv or are we inching closer to a real showdown with a no point of return.

Oct 20 2011

US – Iran tensions are rising with a shadow of war in the distance

The tensions between Iran and the United States are reaching a boiling point. The recent announcement that Iranian Qods force planning an assassination on US soil is
indicative of how serious this confrontation has become and what remaining measures are left on the table for the United States.

3 years into the Obama presidency and his administrations niceties have yielded no significant results or breakthroughs in rekindling US – Iran relations. And so it is fair to say that the much anticipated “behavior change” strategy as advocated by many naive political insiders, pundits and lobbyists in Washington has failed.

And I say naive because without actually living in Iran for a few years it is very hard to understand that the counterpart sitting on the other side of the table, a) doesn’t care much about protecting its national interest (for Iranians) as much as it is interested in prolonging its reign in power (which means, sticking with the death to American the great Satan mantra), b) doesn’t seem to comprehend that the world has changed and that we are no longer living in a cold war era. And c) is steadfast on trying to exert its religious crusade and influence using an ideology that belongs to the dark ages (where for example, a women is valued half a man and that people who step out of line from their version of the faith should be flogged until they are unconscious, paralyzed or killed).

The good news however, for anyone who is paying close attention to the developments inside Iran, is that the new generation of Iranians, those I have met on the streets of Tehran, Shiraz, Mashad, Tabriz, Isfahan, Rasht, Yazd all, without exception, want a better way of managing their political, economic and social future, a future that is beyond this self-imposed theocracy.

Hard sanctions backed by international support of the people of Iran will bring about the ideal change, both for the international community and IRAN. The alternative is WAR and I do NOT SUPPORT IT. “V”

Jun 7 2011

German – US relations on the rocks?

Minutes ago President Obama and Chancellor Merkel held a press conference at the Whitehouse.  While it was greatly anticipated that the two leaders would talk about strategic differences in approach with regards to Europe’s financial crisis and on Middle East affairs, the two leaders opened their remarks with high praise and admiration for one another.

The President, while calling the Chancellor by her first name on a number of occasions during his talk, made reference to the two countries strong trade ties and collaboration in industry while at the same time calling on Germany’s need to show greater leadership in European matters during these challenging times. 

Likewise, the Chancellor reciprocated the high praise by giving credit to the United States for its support of  Germany after the Cold war stating that, “I would not be here today had it not been for US leadership”.   

While on the surface the two leaders choreographed the press conference well, behind closed doors it is no secret that the Chancellor has a very different approach to both the financial crisis in Europe and on matters of German – Middle East relations.

On matters of EU financial control,

The Chancellor firmly believes that many of the European countries in a state of crisis are fiscally undisciplined and lack the labor and tax laws that would make them productive and not to mention competitive in today’s global market place.  As such in her view, any form of handout “stimulus” would be a disincentive to the political establishment of such countries to chance course by taking corrective measures.  This is clearly in contrast to the American position that is more interventionist.   

On matters of German – Middle East relationship

It is no secret that for decades Germany has enjoyed a special relationship with countries in the Middle East, namely Iran, going as far back as the days of Reza Shah (1930s) who used the Germans as a leverage against Russian and British influence in Iran.  Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Reza Shahs son, continued the relationship from 1945 to 1979, paving the way for many German companies such as Linde, BASF, Lurgi, Krupp, Siemens, ZF Friedrichshafen, Mercedes, Volkswagen and MAN to enter the lucrative Iranian market.   

But what made this relationship even more exclusive was what happened after the 1979 Islamic revolution and the overthrow of the Shah, who was considered a US ally. 

From 1979 to this day most Western countries who were considered US allies, including the US, were shutout of the Iranian market except for Germany and in the absence of any serious rival this bilateral relationship developed into a multibillion dollar one way German export to Iran business relationship.

Knowing full well what endorsing sanctions on Iran would do to Germany and German companies who rely on this trade to keep their businesses profitable and their staff employed, the Chancellor’s position is difficult.  On the one hand she does not want to lose the relationship her country has with the United States while on the other hand the Iran market is a vital German economic interest.   

On matters of the Palestinians right to statehood Germany has made it clear that it support a two state solution but it has also grown weary of Israel’s continued violations and unauthorized land grab of Palestinian territories.  Furthermore, in light of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech a few weeks ago in Congress denouncing any resumption of talks based on the 1967 boards the Germans have voiced concern over Israel’s genuine intentions.

In my view, and in light of Germany’s strategic interests in Iran, Germany will use its Palestinian card to appease the US and Israel at the United Nations should the Palestinians unilaterally declare statehood and in doing so convince the Americans to back off from calling for further sanctions on Iran. 

The fact of the matter is that 40% of Iran’s trade balance comes from its relationship with Europe of which 29% is with Germany. 

In February of 2006, the President of the German-Iranian Chamber of Commerce in Tehran, Michael Tockuss said “some two thirds of Iranian industry relies on German engineering products and spare parts” and not to mention that the value of trade between Tehran and Berlin has increased to nearly 4.7 billion Euros in 2010.  This translates into 50,000 German jobs who rely on strong German – Iran relations and the Chancellor know this.

Mar 5 2011

we are in times of a moral dilemma, yet again …

There are moments in our lives, and they are few, where our humanity comes face to face with a moral dilemma that challenges our soul, as individuals and as a people.

In 1940 during World War II humanity was challenged in Auschwitz. In Africa we faced a dilemma with the genocide in Sierra Leone, in Asia the massacre in Burma tested us, and today we face a new dilemma, the radicalization of the Middle East with an ideology that if left unaccounted could very well lead to the spread of a political system and a way of life that is at odds with the very nature of what it means to be born free.

And as we face this new dilemma we have one of two choices. Either we can be indifferent and stay silent in fear of persecution, ridicule or involvement beyond our comfort zone, or alternatively, we can stand on principles, show moral indignation and become engaged.

Having said that, taking on such a challenge often comes at a price but it is only in such circumstances that we realize who we are as individuals and what we value as a people.

And so it is needless to say that the natural state of (wo)man is to live in freedom from tyranny and oppression and with all the legal and moral rights on our side it is our duty to face such a challenge head on before it is too late.