# Iran Moves Into Afghanistan



## GAP (28 Dec 2006)

I looks like Iran is trying to influence surrounding countries by more than subversive aid.


Iran Moves Into Afghanistan
Article Link

It seems I wasn’t entirely off my rocker in seeing Iran advance into Afghanistan over the next 15 years:
The rise of Hezbollah, with Iran’s support, has demonstrated the extent of Tehran’s sway in Lebanon, and the American toppling of Saddam Hussein has allowed it to expand its influence in Iraq. Iran has been making inroads into Afghanistan, as well. During the tumultuous 1980s and ’90s, Iran shipped money and arms to groups fighting first the Soviet occupation and later the Taliban government. But since the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban in 2001, Iran has taken advantage of the central government’s weakness to pursue a more nuanced strategy: part reconstruction, part education and part propaganda. 
Iran has distributed its largess, more than $200 million in all, mostly here in the west but also in the capital, Kabul. It has set up border posts against the heroin trade, and next year will begin work on new road and construction projects and a rail line linking the countries. In Kabul, its projects include a new medical center and a water testing laboratory.
Ambassador Bahrami is correct in saying Iran has a legitimate security concern in making sure Afghanistan is stable… to say nothing of their probable nervousness at beefed up U.S. military forces on either side should things get too bad in both countries.
It would appear Iran is finally feeling in a position to flex its muscles as the returning regional power, given its activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan—a side effect of being a nuclear nuisance. Those activities include making things as difficult as possible for the American troops. This is unfortunate, as Iran and the U.S. actually cooperated in the initial campaign against the Taliban in late 2001. After Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech, the Iranians backed off from their general offer of support and focused instead on securing their position within Herat province.
It has other implications as well. Rather than applying to work somewhere like Europe or the U.S., hundreds of thousands of Afghani citizens are applying for work visas in Iran each year. Despite the probable security concerns five years down the line, Iran certainly seems to have an easier time of PR than the U.S. does, which bodes poorly for the future of our efforts there. For the moment, the U.S. and NATO have a narrow margin in good vibes; this is unlikely to last, however, with Musharraf’s reckless border campaigns and continued low levels of “nation building” personnel
End


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Dec 2006)

> Iran certainly seems to have an easier time of PR than the U.S. does, which bodes poorly for the future of our efforts there.



The reason obviously is that Iran can control its news media and get the story they want even if they have to create the story. Having a news media in the west that seems to be philosophically inclined toward the islamists is a major disadvantage for us. At some point even the gullible public will wise up and tune out the MSM. We already see some of this in the US with subscriptions to major newspapers dropping and with cable news viewership dropping. The AP has been caught either creating stories out of thin air and regurgitating islasmist propaganda. The media only hurt their own credibility with the public.

One thing that does help us is the mistrust of Afghans toward Iran's mullahocracy. They will not quickly return to the path of rule by clerics after casting off the taliban.


----------



## salam (4 Jan 2007)

I believe that the role of Iran in Afghanistan is actually a step in the right direction.  I believe strongly in regional partners contributing to regional problems, Iran has a cultural, lingual and historical closeness to Afghanistan and under the right conditions it could help contribute to the rebuilding of Afghanistan and more than anyone Iran has only to gain from a strong and stable Afghanistan.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2007)

Salam,

With the greatest of respect, have Iran get rid of the current bunch of people running that country, then perhaps I might be more willing to accept that something that Iran does is beneficial to anybody other than Ahmadinejad and the 12th Imam.  In the meantime I don't think that ANYTHING that Iran does or proposes is worthy of consideration.  Those borders ought to be sealed and the entire country put under siege if we don't have the strength to take out separate the leaders from the followers.

I particularly don't think that Iran's current leadership should be given any legitimacy when it comes to their desire to play regional power games.  Once they learn to play nice with the rest of the kids in the playground then they can come out for recess.  In the meantime they need detention.


----------



## Trinity (4 Jan 2007)

salam said:
			
		

> I believe that the role of Iran in Afghanistan is actually a step in the right direction.  I believe strongly in regional partners contributing to regional problems, Iran has a cultural, lingual and historical closeness to Afghanistan and under the right conditions it could help contribute to the rebuilding of Afghanistan and more than anyone Iran has only to gain from a strong and stable Afghanistan.



Really.  

What are these right conditions?

Don't you find it ironic that Iran wants to help in a country that is considered to be a puppet government of the USA?

