Error: Unable to create directory /home/demockra/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2010/09. Is its parent directory writable by the server? History Matters: Understanding Current Iranian Relations

In light of the recent unrest in Iran and heightened tensions between the United States and Iran, it is important to understand the historical path that has led us to this point.

In this light, I recently had the honor of reading Tim Werner’s book, Legacy of Ashes, the history of the CIA, an immaculately researched work based on the years the writer has written on Intelligence for the New York Times. Even I who suspect incompetence, exaggeration, and pure lying at every level am stunned. According to Werner, almost every action taken by the CIA since World War II has been illegal, dishonest, deceptive, and not successful in the long run. In the worst incidents, one of which I will attempt to outline, the results have been catastrophic for vast numbers of people. Millions have paid with their lives, torture and brutality have been let loose on the country, and certainly the results have been contrary to the best interests of the United States and the World in general. In this piece, I will deal with the situation in Iran and how it has been almost entirely created by the CIA, with some assistance from British Intelligence. It is entirely because of the CIA’s past meddling in Iran that Barack Obama must be very careful in his criticisms of recent events.

Imperial Past

It is incumbent on all observers of the Middle East to be aware of Persia’s ancient history. [ Iran was at that time known as Persia; I will use both names interchangeably.] Unlike most of the surrounding Arab states, which were all established by the Treaty of Versailles in 1918 at the end of World War I after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, Persian History stretches back Millennium, and Persians are intensely proud of that history. Shortly before World War II, Britain purchased a controlling share of the Anglo- Persian oil company. At the time, these oil reserves were the largest known to the world.  For most of the next two decades Iran was run by a Cossack, Reza Khan, who seized power, proclaimed himself Shah of Persia, and held onto it through electoral fraud. During his reign, the British took the vast majority of the oil revenue. British oil executives enjoyed private clubs, while Iranian oil workers lived in deplorable conditions without electricity or running water. Iran asked for a 50/50 split of revenues with Britain, which was rejected outright.

In April 1951, the “Majlis,” a major group in the Iranian Parliament, voted to nationalize Iran’s oil production. Mohammed Mosaddeq who was voted as Iran’s prime minister a few days after the Majlis vote to nationalize the oilfields supported the issue and took it to the United Nations. The British immediately undertook an effort to try to depose Mosaddeq, and even drew up plans to invade and seize the oilfields.

The United States, while opposing any invasion, agreed to attempt a coup to depose the legitimate government that had been lawfully elected in a fully functioning democratic process. The CIA plot was code named, “Operation Ajax.” The plan was approved by President Eisenhower and the British Prime Minister. The CIA had previously stashed away sufficient funds and guns to support 10,000 tribal warriors for 6 months for another venture which had been shelved, and that money was now available for this effort.

The Coup

The CIA bribed Iranian Senators, Military Officers, and Publishers. They paid for and recruited Goon Squads to beat those opposed to the Coup. The coup was accomplished by a 3-pronged attack. First, the press denounced Mosaddeq as anti-Islamic, a Communist, and a Jew. Hundreds of thousands of pamphlets were also printed up and distributed, particularly around the capital of Tehran. The Shah was recruited and his forces were used to attack the heavily defended home of Mosaddeq. The coup was accomplished on August 19, 1953. It started with a demonstration in a gym by weightlifters and circus strongmen recruited by the CIA for the day. They shouted anti-Mosaddeq statements, and chanted, “Long live the Shah” while marching through the streets. The crowd joined them along with two major religious leaders, one being Ayatollah Khomeini, the future leader of Iran, after being exiled by the Shah. By the afternoon the CIA agents had seized control of Radio Iran. At least 100 people died that day, and at least 200 more perished when Mosaddeq’s house was invaded. The Prime Minister escaped, but later surrendered. He was imprisoned and later held under house arrest until his death.

The Shah was given 1 million dollars in cash and pronounced prime minister. He became the centerpiece of American Policy in the Middle East for years to come. The Shah maintained his position through a new intelligence service, the Savak, who were CIA trained. The Savak were to become reviled throughout Iran. Their powers allowed them to censor the press, arrest, and detain without any lawful process. Torture, starvation, and sleep deprivation were only some of the techniques for which they were to become reviled.

