Chaikhaneh

No evidence Iran is arming insurgency

2007-09-04T01:48:00.000+01:00

The Western media rarely challenges the United States on its quite unsubstantiated accusation that Iran is arming the insurgency, even though it is demonstrably false. Iran's UN spokesman M.A. Mohammadi, said:

"the recent accusations about Iran's role in sending arms and 'explosively formed penetrators' to Iraqi extremists to foment a civil war in the neighboring country are completely false and baseless."

Commenting on Iran's role in Afghanistan and Iraq he said, "the leaders of both these countries have praised Iran's constructive, good-neighbor policy toward them," and asked the U.S. government, "to proffer evidence regarding its accusations and to provide the list of Iranian agents who it alleges are operating in Iraq," which they have to date been unable to do.

Moreover, 85 percent of the detainees in U.S. custody are Sunnis. The 15 percent of Shia detainees are mainly from the Jaish al-Mahdi. Whereas Iran is more closely associated with their rivals, the Badr organisation. Therefore it is absurd to claim that Iran is arming the insurgency, yet the media stil do.

British forces flee Basra

2007-09-02T20:13:00.000+01:00

British forces are at present withdrawing from Saddam's place, or more accruately they are fleeing Basra; a city that they could no longer hold.

The troops stationed in the airport are, to use the military parlance, marking time. There can no longer be any military justification for their continued presence, since they are doing little more than defending themselves.

The USA has ceased to be relevant

2007-08-25T02:29:00.000+01:00

The relationship between Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki and the U.S. dictatorship in Iraq, which has always been tempestuous, has now deteriorated further. Much to the annoyance of his U.S. overlords; al-Malaki rubbished the preposterous claims that Iran is destabilising Iraq as the U.S. Government likes to claim. In fact al-Malaki pointed out the reverse is true and thanked Iran for its “positive and constructive” role in “providing security and fighting terrorism in Iraq”.

The comment not only earned rebuke from the beleaguered U.S. President, they also led to the following threat: ”my message to him is, is that when we catch you playing a non-constructive role there will be a price to pay.”

A rebuke that Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki is not going to heed. His response the U.S. President criticism of his administration was even more assertive. He said:

“No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people. Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution, and can find friends elsewhere.”

This statement represents a recognition in the Iraq government of the now irrelevance of the United States: the ignominious defeat of British forces in the South and the failure of the U.S. surge to quell the rise of factional violence or the insurgency has left al-Malaki government in no doubt that the U.S. forces have to all intents and purposes already been defeated and that there is no appetite in the United States to reverse that outcome: troop withdrawal is inevitable.

Thus al-Malaki is looking to the future; a future in which the United States’ role in Iraq will be limited; he is no doubt also aware that should Hillary Clinton win the U.S. presidency he would not be able to count on her support. She said this week that Iraq needs a “less divisive and more unifying figure.”

In fact whilst politicians in the United States make much of the Iraq’s sectarian divisions and urge a national unity government, this is fundamentally undemocratic and quite fraudulent, it is not for Iraq’s sake that they wish a pluralist government. An estimated 63% of the population are Shia. However, that is only if one includes Kurdistan, which is effectively a separate entity from Iraq. Certainly the main Kurdish parties are separatists. Thus if the Kurds are discounted, and properly they should be, since they do not consider themselves Iraqis; Shia constitute nearly 79% of the Iraqi population and Sunnis only 21%. Thus the sectarian divisions in Iraq are overplayed; in truth Iraq is a Shia country.

It is this reality that the United States government continues to supress: were they ever serious about installing democracy, they would support Shia majority rule and an Iranian style Islamic democracy; instead of doing all they could to prevent it. Yet it is clear that the United States cares little for Iraqi democracy; preferring anarchy and civil war to another autonomous Shia state in the region.

As ineffectual as al-Malaki has been as premier, the fact that he was willing to publicly chastise the U.S.A. and actively court Iranian and Syrian influence, despite incurring Washington’s displeasure, is significant since it reflects the mood on the street.

First Casualty of War

2007-08-19T02:17:00.000+01:00

The British and U.S. media are reporting that Britain has lost the war in Basra and is no more than an observer in the battle for control of Basra, having been disengaged for some time. The Independent on Sunday adds that British generals are now calling for British forces to be extradited from the South without delay.

However, what is being reported here is not new; it is that which was already known. Indeed, I reported the British surrender back in February 2007, which followed the provocative British assault on the Jamiat Police Station in December 2006, this was a pivotal event, yet was not treated as such in the Western media.