I'm having trouble trying to make the points I want to say... brain fart.. So I'll summarize

Iran helping in Afghanistan to me smacks in the face of America.  Anything Iran can do to make America look bad
or to take down the American Economy they will do (i.e. selling their oil in Euro's instead of US dollars as the world standard is).
This is a political ploy that does Iran good..  no one else.


----------



## salam (4 Jan 2007)

Okay, well can I firstly say that I am a very strong critic of the current regime in Iran, I believe that there are some truly deplorable human rights violations that occur there everyday and I will continue to press for social/political change in Iran while respecting that it is in the hands of Iranians to bring about this change within their own country.  

Touching on your comment about sealing their boarders and putting the entire country under seige to remove the democratically (not without fault, as in Western countries as well) elected government and replacing them with someone that the world could stomach better...I could not disagree more.  Isolating and demonizing regimes only works to farther understanding and co-operation, and in terms of dealing with Iran I would favour Russia, France and China's model any day over that of the US.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Jan 2007)

MODERATOR WARNING


KEEP ANY REPLIES CLEAN, FOLKS


----------



## salam (4 Jan 2007)

Reply to Trinity:

To understand what I am saying you first need to step away from the "Its us against them" "East against West" way of thinking.

It is true that the current Afghan govenment is seen as the puppet of the US, but that government will not be around forever but Afghanistan will always be Iran's neighbor, you have to think ahead.

I think that by pulling Iran into the affairs of its own boarders you force it to deal with the reality of the situation. In other words it is so easy to talk about the job of the Americans in Afghanistan and how they are corruptors..blah blah blah..but make them join in the work and they will have no one to point at but themselves...I may be speaking idealy, but I am talking about the advancement of our sociaety and the way in which we deal with things.


----------



## GO!!! (4 Jan 2007)

salam,

If Iran_ really _ wished to demonstrate it's newfound feelings of goodwill and philanthropy, it could do so by;
- assisting the US in capturing criminals who regularly pass through the Iran/Iraq border, 
- by allowing IAEA inspections of it's purpotedly peaceful nuclear program, 
- by ceasing to demand that a certain nation be "wiped from the face of the earth", 
- by ceasing it's agitating in Lebanon - the list goes on.

No, Iran's "help" in Afghanistan is beneficial to only one country - Iran. This help is little more than a thumb in the eye of the Americans and their allies (including us) who have done all of the "heavy lifting".

Your assertations as to "advancing our society, and the way we deal with things" rings especially hollow with the way the Iranian government presently "deals with" bothersome reporters and opposition party members who oppose them. Part of a free society is that _everyone_ has the right to express their views - and not be killed for it.


----------



## salam (4 Jan 2007)

To all:  first let me say that I am hear to partake in healthy discussion and look forward to sharing ideas between each other, I am not hear to change views or claim to have the best and only one.

GO:

Okay, yes good points, and stuff that I do not necessarily disagree on, however: 
-helping the US capturing criminals, it should go without saying, but then how would that fair for its Axis of Evil image??? I believe that both sides need to take steps forward.
-Calling for the destruction of any modern state is deplorable...I am a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause and I can be the first to say that Ahmadenijad is not helping ANYONE with this.  There are far more constructive ways to be a critic of the Israeli/Palestinian issue.  But then that wouldn't make the news would it?? Much like that axis of evil thing said by somone...
-I would like you to clarify on your point in Lebanon, yes Hezbollah has obvious ties to Iran, but as a modern entity whose discourse is supported by many Lebanese, and whose objectives are internal to the Lebanese state, it has little to do with Iran.

I am not at all suggesting that Iran's involvement in Afghanistan is a betterment to what our soldiers are presently doing in the country.  I am talking of the inclusion of regional powers in regional conflicts, but not at the exclusion of the work and sacrifice that is being done by other powers (being us).

Lastly your last line has me all confused. Please refer my post above when I object to the opressive actions of the Iranian regime and I do not at all think that my call for moving forward as a society rings in connection to that.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Jan 2007)

It would also be nice for Iran to stop supporting both the Sunni insurgency and the radical shia militias.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2007)

salam said:
			
		

> ..... in terms of dealing with Iran I would favour Russia, France and China's model any day over that of the US.



I am sure you would.  And that is what bothers me most.