The Revolution

Revulsion against the Shah built up in Iran and among those exiled abroad. Finally by January 1979, demonstrations against the Shah could not be resisted, the Shah was toppled from his throne, and the Ayatollah Khomeini, who had been exiled in France, was bought back to lead a new Islamic Republic. Unfortunately, as in most revolutions, the initial leaders often tend toward fanaticism and move to seizing all power in their own hands. It usually takes many years until the moderates ultimately gain enough support to overthrow them. The French Revolution and the Soviet Revolution are two good examples. The Ayatollah was true to historical form, crushing all opposition groups and centralizing power for himself and a few other radical clerics.

By November 1979, much of the population were enraged by the policies of the USA as described by the controlled press. Students who had been demonstrating outside the US embassy seized the embassy and all its employees. In total 52 diplomats were seized and imprisoned inside the embassy for a total of 444 days. Initially there had been calls by the students to execute the hostages, but eventually views softened, and diplomatic endeavors ultimately led to their release.

The War with Iraq

Less than a year after the hostages were released, Iraq invaded Iran. Many believe that the US was implicit in that invasion. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein felt emboldened to invade by US animosity toward Iran. The US did provide helicopters to Iraq and satellite intelligence to pinpoint bombing targets. The war was viscously fought by both sides, with estimates of casualties going as high as 2 million. To give some idea of the intensity I will cite 2 examples. First, when low on armaments, the Iranians sent children armed only with wooden rifles to overwhelm Iraqi lines. The children had been convinced that they were impermeable to bullets. These children were in turn mowed down by reluctant Iraqi forces. Similarly horrific was the use of human bodies in the marshes to the South. The Iraqis used Iranian bodies to fill ditches for their tanks to pass over. Saddam Hussein first tried his chemical weapons on Iranian troops in this war.

Finally in 1988 after 8 years of the terrible conflict, a ceasefire was effected, the border remained unchanged, 2 million were dead, and there was massive damage to the infrastructure of both countries. Just prior to the ceasefire, there was another incident by the US that made the Iranian view of the US even worse. A US warship, the USS Vincennes, shot down an Iranian civilian airliner resulting in 290 deaths. While the official investigation concluded that it was done in error, that was largely disbelieved by the Iranian public.

If we view the present turmoil in Iran through the eyes of those who have lived through these events, it is terribly obvious why Barack Obama must be very careful with his words about the present turmoil. If not for interventions by the CIA and British Intelligence, Iran might be a very different country today.

Recent Days

With this proper context, let’s now take a brief look at more recent events. Iran’s Supreme ruler is currently Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Ayatollah Khomeini after his death. The Supreme ruler controls the Armed Forces, Radio and TV, Security, the Chief Judge, and the Guardian Council. There is an elected council and president, who mainly deal with day-to-day governing matters and economics. Anyone who wishes to run for those positions must first be approved by a body loyal to the Supreme Leader. The rejection rate however is close to 80%. From 1997-2005, there was a moderately progressive President Sayed Mohammed Khatemi. However, he failed to deliver on any serious reformist policies.

It should be noted that directly after 9/11, there was a street demonstration of over 1 million in support of the US. All of this was support was lost by continuing US sanctions on Iran, the disastrous War in Iraq, and the Bush White House’s grouping of Iran in the “Axis of Evil.” In 2005, Sayed Mohammed Khatemi lost the presidential election to the ill informed, firebrand Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This swing to the right was probably largely a result of the three factors mentioned above.

Of course, during the recent election, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was reelected, likely by fraud. It is my opinion that the Supreme Leader did not wish to have a reformist President to deal with now that there was no longer George Bush in the White House, but rather the new more popular US President, Barack Obama. A moderate President was OK when the White House could be counted on to alienate the average Iranian, but could not be risked with Barack Hussein Obama in the White House.

What Does This All Mean?

How it will all play out is anyone’s guess. Effective change is unlikely as the Military and Security services are protected from the poverty and poor economy suffered by the average Iranian. It is encouraging that the Obama administration has chosen a policy of engagement, rather than strict neoconservative rigidity. However, engagement alone will not be the magic bullet needed to fully reverse a century of bad blood, imperialism, and CIA sponsored coups. When dealing with Iran in this light, incremental progress on any front will be a huge step forward.