It is no exaggeration to say that the British media has hitherto been complicit in the wilfully misleading of the British public about the true extent of the British military demise in Iraq.
“In war, truth is the first casualty.” (Aeschylus, 525 BC - 456 BC)

The Exploitation of Iranian Jews

2007-08-05T16:17:00.000+01:00

Jonathan Cook, a Jewish writer living in Nazareth, writes an excellent article in Al-Ahram about the exploitation of Iran's 25,000 strong Jewish population. Yet it is not the Islamic Republic of Iran whom he accuses; rather it is the Zionist regime.

The Execution of Jafar Kiani

2007-07-14T01:33:00.000+01:00

The Meydaan organisation has reported that Jafar Kiani was executed on the 6 July 2007 in Iran. They also reported that Dr. Alireza Jamshidi, the Iranian judiciary spokesman, gave a press conference on Tuesday 10 July 2007, in which he reputedly said, "Lately there has been a stoning sentence executed by a judge in Takistan branch," contrary to the existing moratorium on stoning but "the woman’s [Mokarrameh Ebrahimi] sentence is stayed now." Adding, "The extent to which the ban order can deprive a judge from independence is a long discussion, but a judge can act independently, although with the order of the Head of Judiciary, it is necessary to exercise more caution in issuing and executing these sentences."

However, this press conference does not appear to have taken place; it was not reported by either the Iranian or attended by anyone from the international media. In fact, contrary to the Maydaan assertion, the Iranian government has not confirmed the execution of Jafar Kiani, as is clear from UN rapporteur on Human Rights, Louise Arbour's statement, she in fact requests official confirmation from Iran that this event occurred.

How therefore did a Western based organisation attend a press briefing and no one else appears to?

This is not to say this execution did no take place: it may very well have done. However, if this is the case, far from the Iranian State executing this man; it is a local judge in defiance of the order of the Head of the Judiciary. Thus the Iranian State would have been powerless to prevent this and not culpabale nor indeed is stoning an offence against international law.

So what is the haste in the Western media's reporting of this incident? In the absence of facts they are bereft. Until such time as the Iranian government provides a detail account; all claims are mere conjecture and rumour. It is noteworthy that previous reports of executions by U.S. sponsored groups have transpired to be factually inaccruate.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have never accruately reported an Iranian execution since 2005. Yet when the Western media quote these organisations' claims; this is never stated. This is dishonest reporting.

Iran's Success Depends on National Determination

2007-06-30T11:34:00.000+01:00

Yesterday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said of the Government decision to ration gasoline, "The plan's success depends on national determination."

Quite. The decision is certainly the most courageous of his presidency and the most necessary, as Ayatollah Jannati Tehran's Substitute Friday prayers leader suggested, "The huge oil asset should be used for reconstruction," and should have been implemented long ago. Khatemi's Government were grossly incompetent for failing so to do. Iran imports 40 percent of its gasoline from 16 countries at an annual cost of $5 billion, due to a lack of refinery capacity. This is the one economic weakness that the West could have exploited.

However, the decision to do what no previous President has had the courage to do - ration gasoline - will dramatically cut national oil consumption and end Iranian dependency on foreign countries thus neutralising the threat of any UN Security Council sanctions. In effect, Iran has preempted the sanction. This is why the move has not seen widespread protest to date. The country has remained surprising unified in the face of an otherwise unpopular decision.

The widely anticipated riots and protests have not occured much to the consternation of Western powers. Instead there have been a few sporadic acts of vandalism, which were denounced by Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel thus:

"I think it is inappropriate to consider those who vandalize public property and buildings a part of the nation. Rather, they are a deceived minority who commit such shameful acts because of the promises of the enemies".

This would clearly not have been so had Iran not faced external pressures: Iran after all, is on a war setting. Thus this a barometer of Iran's national determination, as Ahmadinejad suggests.

Yet, this is no temporary measure nor indeed should it be. Raising prices at the pump does nothing to reduce oil consumption; it only hurts the poor. Thus the only effective way to reduce oil consumption is rationing. Every country, not just Iran, should be using rationing to reduce oil consumption. Those that do not will find themselves economically vulnerable.

This is not to say that Ahmadinejad will not suffer in the next election for such a policy, however it may also play to his advantage: he took decisive action and he will be judged against the progress of the nuclear programme too. Moreover, there is another consequence of this decision, which will play to his and Iran's benefit: it will radically reduce foreign spending, which in turn will strengthen the economy.

MKO remains on European terror list

2007-06-30T11:21:00.000+01:00

The European and North American based Iranian terrorist group, the Monafiqeen-e-Khalq (MKO), is to remain on the new list of European Union terrorist groups. Last December The European Court of Justice annulled the EU decision to include the group on the proscribed organisations register in 2002 due to a procedural irregularity.

