Press TV reports that Iran’s Majlis (parliament) speaker says an Iraq-US security pact would have dire consequences for the Iraqi nation and regional states.
Under the proposed security agreement, American troops will be able to legally stay in Iraq for three more years after a UN mandate allowing their military presence on Iraqi soil expires on December 31.
The Iraqi parliament is scheduled to vote on the controversial treaty on Wednesday.
Ali Larijani, the top Iranian Majlis member, said Monday that Iraqi parliamentarians should carefully study all aspects of the agreement and have the right to be over sensitive about it.
“There are articles in the deal that are a kind of deception … and contradict Iraq’s sovereignty,” Larijani was quoted by Mehr news agency.
“The treaty is a mirage that if finalized will compel Iraqis to follow the Americans for a very long time,” he continued.
The top US military commander, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, hinted last week that even after signing the agreement, Washington would continue talks to change the articles of the security treaty.
“Three years is a long time. Conditions could change in that period of time,” said Adm. Mullen. “Clearly, [changing the agreement] is theoretically possible.”
see also a strongly worded editorial by the chief editor of Kayhan, Hussein Shariatmadari.
Iran should be given a medal as she seems to care SO much about Iraq’i people’s rights and Iraq’s sovereignty! I suppose everyone wants a “sovereign” Iraq they can bomb at will. Is this a quarrel of imperialisms or what?! ~Anonymust
@anonymust: there is something in between holy altruistic compassion and imperialism (the only choices you offer): how about any of the following:
a) the national interest of not seeing another Iraqi regime launching a murderous attack on Iran like what Saddam did?
b) the desire to have an Iraq in which the majority of the people have a majority say in the political process (the majority in Iraq being Shia)
c) the desire not to have the planet’s Uber-Imperialist power use Iraq as part of a system of encirclement, threats, subversion and terrorism against Iran.
I would say that a combination of the above is the most likely policy imperative of Iran towards Iraq and that none of that amount to any kind of “imperialism”
To compare Iran’s policy towards Iraq with the one of Uncle Sam is rather bizarre (and that is putting it kindly)
VS: Perhaps you are right. My views are based on what the person at the very bottom sees when he looks up.
To the person at the very bottom it makes no difference –the struggle is among powers who wouldn’t hesitate to rape the country and have been having a clandestine war for quite sometime now.
So, yeah, my views are bizzare because for once I can look at the whole thing from the very bottom of the pit and see that at the end of the day all Iran cares about is its own interest and its own power play in the Middle East.
So, what’s the difference between a major and minor imperial power as far as the man on the street is concerned?
Anything can be national interest: be it securing oil fields 20 miles 10,000 miles away. Same stuff, dressed differently (being polite too, in return to your politeness).
Same story everywhere… Only the poor pays the price for what the rich and powerful wants. ~Anonymust
@anonymust: to be honest, I can’t think of a single example of any country out there which does not first and foremost defend it national interests. Even Hezbollah will, I think, consider the interests of Lebanon before the interests of the Palestinian people.
As for Iran, you will see if you parse my comments on this blog that I am not the pro-Iranian sycophant that some have accused me of being: the reality is that my position on Iran is what I call “critically sympathetic” or “cautiously sympathetic”. There are plenty of things about Iran which I am dubious about including its support (at least officially) for Maliki, its willingness to get some kind of “grand bargain” with the USA, its less than stellar record on human rights, its rather bizarre “neither here not there” position on the SOFA, etc. But this does not change three fundamental issues:
a) Iran lost ONE MILLION people as a result of the Iraqi aggression
b) Iran is THE PRIME TARGET of the US-Israeli Empire in the Middle-East and it is the ONLY country in the Middle-East which truly and openly resist the USraelian imperial project.
c) Iran is the most democratic and peaceful country in the Middle-East (yeah, Iran is not quite Lichtenstein, but Lichtenstein is not quite in the Middle-East either)
That is why I remain basically sympathetic to Iran even though I am under no illusions about the degree of “saintly altruism” of the Iranian leaders.