Error: Unable to create directory /home/demockra/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2010/09. Is its parent directory writable by the server? The Hidden Sides of the Israel-Gaza Conflict

Since December 27, the Israeli military has been attacking the Gaza Strip in a large scale fashion, determined to break Hamas and end the showering of rockets into southern Israel. Thirteen Israelis have died and over 1,300 Palestinians have been killed. Observers have accused Israel of creating a humanitarian crisis out of the already precarious living environment in Gaza. Hopefully,the recent cease-fires will bring the violence to an end.

While the narrative may have some basic facts right, the mainstream media in the US has largely reduced the conflict to too simple a narrative – “Israel’s attack into Gaza is one of self-defense against a Hamas government bent on its destruction. Regrettably, many civilians have died.” Even conceding the excessive scale of its attack on Gaza, Israel is ultimately presented as a victim of terrorism with a right to self-defense. Hamas is presented as an illegitimate government (though democratically elected, “who still refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist’ we are always reminded) and an irrationally violent terrorist organization.

While there may be some elements of truth in this narrative, it is far from the complete picture.  Some observers have noted that not much attention has been paid to anything besides this simplistic narrative. But the simple Israel-victim-Hamas-terrorist narrative ultimately fails to answer many broader political questions about the conflict in a satisfying way. Why would Hamas been firing rockets at Israel now? Why would Israel respond with the large-scale force that it did? Why would the US step back and allow the violence to proceed? Why would other actors – Egypt, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon – behave the way they have?

While there are clearly legitimate and clear-cut concerns over sovereignty and security on both sides of this conflict, the motivations and actions of all actors are muddied by the conflict’s political context. The political motivations and factors that may be playing a significant part in driving the conflict have been largely overlooked. Here I begin to explore how certain political concerns may be influencing what has been happening in Gaza.

Israel–Yes, Israel– justifiably wanted to defend itself by stopping Hamas rocket fire. But, with Israel’s apparent victory in this conflict, it has become clear that a significant reason for its excessive assault was to exorcize the failure of 2006’s war with Hezbollah. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert – stepping down as PM this year – may have wanted to depart with a success under his belt after 2006’s debacle. His Kadima Party, facing a February election, had to show its toughness against attacks on Israel and its ability to protect Israel and take the battle to its enemies. It was also Kadima’s Ariel Sharon that unilaterally withdrew Israeli forces from Gaza in 2005. Perhaps Kadima felt responsible for curbing Hamas’ current aggression. It remains to be seen if the Israeli public’s overwhelming support for Olmert’s attack on Hamas will translate into success at the polls for Kadima’s Tzipi Livni. During the conflict, there was considerable debate within the Israeli government about how to pursue the war on Hamas, and Kadima would not be the only party to gain by pushing the war. Labor Party head and Defense Minister Ehud Barack is a contender for PM in the upcoming election as is Likud’s Benjamin Netanyahu. The main political debate in Israel surrounding the conflict has been how hawkish is hawkish enough. The effect of the war on the election looms large.

Hamas – One part of the reason for Hamas’ improper rocket attacks that we hear little about is the Israeli blockade of Gaza. The blockade has effectively amounted to a siege, intended to make life for residents in Gaza extremely hard. By all accounts, this crowded sliver of land has been on the verge of a humanitarian crisis for some time. With the end of a six-month ceasefire in November, Israel began attacks on tunnels in Gaza and denied Hamas’ demand that the blockade be lifted.  While none of this justifies rocket attacks, this series of events helps to explain what led Hamas to begin sending rockets into Israel again. In addition, the on-going fight for Palestine between Hamas and Fatah offers a possible political motivation for Hamas’ attacks. Palestinians have rallied behind Hamas during the conflict, threatening Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah government in the West Bank. This was likely an intentional move by Hamas, to undermine Fatah, often seen as too accommodating to Israel and the US. During the conflict, Fatah has not allowed open protests against Israel for example. The sympathy and pride Palestinians have felt for Hamas during this conflict could tip the scales in Hamas’ favor in the next West Bank election. One also wonders if the timing of the conflict might be an early test of President Obama by both Israel and Hamas. With hostilities barely over when Obama takes office, his pushing a lasting US-sponsored peace deal is highly unlikely. Perhaps this was a calculation by Hamas – who appears unwilling to agree to any two-state solution – and Israel too – who may see current circumstances unfavorable to its interests.