The Monafiqeen-e-Khalq had sought to legitimise itself by insisting that the court rejected the decision, yet as EU officials noted, the court did not fault the decision itself, just the manner in which is was taken.

Any other decision would have fundamentally undermined the EU's international credibility.

Oliver Stone Ahmadinejad Documentary

2007-06-30T11:10:00.000+01:00

Interestingly the Hollywood filmmaker Oliver Stone plans to direct a long documentary about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Stone has made a formal request for permission from Ahmadinejad's office to launch his work.

Iranian film director Alireza Sajjadpour told ISNA, "The request was made some three months ago. Stone is a professional filmmaker on social and political issues. As a filmmaker I'd like his request to be accepted." Alas, I suspect that unlikely. After all the Iranian authorities regarded his film Alexander pornographic. Even so it will be interesting to see Stone's documentary; I hope it addresses why he is so popular in Iran; rather than solely focusing on his relations vis-a-vis the West.

Human Rights Abuse Masquerading as Human Rights Advocacy

2007-06-28T15:01:00.000+01:00

Amnesty International professes concern about human rights in Iran, yet this very organisation maintained a wall of silence about Shahist Iran, which was one of the most brutal regimes, if not the most brutal, of the Twentieth Century. Whatever one may think of the Islamic Republic of Iran, no country has improved its human rights record as much as Iran has since 1979. Whilst undoubtedly human rights abuses do still occur in Iran; it was the Islamic Revolution that introduced both democracy and civil liberties to Iran: there were neither under the despotic Western backed Shahist regime.

Amnesty International's claim to be a non-governmental organisation are palpable nonsense; throughout its history it has been indirectly funded by various Western governments, and certainly promotes Western interests. This is particularly so in the Middle East. Amnesty International is a resolutely pro Zionist organisation, which fuels its hostility towards the Islamic Republic of Iran - the only independently autonomous Islamic State.

Thus Amnesty International devotes far more energy in opposing the legitimate democratically elected government of Iran than it does any other government, even though Iran has the best human rights record of any country in the Middle East and is the only democratic State in the region. Amnesty International rarely censors illegitimate and undemocratic governments supported by the West, such as the Saudi and Israeli regimes.

The conflict of interest and inconsistency is all too obvious. Amnesty International's report, "Iran: the last executioner of children", is testament to that. The Iranian government and judiciary has resolutely said that Iran does not execute children; yet Amnesty International, which is able to exhibit no evidence to the contrary, still would has us believe that Iran does, notwithstanding that the organisation has neither offices nor investigators in Iran.

Thus Amnesty International makes these claims without corroboration or any means of reliable validation. To do so is undeniable racist, since they Amnesty would not adopt such low standards before accusing a Western government of lying. In fact, Amnesty International fails to point out that in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, children are routinely executed without trial by the occupying forces.

However, a more startling piece of hypocrisy is that Amnesty International lionise Shirin Ebadi and even have gone so far as to suggest that she is a human rights lawyer. Nothing could be further from the truth; she was personally appointed by the Shah to serve as a judge at the age of 27, six months after graduating in law. Thus she has never been a lawyer of standing in Iran; rather, she acquired her position through nepotism.

More importantly, she served in the judiciary under the Shah for ten years before the Islamic revolution. The judiciary under the Shah were complicit in the torture and murder of millions. Political prisoners, including children, were: tortured to near madness on Apollo machines, sexually mutilated, raped and sentenced to death in absentia. This is the standard of justice and human rights that Shirin Ebadi, Nobel laureate, supported in Iran throughout the seventies, which is why she will always be loathed in Iran.

Prisoners were not maltreated and statements were not coerced

2007-04-06T23:20:00.000+01:00

The recently released British Royal Marine Commandos and Royal Navy Sailors detained by Iran for illegal entry into Iranian territorial waters, were "paraded" in front of the British media to deliver scripted speeches, in a press conference blatantly stage-managed by the Ministry of Defence. Contrast this to their statements given to al-Alam, that were by the former prisoners' own admission unscripted and freely given.

Moreover, their self-described treatment at the hands of Iran was by any military standard, exemplary. They were not physically coerced; threatened with physical coercion; subject to sleep deprivation; stress positions; or cruel and unusual punishment. In fact, they were only blindfolded when transported and adequately cared for. Segregation of suspects during interrogation and plea bargains are not unreasonable.

However, the British claims of harsh treatment are undermined by the recently released Iranian video.