However, there are differences in degree and these quantitative differences eventually result in qualitative differences, even for a person at the very bottom.
The fact is that Iran has not invaded Iraq. The fact is that Iran has not raised Falludjah to the ground. The fact is that Iran is not running Abu Ghraib. The fact is that Iran is not kidnapping US diplomats. The fact is that Iran will not try to establish bases in Iraq.etc. The fact is that if you are at the bottom of the Iraqi society you are not likely to be killed by a Pasdaran or in an Iranian Air Force strike.
As for oil, the fact is that unlike the USA, Iran is sitting on plenty enough oil of its own for the time being and that it is engaged in a nuclear research program PRECISELY because it knows that when its own oil runs out it will have to do something about it (other than invading Iraq).
Last, but not least (at least not in my mind), the Iranian society is based on a fundamentally anti-racist set of values which will not allow them to consider the Iraqi people as either Hadjis, Ragheads or Goyim cattle. Iranians will never loose sight that the Iraqi people are their fellow human beings first and foremost, that a lot of Iraqis are fellow Muslims second, and that those who are not Shia or Muslim are still fellow Muslims for the former, and people of the Book for the latter (heck, even Zoroastrians are officially recognized and protected in Iran as an official Iranian minority – try that in a Wahabi country!).
Anonymust, if you don’t agree, please let me know why. I am not laying claim to being a “person at the bottom” in Iraq. I am safely sitting at my keyboard in the USA and I am in no danger from any Iranian malfeasance here, in sunny Florida. Still, to convince me of our fundamental position that Iran and the USA are just two imperialist powers fighting for the oil fields of Iraq you will have to address the arguments I present to you above in support of my position that there is a fundamental quantitative AND qualitative difference between these two countries.
Kind regards,
The Saker
Dear VS
First let me tell you that I am not against Iran nor am I endorsing an imperial power taking over any other country. I do believe that people of a country must be allowed to decide on their own destiny. The reason Saddam (he met his demise although I don’t agree with the way it was done) was in power for so long was because of the support (e.g. guns, uncluding chemical weapons from peaceful DUtchies) he had from the West and Russia (I am not sure if it’s appropriate to state the fact that NATO countries were selling guns to both sides during the war). I do believe if you are not supporting the oppressed peoples, you should be leaving them alone and not acting against their very right of representing themselves and living their ways of life.
The main point I am disagreeing with you is that while taken as small isolated pieces a lot of Iranian (heck almost any country’s) actions may make sense. The problem is, the total system as a whole sucks. My disagreement with you lies in the fact that you are sympathetic to Iran just because it seems to be against US.
Iran bombs over the border and even conducts joint cross-border operations with Turkey. We all know what the reason is being portrayed as. If a country is bombing civilian locations and forces them leave their homes and live in tents then she should be decent enough to reimburse those people. Heck those people belong to the same religion. The real reason is to create a human-free security zone slong the border (a Turkish policy which is being supported, if not originated by the US). So, I am sorry, but I am not sharing your sympathy toward Iran.
It’s true Iran is not kidnapping US diplomats. Iran is known to assasinate people at nagotiation table. Let’s not mention all the people some of whom are journalists waiting to be hanged “for the matter of national security”.
While you are right about Iranian culture not having racist values built into it and being more humanitarian, I would like to raise a point about hanging people high in public until recently (which stopped due to international pressure).
Unlike you, I think the mullah regime is corrupt and the altuistic leaders you are talking about have fat accounts, some of which are in Canada. When it comes to the Kurdish issue, Iran sides US and with Turkey and Syria and Iraq and rest of the Arabs that Kerkuk should not be a part of the Kurdish Administration (regardless of whether they are corrupt or not, we are talking historical justice).
I do believe I have said that before: what goes around, comes around. If Iran is OK with having other people suffer for it’s interests, then well, like an old western movie said “one day there’ll be someone faster than you.”