Cheers.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Jan 2007)

Strategy wise, and long term wise, it would be....wise (damn, overused it within one sentence  ) for Iran to get Hezbollah well established in Afghanistan.  They would be great for disrupting and usurping NATO efforts there, and since the western media have been so eager to broadcast that we are going to pull out of there first chance possible (not just Canada, but the demonstrated reluctance to engage an actual enemy by the rest via _caveats_), they are probably waiting to fill the power vacuum.  Plus, I'm betting that the Taliban crew won't be as eager to blow up Hezbollah medical clinics and trigger an inter-terrorist pissing match.  If NATO does jet prematurely, Hezbollah could then consolidate the radical elements along the Pakistan border, and start working towards pushing PAK into a civil war (which doesn't seem like an impossible occurrence at this point).
I'm betting it would also be nice if Iran could have a nice secured route overland via A'stan from China to bring their weapons in through.  Much harder to intercept if it isn't inbound by sea.


----------



## salam (4 Jan 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I am sure you would.  And that is what bothers me most.
> 
> Cheers.



Alright I expected that. I think that we are definitely coming from two different places on this one, while I am sure we will meet again on another thread I think have said my part for this one.  

I will also bow out from arguing the last post by zipperhead_cop maybe we will talk another time, but that post does not have any valid information worth discussing, for me at least..sorry.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Jan 2007)

salam said:
			
		

> I will also bow out from arguing the last post by zipperhead_cop maybe we will talk another time, but that post does not have any valid information worth discussing, for me at least..sorry.



I guess I'll break out my bottle of Black Label, drink it down and cry myself to sleep.   :
My post was not directed at you.  It was just opinions in general.


----------



## GO!!! (5 Jan 2007)

salam,

While you may be seeking intelligent discourse on this matter here, the reality of the matter is that Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, are quickly coming to embody the militant Islam that is becoming the enemy of the secular west.

Both sides in the current geo-political conflict have endeavoured to identify themselves as the saviour of their particular sphere, and the only ones able to cast off the oppressive yoke of the other. To the Iranians, we are the latest in a long list of invaders, to be beaten under any banner. To the secular west, first it was Nazis, then Communists, and now muslim terrorists and the governments that support them.

You are posting on a forum that is dominated by the soldiers (both serving and retired) who will (and have been) fighting in this, latest war. Here, discussions about Iranian and Syrian IED factories are much closer to home - the posters here have seen their handiwork up close and personal. 

Iran is the enemy of the secular west - it threatens the only middle eastern democracy with destruction, agitates in surrounding states, supplies weapons and expertise that kills and maims Canadian troops and their allies, uses a strategic resource as a weapon of economic warfare and contributes, in spades, to both instability in the region and in global fora, where it continually raises the spectre of a nuclear war, fought on theocratic principles, which by their very nature, resist both negotiation and compromise.

You will find few friends here to share your views, your "peace" moniker notwithstanding.


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Jan 2007)

salam said:
			
		

> Reply to Trinity:
> 
> To understand what I am saying you first need to step away from the "Its us against them" "East against West" way of thinking.



Firstly, welcome to army.ca

Please enlighten us with filling out your profile (if you like, its not manditory) and perhaps a brief introduction too, rather than just jumping in. This lets us have a glimpse on who others are on here, nothing more.

In this war, it is us against them, they even call it that, because there is no PC here, and thats how it is. The infidel or kufar against the extreme true believers. Thats what hapened on 11 Sep 01, Kuta Beach etc, just to name a couple. What do you think this war is about, and why its happening? Lets here your views.

We know Iran is the West's next biggest worry, and its just a matter of time til there is a BIG clash. The nation is currently radicalised as if it was one giant hornets nest which as fell from a tree, and there we are, barefoot standing next to it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist ot figure that out.

Just my opinion, here at the coalface of the matter, and I hope being here and living the daily onslaught adds to some sense of reality of whats going on, compared to any armchair SMEs out there who lean towards the enemy's beliefs, and may have the 'real picture' of course from their sources, say Al Jeezera ad Al Zahraa, or other media forms which bat for the other side.

I watch AJ and CNN daily. Two different stories. One non-bias, the other, right out of this world.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## KevinB (5 Jan 2007)

I think GO!!! and Wes put the point clearly enough.