And least we not forget; they were arrested for entering Iranian water. A point the British government can no longer sensibly contest, it now having been revealed by Royal Marine Commando Captain Air that their mission was to gather intelligence on Iran. A point buttressed by Royal Navy Lieutenant Carman's admission that Occupation forces have only made sixty-six boardings in a four week period in the Persian Gulf. Tellingly, the Royal Navy has now ceased all boardings. Carman admission that the HMS Cornwall is tasked with guarding vital Iraqi oil platforms, which are situated outside Iraqi territorial waters, cast further doubt on the British claims to be operating within Iraqi water.

Furthermore, there is no internationally recognised border between Iran and Iraq in this waterway; a point that has been clarified by the United Nations. Thus the British government suggestion to the contrary is manifestly untrue.

All of which seems to have escaped the ever compliant British media.

Prisoner negotiations

2007-04-04T22:41:00.000+01:00

The Royal Navy and the U.S. 5th Fleet have been playing chicken in Iran's territorial waters for sometime, Iran responded to this posturing with its own, hence the recent Iranian war games and the Pasdaran's recent etching of their symbol on to a U.S. warship situated in the Persian Gulf.

However after the abduction of Iranian diplomats who were serving members of the Pasdaran, the U.S. elevated it security levels and warned Britain to do the same. So it is curious they did not and continued to violate Iranian water, particularly as Sartip Dovom Qassem Suleimani, the commander of the Pasdaran al-Qods force stated that Iran would respond to these abductions. Thus the capture of 15 Royal Marine commandos and Royal Navy sailors in Iranian waters should come as no surprise.

Moreover, Iran has always been very clear that this was a preplanned move, Sartip Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander of the Pasdaran, gave the order to intercept Royal Navy and U.S. Navy vessels that stray into Iranian waters the day before. Iran has been equally clear that the intent was to deliver a message that Iran would not tolerate such violations anymore. Iran has positively avoided conflating this issue with the release of the abducted Iranian diplomats, which is of considerably less concern to Iran than violations of its territorial waters. The release today of the Iranian diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, who was abducted by the 36th Commando battalion - a death squad that operate closely with U.S. forces - was welcomed by Iran but ultimately inconsequential.

Furthermore Ayatullah al-Uzma Khamenei, ordered that the matter should be dealt with by the Supreme National Security Council, hence contrary to British claims, the Foreign Office was well aware that the matter was being dealt with by Ali Larijani, yet they maintained the facade that they was confusion. In any event, negotiations could have taken place through the Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki. Britain choose not to pursue this route.

Britain miscalculated, believing Iran would not respond to these repeated provocations, then was ill-prepared to deal with the consequences when Iran did. Blair found it politically inconvenient to acknowledge that the Royal Navy has for some considerable time been operating illegally in Iranian waters, thus he has produced a cacophony of allegations and claims, none of which he can substantiate.

The British government, for reason best known to itself, sought to internationalise the conflict and vilify Iran. Yet this was to no account. The issues was expediently resolved once British Foreign Office issued a letter to the Iranian foreign ministry, giving assurances that such an incident would not occur again and that Britain would respect Iran territorial sovereignty. Hence, agreeing not to operate inside what Iran regards as its territorial waters.

The Missing American

2007-04-03T22:23:00.000+01:00

The U.S. media is reporting that a former unnamed FBI agent has disappeared in Iran on the island of Kish. FBI spokesman Rich Kolko suggested, "at this time, there are no indications that this matter should be viewed other than as a missing-person case," and U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "we have been monitoring this situation for a couple of weeks now." Citing privacy concerns, McCormack declined to divulge the man's name, age or occupation.

However what is curious, is that the U.S. State Department has also not divulged this information to the Iranian government, the U.S. would be obliged to providing his name, flight details, passport number if they wished Iran to try and locate him. They have thus far failed so to do. Another curious aspect is that it is admitted that this mystery man has previously served in the FBI, which would have precluded him entering Iran, without U.S. approval and would be grounds for arrest and detention if discovered by the Kish authorities.

Iranian Propaganda

2007-04-02T02:07:00.000+01:00

The Western MSM is incensed by Iran's blatant use of the captured Royal Marine commandos and Royal Navy sailors for propaganda purposes. The occidental chauvinism and hypocrisy is astounding. one would never have thought that it was in fact the British media who first sought to use their personnel for propaganda purposes; that the British media, without any evidence, followed the British Foreign Office line that the prisoners were detained illegally in Iraqi territorial waters, failing to accurately report that Iraqi territorial waters have yet to be established and consequently the British claims have no merit in international law; the Royal Navy acknowledged that the waters they were detained in are claimed by Iran.