United States – George W. Bush’s lame-duck administration has had little reason to stick its neck out for either side in Gaza. Its support for Israel has been implicit, though not unconditional while it has also, surprisingly, supported UN demands for a ceasefire. What concerns me more is the silence from president-elect Obama. He has shied away from making statements about the situation in Gaza, arguing that there is only one President at a time. But, that same argument has not stopped him from speaking at length about the country’s economic woes. If Obama is avoiding making statements about Gaza, it suggests two things to me. First, he probably does not see a US role in solving the problem in Gaza as a priority for his administration at this time. This is understandable – there are numerous, bigger problems facing the US, and the UN and countries like Egypt have been ably handling the negotiating of the recent ceasefire. I sense that Obama has made the political calculation that the US need not be heavily invested in the Gaza solution for now. The more troubling implication of his silence is that he would not act much differently than Bush has. By his silence, Obama seems to be painting himself into a corner and agreeing with Bush’s policy – essentially ratifying what will be all but a done deal by the time he takes office. As a candidate, Obama courted AIPAC and returned from a trip to Israel with a great deal of sympathy for its situation. He has vowed to continue the “special relationship” between the two countries and probably doesn’t want to make Israel – or the rest of the world – nervous about his intentions toward the region during his administration.

And this is just the beginning. There are undoubtedly other political calculations that have been influencing the conflict, and other players are significant here too – the EU, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and especially Iran and Egypt. They will be crucial to securing any lasting peace and resolution to this specific conflict and to the Israel-Palestine conflict in general. Yet, all parties bring their own agendas and complexities to the table. We can all hope that peace will one day reign in Israel and Palestine, but it will not be simple, and it will not be possible by looking at the situation simplistically. We will need to see and understand the hidden facets to the region’s challenges and act accordingly.

Error: Unable to create directory /home/demockra/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2010/09. Is its parent directory writable by the server? Arab Fiats: Islamicism is the New Communism

While many in the Western world cower in fear of radical Islamic terrorists and the Arab World in general, many of our fears are completely baseless. The truth is that in radical Islamists do not govern any Arab country with a significant population. That’s right, while many people see the entire Arab World as fanatical Islamists, the fact is they control nowhere.

It is clear that the true holders of power have often encouraged the fanatics in order to provide a distraction from the poverty and lack of development in many of their nations. This is in fact a strategy we also see used very effectively in non-Muslim countries. China continues to fan the people’s disgust for the massacres and tortures carried out by the Japanese during World War II in order that the people do not focus on leaders such as Mao Tse Tung, who was largely responsible for the starvation and genocide of his people. President Mugabe in Zimbabwe inflames the people by blaming the British for the cholera epidemic and malnutrition of the population.

In this light, historical lessons of the past century give us some interesting parallels to current realities. In the Arab world of 50 years ago, many countries were embracing communism, not fanatical Islamicism. After World War I, as anyone who has seen Lawrence of Arabia will know, the Ottoman Turks lost their Empire in the Arab World.  Much of it was divided between the British and the French, which caused huge resentment as Lawrence had promised they would have domain in their own nations as payback for their assistance in defeating the Ottomans. The British and the French set up puppet leaders and Monarchs, who assumed full authority when the bombed out European powers deserted most of their empires after World War II. When the European powers left, there was a wide power vacuum in much of the Arab world. The Soviet Union, which had just won the World War II on the eastern front, tried to help fill this vacuum. General Nasser took power in Egypt where Communism was fully embraced for a number of years. The Soviets gave considerable military aid to the Egyptians and built the High Dam in Aswan to control the flooding of the Nile and generate electricity. Communism was embraced by most of North Africa and became very pervasive in Yemen. In Saudi Arabia, communism was only put down violently by the House of Saud when they began to see it as a threat to their power. Socialism was established in Syria and Iraq under the ruling Baath Party. The Baath Party in Iraq had made many improvements for the status of women, education, and medicine before Saddam Hussein became a paranoid tyrant and took up the faith again to try to regain some credibility with his people. Some of these Communists Parties survive in limited forms to this day.