My point is that perhaps all the countries in the region are paying the price (and perhaps will pay more in the future) for the sins they have been committing collectively. It’s very kind of Iranians to recoqnize Zroastrians after destroying much of their history.
Iran can openly oppose the US because it has the backing of Russia and China (not sure of India). If Iran really wants the backing of people in the area, it should act in a way that’s worthy of a noble country, who is true to its core values: don’t step on the throats of peoples who are already suffering, make them your friends for you need people on your side! Having said all these, I do have to state the fact that Iran has been the kindest country toward Kurds compared to the three others which have a sizable Kurdish population. That should tell you what I think about the other “big tree”.
Regards,
Anonymust
@anonymust: ok, let’s get one thing clear here: your beef with Iran is its treatment of the Kurds, not what Iran does in Iraq or what Iran does with the 42 percent of Iranians who are neither Persians nor Kurds. According to Wikipedia, there are 7% of Kurds in Iran, but we are talking about less than that since what we are really talking about are those Kurds who are generally sympathetic to autonomist and/or secessionist Kurdish movement (that is logically obvious unless one makes the far fetched claim that 100% of Iranian Kurds are pro autonomy or pro independence). Still, rather than bicker about percentages I will, for argument sake, convede that 100% of Iranian Kurds are sympathetic to the Kurdish nationalist/autonomist/separatist agenda and that all these Kurds feel that Tehran is “stepping on their throats” as you put it.
Before I go on, let me reiterate something I said before: I am not taking sides on the Kurdish-Iranian issue only because I do not know enough about it to have an opinion.
Still, some questions come to my mind:
Why would Iran “step on the throats” of the Kurds who represent only 7% of its population and not do that with the 42% of its population which is non-Persian? The Kurds are neither the biggest minority (Azeris are) nor the smallest (Laks, Qashqai, Armenians, Persian Jews, Georgians, Assyrians, Circassians, Tats, Mandaeans, Gypsies, Brahuis, Hazara, Kazakhs and others small groups all represent less than 1%). So why the Kurds?
Could that have something to do with the terror campaigns of PJAK, Mujahideen-e Khalq and other CIA funded terror groups? Could that be because of the more-than-cozy relationship of the Iraqi Kurds with the US forces in Iraq?
Since you and I both agree that racism is absent from Iranian politics (heck, the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is an Azeri!) this really begs the question of why the government in Tehran would single out Kurdish throats to “step on”, does it not?
Also,some of your arguments are less than convincing. For example, you say that the Iranians “assassinated people at the negotiating table” referring to the Abd al Rahman Qasimlu. May I remind you here that this happenedin 1989, almost two decades ago at a time where Iran did, indeed, organize a number of assassinations abroad. In these post-Revolutionary years, under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran did, indeed, commit a large number of atrocities, inside Iran and abroad, no argument here. But what does that have to do with the rule of Ali Khamenei and modern Iran? Need I remind you of the truly lengthy list of atrocities committed by Kurds in Turkey, Iraq and Iran (including ugly inter-Kurdish wars and massacres and alliances with Saddam and Khomenei!).
I will even grant you that modern Iran is not Lichtenstein, but by the standards of the greater Middle-East it is, I would argue, certainly the most democratic, pluralistic and peaceful. Sure, Iran might have a policy which some Kurds perceive as oppressive. This is also how some Basques feel about the Spanish rule and some Albanian feel about the Macedonian rule, but this is hardly enough, at least in my eye, to damn the whole country and its policies.
You are right, I am sympathetic to Iran because it resist the Empire. But this is not the only reason. After all, the Talibans also resist the Empire and I loathe them and the Wahabi ideology they represent. I happen to think that Iran is not only the strongest force to resist the empire, but that it also is BY FAR the most tolerant society in the Middle-East (if you do not agree, name me a better one).