Instead the British media ran stories about Faye Turney and vilified Iran for holding a mother hostage. Of course, forgetting to mention that had an Iranian mother been on the crew of a fully armed Commando team entering British water, she too would have been detained. Iran's response was a calculated quid pro quo. Iran is on the one hand showing how these prisoners are unharmed and well treated, yet on the other how vulnerable and helpless they are. Knowing that this places pressure on the British government to resolve the issue.

However, having seen that despite being obviously scripted the World's media would eagerly report what they said, Iran has adeptly used the prisoners to convey messages to the World public. As much as the Western media will never admit it; it own anti-Iranian propaganda has been shamelessly, thus it is hardly surprising that Iran would respond in this way. Moreover, despite Western claims there is no treaty that prevents it. They are not prisoners of war, and whilst the environment they are in is coercive, there is no evidence of physical coercion. I imagine that Iran will continue to exploit the prisoners for propaganda purposes, whilst the British government continues to do the same.

Brinkmanship Unwise in Uncharted Waters

2007-04-02T01:51:00.000+01:00

Consortiumnews.com has published a rather good article on the eight RM Commandos and seven RN sailors detained by Iran for illegal entry into Iranian waters questioning the sense of the British strategy.

The frenzy in America’s corporate media over Iran’s detainment of 15 British Marines who may, or may not, have violated Iranian-claimed territorial waters is a flashback to the unrestrained support given the administration’s war-mongering against Iraq shortly before the attack.

The British are refusing to concede the possibility that its Marines may have crossed into ill-charted, Iranian-claimed waters and are ratcheting up the confrontation. At this point, the relative merits of the British and Iranian versions of what actually happened are greatly less important than how hotheads on each side—and particularly the British—decide to exploit the event in the coming days.

Call that humiliation?

2007-04-02T01:45:00.000+01:00

Terry Jones writing in the Guardian quips,

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

Iran replies to Blair's sabre rattling

2007-03-29T03:05:00.000+01:00

Faye Turney in her own words:

"My name is Faye Turney. I come from England, I live in England at present. I have served on F99. I have served in Navy nine years, I was arrested on Friday on 23rd of March which obviously has passed internal waters.

"I was treated friendly and hospitable they are nice people, they explained why we were arrested, and there is no aggression, no hurt, no harm, they are very very compassionate."

Rarely has the Pasdaran been described such. When members of the British created Jundallah terrorist group were captured they were asked to reveal all they knew, in turn they were offered a swift execution for this information: most willingly accepted the offer, which was how Iran was able to prove British links. The old adage is true, everyone talks.

The Iranian government was under no illusion that Turney appeared terrified: she was supposed to be. The purpose of the interview was not to comfort the British public; rather it was to demonstrate the reality of the Royal Marine Commandos situation: one of desperation, helplessness and fear, that it might pressure the British government to resolve this situation with an apology. Instead, of maintaining it current unnecessarly confrontational stance.

Blair's bellicose has proved counterproductive; maintaining the extraordinary fiction that they were in Iraqi waters, when they were in Iranian waters, and threatening to elevate the situation to the "next phase", has demonstrable improved Iran's international standing. The Iranian Foreign Minister received a late invite to the Arab summit after the event occurred and received support from Saudi Arabia, no less, over its position. Both Russia and China have warned The United States against military action and contrary to U.S. claims of conducting war games, the Occupation forces are being decidedly less provocative.

Britain threat to take the matter to the security council, led to Iran threatening to retract its goodwill gesture of releasing Faye Turney. It may be possible to expedite the release of the prisoners by the return of the Iranian diplomats abducted by the United States, although I am doubtful: Iran wants a straight admission that the British forces were in Iranian waters. However Blair is not prepared to do that at this stage, thus he is unnecessarily jepordising the safety of those 15 Royal marines Commandos and sailors.

British Sponsored Terrorist Release Iranian Prisoners

2007-03-27T14:56:00.000+01:00

Jundallah, the Wahhabi terrorist group released the three members of Iran's Disciplinary Force (police) that it abducted in eastern Sistan and Baluchetan, earlier this month and then took into Pakistan, where they were held hostage.

Meanwhile Blair has suggested that if the British commandos being detained by Iran for illegally entering Iranian water are not released presently, the situation will move into a "new phase".

Iran has said that Jundallah has links with British SIS, which of course Britain denies. However the release of these hostages would suggest otherwise.