Over the past 50 years, many sons and grandsons of atheist communists have become fanatical Islamists, yet little has really changed in their day to day lives. Their financial situation has not improved, health services have improved minimally, and education has improved little. At the same time, their leaders and monarchs, as they did several generations ago, continue to live lives of uninterrupted luxury, hiding much of their wealth in Swiss bank accounts. They know very well that if they deceive their people to be engaged in rage against the West, whether it be by the Bible of communism or the Koran of Islam, they will maintain their status indefinitely. “The Great Satan of the West has caused their problems, and when he is banished it will be Heaven on Earth for them.”

In this light, it is unfortunate to have political leaders in the Western world who do not see this whole picture. The terrorists can never be beaten by firepower. They are only made martyrs, and like the Hydra, each head that is cut off results only in replication by many more. If we are to win over their minds and souls, tanks and warplanes can never succeed. For the trillions of dollars spent on weapons, how many hospitals could be built, how many wells dug, how many schools built, how many miles of sewers, aquifers, roads. How many farmers’ crops and lifestyles immeasurably improved? How many minds changed in favor of benevolent, trustworthy individuals bringing honest Western help, without questioning the beliefs of the recipients? Mind sets may not change in one generation, but they will in two. If such a fanatical movement can be built in this amount of time, with the power of good will, it can likewise be destroyed.

Complementary to this good will, the Western World must also cut off the leaders of these corrupt nations and city states, banish them from the club until a little more of their wealth, personal enterprise, and interest trickles down to assist their own people. Of course, as long as the Western world relies on their oil for their continued economic growth, this is unlikely. Such is the curse of economic inequality that often accompanies vast national resources in the developing world. Dubai, with relatively few natural resources, has been forced to make that the jump for the good of their people. As other illegitimate Arab monarchs and dictators freeze their Swiss bank accounts and overseas assets, don’t let them ski at our resorts and moor their yachts anywhere in the Mediterranean. Make them unwelcome in our lands. Let them feel the weight of their perfidy to their people. Let’s deal with the illness, not the symptoms.

Error: Unable to create directory /home/demockra/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2010/09. Is its parent directory writable by the server? Israel: Nuclear Implications of Corruption?

The proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increasing risk of global catastrophe have been on the minds of all western nations since the end of the Cold War. Nuclear weapons were falsely used as justification for the invasion of Iraq, and they are currently used as justification for harsher sanctions against Iran. Two of the U.S allies in the Sub-Continent of India possess nuclear weapons along with sophisticated delivery systems, and China and North Korea are also members of the nuclear club. All of these countries developed them, despite being party to agreements not to do so. However, why do most of the western world seem to ignore the nation with the largest number of unofficial nukes, all illegal by international convention?

Israel started to develop nuclear technology in the 1950s and had a bomb by 1968. The Wisconsin Project which monitors nuclear weapons around the world has for many years placed that arsenal as between 100 and 200 warheads. Israel itself maintains a policy of refusing to confirm or deny its stockpile of nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them anywhere in the Middle East or Europe.

One of the reasons to ignore Israel’s alleged breach of non-nuclear proliferation agreements may have been our assumption that society in Israel is somehow more stable and less corrupt than other nations. However, a quick look under the surface shows that is not necessarily the case.  Because of a lack of transparency, we can not assume that the finger on Israel’s nuclear button will necessarily be rational or that Israel has the proper protocols for nuclear detonation.