Iran is very active in Afghanistan and Iraq because it wants to be the preeminent power in the region.  It has sent a untold number of people, weapons and other items into these theatres, none of these activities where designed to help the people or governments of the countries, but to create carnage and death, to reduce the will of the Western countires and have them drawback -- then Iran as the helpfull ally will move in and absorb the people, land and resources.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (5 Jan 2007)

Well,  I don't think anyone here is unaware of the situation in Iran.  Everyone here can agree on that current governments mindset, goals and problems.  I see it as an oppressive regime that is slowly loosing controll over its population who's primary focus is on survival of the regime. (If I'm wrong,  please tell me what I got wrong.) I can understand the Iranian government reasons for being skiddish when a country who routinely calls you evil, a country that funded a terrible war of aggression against you, for whatever reason has a fair sized armed presence in countries on two sides of your country.

I have to agree that it is in Iran's best intrest to stabilize Afghanistan.  However, it isn't in the best intrest of their leaders.  If a country right next door,  who literally speaks their language (My Farsi/Dari is so bad I have trouble telling the difference) becomes a prosperous, stable democracy, that dictatorship can kiss their privilege and torture chambers goodbye.    I honestly believe Iran perceives a threat against itself.  Iran is doing what countries that feel threatened do,  they're expanding their sphere of influence,  consolidating power,  getting the population worked up.  Prepairing for war on many levels jingoism isn't limited to the Western world.

What isn't standard is the new rules to the game,  before when you're expanding your sphere of influence you'd just say so.  Now Iran needs to keep it under the guise of humanitarian aid (or in supporting oppressed peoples).  Secretly fund groups that do what you want them to (or not so secretly) and then officially give aid and support.  It is delicate and offers benefits other than the obvious. The only problem is that for all the money they throw at the terrorist groups,  they will only succeed if the western world lets them - and for all our talk of peace and love for all,  if we feel threatened by a country we've never quit.  

I think that if Iran's leadership just woke up and saw that they have a great opportunity,  things could change over night.  All they have to do is stop their groups inside of Afghanistan from doing anything (Take the money they're spending on replacements and put it towards setting up a coup de etait)  give the world the appearance that all is good and then when western troops pull out have their groups start stuff up. Then move in to "secure" the country for humanitarian reasons. No one would be fooled,  but keep in mind we'd have just left the country and we really don't like to get in between two waring countries.  They could get a country with a working infrastructure,  land/resources and a fairly strategic country.  At an even lower cost than they are paying now.  

Just a thought  :warstory:

http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Jan 2007)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I can understand the Iranian government reasons for being skiddish when a country who routinely calls you evil, a country that funded a terrible war of aggression against you, for whatever reason has a fair sized armed presence in countries on two sides of your country.



Skittish?  You have got to be joking.  There is nothing threatening Iran, other than Iran's stoic pursuit of regional (dare to dream, world) control.  It was quite obvious that as a result of the cold war, the world would not tolerate nuclear proliferation.  Yet, Iran pursues it, to the detriment of its people.  And to suggest that they should "wake up to the opportunities" is pretty naive.  They are quite aware what the opportunities are, they just happen to be pursuing the ones that will bring them to greater power.  They are also engaging in the same tactics as other terror ridden countries (read Lebanon and Palestine) in keeping their people are all whipped up about a fabricated enemy and focusing on the business of killing.  They hope that if everyone is running around in the streets burning flags and effigies they won't notice the clowns running the show are completely nonviable to get their country on with the business of living.  
Iran is simply seizing on the opportunity to be jackholes while the countries that are able to potentially sort them out are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan.  At such time as those two conflicts get sewn up (and god knows when that will be) and the US has more military resources to work with, we may see some policy change out of Iran.  Until then, look to see things continue to tailspin in the middle east (and Afghanistan if they can pull it off).


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jan 2007)

All your arguments have been concerning Coalition Forces in the Region and why they are there.  There is another Front that none of you have considered, and it goes back to before Gulf War I.  Iran is one of Three countries vying for the "Seat of Islam".  

It has been a while since I have had this discussion, but the gist of the problem is Iran, and I believe it is Iraq and the Sudan, are all vying to be the "Seat of Islam" and the "Holiness of Holiness".  We already see Iranian arms and subversive activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Perhaps they are also clandestinely involved in the Sudan.  They are in fact conducting a 'Religious War' against other Moslem's who are not of their Sect, and attempting to be the 'Power' behind Islam.  Western activities in the Region give them an opportunity to conduct their 'war' beneath the surface.  

In many cases, there are political/religious assassinations of Moslem leaders in the Region, who do not tow their particular religious line.  These are masked from view by the activities we Westerners are conducting in the Region in the attempts to stabilize the Region.