Iraqi General confirms that Royal Navy were in Iranian waters when captured

2007-03-26T01:17:00.000+01:00

IRIB reports

The Commander of Iraq’s Coastal Guard Brigadier General Hakeem Jassem, in an interview with al-Alam News Network Saturday, condemned the illegal entry of British forces into Iran’s territorial waters and said the 15 British troopers were detained outside Iraq’s waters by Iran’s naval border guards.

The Iraqi Commander termed the intrusion of British forces into Iran’s coastal regions as questionable, making it clear that his forces cannot support the British claims that their forces were captured by the Iranians in the Iraqi side of the waterway.

He disclosed that British marines and sailors stopped a commercial ship inside Iran’s territorial waters and boarded it, forcing the Iranian border guards to interfere and arrest the British troopers.

The detained British forces have confessed to their illegal entry into Iran’s territorial waters.

15 Royal Navy and Royal Marines Captured in Iranian Waters

2007-03-23T15:52:00.000Z

15 Royal Navy sailors and Royal Marines from the frigate HMS Cornwall have been arrested by the Pasdaran for illegally crossing into Iranian territorial waters when they boarded a merchant vessel in the Arvand rud.

The Royal Navy routinely encroaches into Iranian territorial waters without incident. Thus the capture of these servicemen - given that the incident is set to coincide with tomorrow's UNSC vote on a resolution against Iran and President Ahmadinejad's speech before that body - was undoubtedly preplanned, set to serve as a timely reminder of the vulnerability of Occupation forces in the region. The Pasdaran etched their symbol into an U.S. warship on the 15 February 2007, a symbolic act to demonstrate their ability to sink the vessel.

Much of the Western MSM are already reporting that the incident occurred in Iraqi territorial waters, without acknowledgement that Britain dispute Iranian territorial waters in the Arvand rud, or explanation as to why the Royal Navy would be patrolling that water. They are certainly not there to prevent smuggling operations or cross border infiltration.

Iran may be prepared to trade the British servicemen for the Iranian diplomats illegally taken hostage by the United States, however I think that doubtful.

Ahmadinejad to respond to UNSC in person

2007-03-16T00:42:00.000Z

The draft resolution of sanctions against Iran agreed by the five permanent members of the UNSC and Germany, that has been submitted to the non-permanent members for consideration, will no doubt be approved. To say the additional sanctions are weak is an understatement. The resolution ammounts to little more that an unenforceable restriction on Iran exporting arms yet no ban on the sale of arms to Iran; an asset freeze on Bank Sepah, which will have little impact; an utterly meaningless call on nations to end all financial assistance and loans to Iran, save "for humanitarian and developmental purposes", which will be promptly ignored; and in the event that Iran refused to forgo its legal right to rich uranium (which of course Iran will) the matter will be returned to the UNSC for possible further "non-military" sanctions.

Yet as weak as this document is, there is every sign that Iran will reciprocate robustly, President Ahmadinejad responded thus:

"They have created a body named the Security Council and they say that it is responsible for defending world security. But thanks God, the curtains of lie were unveiled and everyone saw this council has no role but trampling upon nations' rights and voicing support for the crimes and policies of certain arrogant powers, and all nations have now found out that this council is just a tool."

"They say that they want to impose sanctions on us. But when have we asked them for anything. Have you ever rendered any help to us that you want to take it back? You must know that we will never seek your help and assistance. You boycotted us and we gained nuclear technology, now if you impose sanctions on us, you will see the Iranian nation taking the next steps of progress."

"You must know that every resolution you pass, you create more problems for yourselves and move away from the settlement of the issue."

"What Iran is doing is 100 percent legal. The Iranian people will continue their path with much power and might and no one can backtrack from this path even for an inch."

Furthermore, President Ahmadinejad has submitted a formal request to be heard in person at the UNSC meeting when the resolution is passed. There is no doubt that his intent is to respond to the resolution; such a response is likely to be significant. It is certainly not inconceivable that he plans to announce Iran's intent to withdraw from the NPT and thus hasten the inevitable. It would be advantageous to do so, when the likely consequence is an escalation in economic and political sanctions; not the use of military force.

Coming to Terms with Iran's Nuclear Programme

2007-03-04T01:06:00.000Z

Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons and less still of using them
Michel Rocard, the former prime minister of France, leader of the Socialist Party and member of the European Parliament writing in Haaretz contemplating military action on Iran, states:

"First, resorting to force is simply not realistic. A nuclear strike would have incalculable consequences, and the Muslim world would in this case stand together. Nor is a conventional attack possible, as Israel has no common border with Iran and most of the American army is tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq."