Israel’s parliamentary leaders have faced much recent controversy. Three recent premiers, Ehud Olmert, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ariel Sharon have all been subjected to allegations of fraud. It was the recent resignation over fraud allegations of Ehud Olmert that has resulted in a stalemate in government. Tzipi Livni, his successor, has been unable to form a successful coalition with the other parties, and it is unlikely that the situation will be resolved before spring. The President was also being investigated for allegations of rape and sexual assault and has resigned. This is only at the top–some other ministers and MPs have been also been subjected to allegations of fraud and/or resigned.  In 2008, Israel placed 33^rd in the World Corruption Index, tied with the West Indies and the Commonwealth of Dominica. This ranking was the lowest of any developed nation. Israel scored especially low on the transparency sub index. According to recent public polling in Israel, 72% of Israelis rate the corruption as high to very high, and nearly 50% of all young people would like to leave Israel if they could. The main reason given is government corruption followed by poor educational availability and fears over security. Seven thousand more people left Israel permanently in 2007 than entered.

Given such an epidemic of alleged corruption among Israeli leaders, the real question then is, “Whose finger is on the nuclear button, or may be on that button, and what controls are there on that person’s unilateral ability to press such a button”? In most of the world, there are many strict controls placed on a President or Prime Minister before the option to use nuclear weapons would even be considered. If that stage is ever reached, there are codes to be entered keys, held by separate officials and a multitude of complex procedures before they can be mobilized. For example, India and Pakistan  have their own systems of multiple protocols as a condition of acceptance into the nuclear club. The leaders of these two countries have put in hotlines with direct access to each other and have established other protocols in the event of a crisis that could lead to nuclear confrontation.  Given that Israel does not even admit to having nuclear weapons, we have no idea if such protocols exist. There are many national security reasons that could explain why Israel is less than fully transparent about their nuclear program. However, considering the recent alleged corruption of its leaders, the time is ripe for more transparency.

Error: Unable to create directory /home/demockra/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2010/09. Is its parent directory writable by the server? Lessons in History: Saudi- Pashganistan

Spanish born philosopher and poet George Santayana is famous for saying, “He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it.” For politicians, military leaders, and many so-called experts, ignorance of the history of the Middle East and the subcontinent of India have created much of the chaos in those regions today.

Let’s start with Saudi Arabia, which with the aid of its vast oil wealth has spread religious hatred and intolerance around the world. Saudi Arabia was conquered by the “House of Saud” in the early years of the 20th century. Their success was only possible with the assistance of the Wahhabi tribe of the Bedouin. The Wahhabi adhered to a brand of Islam that originated in the 7th Century and was based on old desert tribal traditions. Unfortunately, in return for the support of the tribe, the House of Saud agreed to adhere to the Wahhabi’s fundamental version of Islam. This created few problems until the 70’s when the Royal Family made some attempts to modernize the Kingdom. In retaliation in 1979, the Wahabbi’s and other fundamentalists seized the City of Mecca. This was devastating to the Royal Family. Mecca is the ultimate city to Muslims. It is Jerusalem, Vatican City, and Varanasi all rolled into one. It is also a major source of revenue, as Muslim beliefs dictate that all believers should visit the City at least once in their lifetime. The Saudi Royal Family could not rely on the support of their military, as many seemed to side with the rebels. Thus, the Saudi Royal Family had to call in French Commandos to re-seize Mecca. Those Frenchmen were of course rapidly sworn in as Muslims, as no unbelievers are allowed in the Holy City.

Since that time, the House of Saud, which consists of over 40,000 individuals, has attempted a balancing act. Royal Family members ski in Switzerland, gamble in Mexico, have their yachts in the Mediterranean, and party and debauch around the world. In return, they have handed education, the courts, the mosques, much of the total revenues, and all religious enforcement to the Wahhabbi’s. Entertainment, music, and literature outside of the Koran are discouraged. Today 40% of all education in Saudi Arabia is according to the rules of Wahabbi Islam. They also fund the majority of all the world’s mosques, which now often preach the same hateful Islamic rhetoric, where the killing of an Apostate [unbeliever] is considered no sin. Life for women in Saudi Arabia is bleak. They cannot drive, they are stoned to death for adultery, and are often whipped for promiscuous behavior after being raped. Change of faith is punished by death. The Royal Family maintains its own small army to protect themselves from the population.