In contrast, I get the feeling that you damn Iran only because of the single Kurdish issue. I will tell you upfront that I refuse to reduce everything to one single issue of one ethnic group in particular when the contextual question of what precisely this group has been singled out for the putative oppression over all the other minorities.
Iran is only 51% Persian. It has always been a multinational state. Somehow all the other cultures seem to be doing just fine, thank you. Why?
I assure you that I am very interested in hearing your replies on this topic and think about them with an open mind, but I will need arguments to be convinced. Last, but not least and, for the record, I am neither Iranian, nor Persian, nor Azeri, nor Shia, nor Muslism nor do I have any kind of personal or family ties or attachment with Iran or any Shia or Muslim interests or people.
Kind regards,
The Saker
Ok, I don’t have time to address every point you have raised. Why all those states (not just Iran) single out Kurds… May it be because Kurds have somehow protected their identity and refused being completely assimilated? You speak of Azeri’s. How many Turkic states are there to protect Azeri’s when things go haywire? Heck, Turkey openly pressures Armenia when it’s about rights of Azeris. In a nutshell, Iran will respect Azeris simply because it has no other choice (jews too). So you tell me WHY kurds are being singled out (other than they don’t have a state to defend them), I am looking for the answer myself.
The crimes you mention which Kurds have committed in Turkey. Read the news and see what Ergenekon (equals gladio but much more powerful) has been up to (Ganser has a book on gladio and forces alike).
Kurds get blamed by being close with CIA or USA. The question is WHY in the hell would they do that? Let’s take the Turkish example. They were promised autonomy by the Turks in exchange for fighting the occupiers together and the day the country was saved, the turks turned onto kurds and massacred them. Similar stuff happened time and again with other countries who have a sizable kurdish minorities. So, according to your argument the Kurds in Iraq should embrace the arabs who hate their guts and are looking for a chance to wipe them off the map. Then they would gain your respect, right? I don’t think Kurds should be needing approval from anyone to acquire their very basic rights.
Iran is now forbidding the kurdish villages on the border with Iraq from having horses. You cannot draw borders arbitrarily, split people up and then expect them to cut the ties from one another. The excuse Iran has is they are carrying contraband. Well yeah, I suppose they do. Why in the earth nobody ever thinks what if there is no other way for those people to make a living? Most of all, WHY in the earth should they obey the borders drawn by someone else? They are crossing the unjust borders and visiting their homeland.
You speak of being against imperial powers yet Iran is today trying so hard to protect the borders drawn arbitrarily by imperial powers back in 1940ies. How just is that?!
Ok, so tell me, what terror campaign PJAK has committed??? I can cite you specific events of bloody pasdarans killing even kids. Who’s committing terrorist acts really??? MKO , if anything, has killed a lot of Kurds.
As for your comment on infighting. Kurds have had no friends and surrounded by the enemy. Iran was one of the powers instigating the infighting.
So, tell me really, why did the imperial powers of today (and back then) made sure Kurds would not have their own country and why in the earth every country in the middle east, including the most tolerant Iran are in perfect harmony when it comes to annihilation of Kurds??? I would like to know the truth myself.
Lastly, I am not going to favor Iran because it’s best of oppressors. If Iran wants support of Kurds, it should begin by being genuine to Kurdish rights and stop joint military actions with Turkey. Let me remind you that recently Iranian pasdaran confiscated the herds of kurdish villages on the turkish side. Guess how the villagers got their animals back? Well, they captured a pasdaran and wouldn’t let him go unless Iran returned the animals. Fair trade I suppose.
Kurds would rather strike a deal with Iran than anyone else. Does Iran really want a deal with Kurds, probably not as Iran is interested in selling its oil and gas to Europe possibly through Turkey. Hell, who cares about Kurds?! They are in the way of everyone’s comfort. Enough is enough!
Regards,
I forgot to sign the previous post. Anonymust.
PS: Frankly, I think the Iran vs US quarrel is a well calculated one to polarize the Middle East. Time will show in the near future if I am right but I suspect Iran had already made a deal with the US.