He further opines:

"The only possible framework for negotiations is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), concluded in 1968. Iran was one of the first countries to sign and it cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for more than 30 years - a relationship that deteriorated only in the last three years. But the current climate of mutual wariness between Iran and the self-proclaimed triad of Germany, Great Britain and France (with sporadic U.S. support) is not propitious to effective negotiations.

The West's aim, announced by the U.S. and adhered to by the triad, is to force Iran to give up uranium enrichment. Yet the NPT is clear: Any signatory that gives up nuclear weapons and accepts the IAEA's absolute and unconditional control is entitled to produce electric energy from civil nuclear sources, and to receive technical and financial support from the international community, if necessary. Iran's oil resources are not infinite and it wants to have complete control over the civil nuclear field - a basic right as an NPT signatory.

I cannot see how a negotiation aimed at getting Iran to unilaterally renounce a right recognized for all NPT signatories simply in order to build confidence in the West could be successful. Uranium enrichment is certainly the first condition for making bombs, but the level of enrichment must reach about 95 percent, compared to the 3.5 percent needed for energy production."

The solution to the current nuclear dispute is remarkably simple: the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany need to put aside their Zionist foreign policy agendas and look at the situation logically: Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons and less still of using them. Iran does however have a legitimate need and desire to produce its own nuclear energy. Thus the U.S. and the European troika could end this crisis, which is entirely manufactured, by simpling accepting Iran's nuclear energy programme. To do so would no doubt involve some loss of face, however there is no appetite in the United States or Europe for a war with Iran, therefore any deal that ends the crisis and averts this possibility would be widely welcomed as a victory for diplomacy.

Teachers protest against Hashemi Rafsanjani

2007-03-03T13:37:00.000Z

Hundreds of teachers staged a sit-in demonstration in front of Majlis building today, in protest of the Assembly of Experts failure to address their demand for a pay increase. The teachers hold the Assembly of Experts Chairman, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, personally responsible.

It has been reported in the Western media that Hashemi Rafsanjani is in ascendancy and that President Ahmadinejad has become increasingly unpopular. In fact, the reverse is true, Ahmadinejad is more popular on the Street now, than he was when he gained 17 million votes in the 2005 presidential election, defeating Hashemi Rafsanjani. It is in the Majlis that Ahmadinejad is deeply unpopular - he always was - he represents neither the Conservative nor Reformist wings. He is Iran's political outsider.

In the Western media, Iranian politics is reduced to Conservatism versus Reformism -or "Mullahs" versus "secularists". Yet the reality is both are from the clerical classes and both support the Islamic revolution and the current Iranian model of Islamic democracy. Where Ahmadinejad differs to the Iranian political elite is that he is of the people and for the people. This in itself antagonises the clerical elite, however his rejection of oligarchy and his avocation of the redistribution of wealth, egalitarianism and ethical trade is an intolerable affront to that elite, which is represented by Hashemi Rafsanjani and Sayyed Mohammad Khatami. The alliance between the two is certainly a threat to Ahmadinejad and Iranian democracy.

However, it is utter nonsense that Iran's current diplomatic confrontations with the West have been instigated or exacerbated by Ahmadinejad; it was Britain, under directions from the United States, that sabotaged the EU troika negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme, which incidentally the West believes to be a peaceful nuclear programme. The West willfully tried to torpedo the reformists and advance the presidential hopes of Hashemi Rafsanjani in the the belief that Hashemi Rafsanjani was a "pragmatist" (i.e. corruptible) and therefore was more susceptible to Western bribery.

This strategy failed as anyone with an once of intelligence and the slightest knowledge of Iranian politics ought to have foreseen. President Ahmadinejad was elected on domestic issues - the nuclear dispute was not a feature of the 2005 presidential elections. The current confrontation with the West plays to Ahmadinejad's advantage. Iranians have seen a war with the United States and its clients states on the horizon since the invasion of Iraq: it does not unsettle them. To report the ascendancy of Hashemi Rafsanjani or forecast that he will succeed Ayatullah al-Uzma Sayyed Khamenei, as Supreme Leader, as many Western media outlets are doing, is once again, to misread Iranian politics. It is most improbable that the Assembly of Experts would entertain the idea of electing him Supreme Leader, since he does not have the support of the Street and could not command the loyalty of the Basij or Pasdaran.

The Arrest of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim

2007-02-24T14:13:00.000Z

Commenting on Friday's arrest and 11 hour detention of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim - the son of SCIRI president and United Iraqi Alliance leader, Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim - spokesman for the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Lou Fintor said:

"What I can tell you is that at this point we understand that Mr. Hakim was arrested by soldiers who were doing their duty. He was not singled out, and we understand the soldiers were following standard procedure since the border was closed."