Afghanistan has always been a hard country to subjugate. The major and controlling tribe is the Pashtun or Pashto. They are divided into many clans, but all comprise the main tribe. Their tribal lands extend into Northwest Pakistan, and they do not recognize the border. Pakistan since its foundation in 1948 has always been a failed state. The Presidency has consisted only of corrupted officials or military dictatorships. They have never had control over the Pashtun lands. The Pashtun have always been renowned as fearful warriors in this very rugged area. This landscape is a guerrilla army’s dream. In 1842, the Pashtun totally destroyed a British Army of 60,000 with only one survivor. In 1978, the Russians invaded Afghanistan, with again their major opponents being the Pashtun. They too were forced to withdraw in 1989, after their casualties grew too great to bear. The Russians won every battle, but could not defeat a guerrilla army in such wild territory.

During the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the US and Saudi Arabia started to supply arms and support to the Pashtun on a 50/50 basis. They were assisted by the Pakistan intelligence service known as the I.SS. This was in the short term successful, and antitank and anti-aircraft weapons undoubtedly aided the resistance. It was, however, the Saudi role that has led to most of the difficulties since. Prior to Saudi involvement, the Pashtun were Muslim, but not fanatics. Once the Saudis were established in Northwest Pakistan, from where the arms were taken over the border into Afghanistan, they set up Muslim Schools or Madrassas in this very poor region. These Madrassas taught only the fundamental Wahabbi version of Islam. Any literary skills picked up by the students were only as a by-product of the repetition of Koranic verses.

It is from these Madrassas that the Taliban were born. Their version of Islam is that of their Muslim brethren in Saudi Arabia–hateful, intolerant, with barbaric consequences to all whose views differ from theirs. Saudi Arabia continues to be a main funder of the Taliban, and the funding is generous. A Taliban fighter earns 3 times that of an Afghani soldier. Afghanistan is full of poppy fields, and many think this is the main source of the Taliban revenue. It should, however, be realized that the poppy fields have been there since the time of Alexander the Great, and I suspect that most of the revenues still go to the families who have always received them.

In order to be successful in this part of the world, the first step must be to cut out Saudi Arabia. That country supplies 20% of the world’s oil, and even more of the world’s terrorism. As alternate energy sources are developed, that tap must be closed. As we have seen recently, Pakistan and India have become violently destabilized by the poisonous fundamental Muslim rhetoric spreading out from this chaos. Both of these countries have atomic weapons and long-range delivery systems which are a threat to the stability of the entire world. The consequences are too high for the rest of the world to be ignorant to this complex ethnic, religious, and cultural history. We must strive to learn from this history and to not let it repeat itself.

[Note. The history of the area is very complex, and some generalizations have been made, i.e., not all Taliban are Pashtun, but the vast majority are. The Afghan President Mohammad Kharzi is himself a Pashtun.]

Error: Unable to create directory /home/demockra/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2010/09. Is its parent directory writable by the server? The Wild Card in Iranian Relations

Recent news reports are indicating that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is suffering from ill health. Combine that with economic uncertainty in Iran because of economic woes caused largely by declining world oil prices, and it is now not certain that Ahmadinejad will even run for reelection next year, let alone win. This development throws another kink into the already complicated foreign policy relationship that the new U.S. President will inherit with Iran.

Being over reliant on a single resource, Iran’s economy is not completely diversified and therefore prone to severe economic shocks.  For example, recent inflation in the country is approaching 30 percent. In addition, civil unrest is not a new phenomenon there. A large young population has been restless for years, not a good sign for a repressive dictatorship that wishes to keep tight control. Of course, the real power in Iran lies with Ayatollah Khameini, not with President Ahmadinejad. Therefore, even if Ahmadinejad were to leave office next year, overall issues of strategic direction that lie with the head of state would not be disrupted. However, Ahmadinejad is the current face, albeit a very controversial face to the rest of the outside world. Therefore, foreign relations with the west, and the U.S. in particular, might change drastically with a new president in Iran.

Chances are that a new moderate leader could take power. However, one can never be sure. If the economy deteriorates and unemployment rises at a fast pace, no one knows what may happen. Yes, Iran is a hostile nation. However, social unrest in Iran could lead to an even scarier foreign policy dilemma–stateless actors with potential access to nuclear reactors.

Therefore, as the U.S. candidates debate the nuances of whether there should be discussions with Ahmadinejad without preconditions, they may just be missing the forest for the trees.