This is simply untrue. Sayyed Mohsen Al-Hakim, said that his older brother was unlawfully arrested and detained along with several bodyguards in Badre, located in the border between Iran and Iraq on the pretext that his passport had expired, even though it expires in September 2007 and that in any event, it is not the responsibility of the Occupation forces to check passports at entry points; that responsibility belongs to the Iraqi police. Moreover, both the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and President of the Kurdistan Regional Government Massoud Barzani, have denounced the arrest as illegal.

Talabani’s office issued a statement declaring:

"President Talabani judges that the treatment of Seyyed Al-Hakim was uncivilized and indecent, and he has demanded that the American leadership hold those behind it responsible".

Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim said of his arrest and detention: "Senior (U.S.) officials intended to arrest me, and these officials gave instructions to personnel at the site." He also asked: "Is this the way to deal with a national figure? This does not conform with Iraq's sovereignty".

This was undoubtedly a deliberate preplanned act of aggression against the SCIRI, the United Iraqi Alliance, the Iraqi government (including the PUK and KDP), Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and the Shia. The United States has publicly accused Iran of interfering in Iraq's internal affairs and supporting the insurgency. A claim that was dismissed on Saturday by Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim as "unfounded and mere propaganda," and has never been supported by the Iraqi government, President or Prime Minister. Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim also stated that Iran is a friend of the Iraqi people and a benevolent country.

In fact, the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has previously accused the Occupation forces of destabilising region, saying: "If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition".

Moreover, if there was ever any question as to the United States implacable hostility towards Shia Islam and the Islamic Republic Iran, President George W. Bush, spelt it out in his State of the Union Speech 2007 when he stated: "In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East." Bush also attributed much of the blame for this too the Islamic Republic of Iran, notwithstanding that the elected Iraqi government is predominately Shia and pro Iranian, hence the very people whom Bush refers to as "Shia extremists". In fact, not only is the United Iraqi Alliance pro-Iranian, so too are the main Kurdish parties, the PUK and KDP.

Far from supporting the elected Iraqi government, the Occupiers are actively undermining it. The United States is not interested in stabilising Iraq; quite the reverse, the United States is opposed to an autonomous Shia government of Iraq - much of the anarchy in Iraq can be attributed to this. Thus General Sir Richard Dannatt statement, "we can’t wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the army both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life", applies not only to the insurgents in Iraq but also to the elected "Islamist" Iraqi government.

Over eighty percent of the popular vote in Iraq's last national election went to political parties with close political connections to Iran and the Shia constitute over sixty percent of the electorate and even more of the population - individuals of Iranian descent were denied Iraqi citizenship under Saddam Hussein, a policy that has been continued by the Occupiers. Conversely the United States is regarded as a colonial occupier, which has fermented ethnic and sectarian factionalism.

Recent U.S. allegations that Iran's Pasdaran Qods force has supplied EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) to Iraqi insurgents, which have been flatly rejected by the Iraqi government, are part of a concerted propaganda campaign to demonise Iran. The United States has used these allegations as a pretext to carry out illegal raids on an Iranian diplomatic mission in Arbil, in which five Iranian diplomats were abducted, and on an SCIRI compound, in which two Iranian diplomats were abducted. Moreover, earlier this month, U.S. warplanes attacked a PUK guard post in Mosul killing eight Pesh Merga after President Talabani visited Iran. These acts were all clearly designed to serve as warnings to Iraqi politicians not to engage with Iran.

The arrest and detention of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim has to be seen in the same light: as a warning to his father, Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, vis-a-vis his strong political relationship with Iran. However, the United States massively underestimated the significance of abducting Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim. The reaction from within the Iraqi government has been robust and defiant. President Talabani demanding the culprits be punished and the SCIRI calling for the occupiers to leave Iraq has ended all pretense that the Iraqi government and the United States are on the same side. The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad was forced to issue a speedy apology and to preposterously claim that the United States did not "mean any disrespect to Abdel Aziz al-Hakim or his family". It is very significant that Kurdish and Shia politicians have rejected the apology and explanation; the balance of power has now firmly shifted into Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim favour.

British Surrender of Basra

2007-02-21T19:38:00.000Z

The announcement of the British surrender of Basra to Iraqi forces and the announcement of a phased troop withdrawal serves as a timely refutation of the U.S. claims that Iran is arming the insurgency and the much touted prospect of a U.S. military attack on Iran. If either was true, then it would be pure insanity for British forces to scale down or hand control of Basra over to Shia militias, when the city is situated on the Arvandrud - the easiest cross-way for Iran's Pasdaran (IRGC) to enter into Iraq.