Iran is completely involved in the Regions conflicts, in more ways than one.  Their true intent is being hidden for the moment, by what the Coalition Forces presence.  They are currently preying on the "Your Enemy is Our Enemy" sentiments in the Region, but after the West 'is gone' then they will declare their war on other Sects.  

The Region is going to be a 'hotbed' for decades.


----------



## salam (5 Jan 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> They are also engaging in the same tactics as other terror ridden countries (read Lebanon and* Palestine*) in keeping their people are all whipped up about a *fabricated enemy * and focusing on the business of killing.



Okay i was pretty offended by this comment.

Palestinians are involved with a very real conflict with Isreal...I am not talking about what you think about the conflict but it is fact that it exists.  For you to brush aside the Palestinian struggle and the Israeli struggle for that matter as being against a "fabricated enemy" does complete dishonour to those on both sides who live everyday in this horrible situation but most especially to those who have lost their lives to it, below i have quoted an article by the bbc on palestinian deaths in 2006, and if we want to talk about these topics being personal to the people on this forum, i agree, of these 660 palestinians I knew 4 of them personally (one was political but the other three were not).  

I have no problem discussing my views, most are not set in stone and i am open to learning a lot and I have a lot of respect for people that chose to have an opinion (and it most certainly does not have to match my  own) but I cannot overlook the disrespect to the dead of my own..as I know for sure that none of you would tolerate this either
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6215769.stm


----------



## salam (5 Jan 2007)

Wes,

Sorry for the no introduction and I will look into filling out my profile, I have been reading this site for a few months now...mostly in the Canadian army and recruiting sections.  I just found a thread that I thought was interesting and decided to post.  I do get the feeling that an introduction would have been nice gesture as I really have no intentions other than to discuss what I think are really important topics with the group of men and women that are very much involved on a very real level.  I didn't expect to be branded as some left winger who is just here to argue against everything we say (though i did get the heads up  ) Not my intentions really.  I am actually a strong supporter of the CF, but my life also revolves around Middle East discourse (albeit on the academic side) so i guess I do have a lot of opinions on that.  I think that the number one misunderstanding about what I am saying is the thought that criticism negates support.  I believe that by being critical and discussing things I am showing my strongest support for the CF because I care about the CF and what our troops are doing...well that at least is where i am coming from.

I will post more on topic later...I do hope to stick around and discuss more, so i hope my little intro sets out my intentions of participating in this forum.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jan 2007)

salam, I have found that if one wishes to have one's criticisms accepted as more than carping then it is necessary to offer more than lipservice as support.

I am afraid that it takes time to convince people that you are a "friend" with their best interests at heart.  Only then is it possible to be able to offer criticism that will be accepted as well-intentioned.

I would say that is true both of people on this site and of international relations.   If one sees more criticism than support, and more demonstrably sees actions that counter the words, then I think one can be forgiven for assuming that the "supporter" may be less than forthcoming with their true intentions.


----------



## salam (5 Jan 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> salam, I have found that if one wishes to have one's criticisms accepted as more than carping then it is necessary to offer more than lipservice as support.
> 
> I am afraid that it takes time to convince people that you are a "friend" with their best interests at heart.  Only then is it possible to be able to offer criticism that will be accepted as well-intentioned.
> 
> I would say that is true both of people on this site and of international relations.   If one sees more criticism than support, and more demonstrably sees actions that counter the words, then I think one can be forgiven for assuming that the "supporter" may be less than forthcoming with their true intentions.



Kirkhill,
More criticism than support? Give me time this is my first thread   I decided to put out my intentions because I could tell by peoples responses to me that they were very skepticle of my presence here.  So I understand that now and I hope that in time as we discuss many varying topics we will come to understand eachother better.  To tell you the truth being accused of being unsupportive is really ironic and kind of funny if you knew me (but I know you don't so I don't fault you, I'm just saying). About 6 months ago my partner in life told me he would like to join the CF.  Since then I have been on every website, to every recruiting office in my area in order to be directly involved in his decision and show him just how much I will stand by him and support his life with the CF.  So I am confident in my level of support for the CF because I live with it everyday of my life.  So here's to hoping that one day you won't have to use quotations when talking of my friendship or support.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jan 2007)

salam aleikum

I look forward to hearing more of ways we can disagree... and perhaps find agreement.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jan 2007)

salam said:
			
		

> Kirkhill,
> More criticism than support? Give me time this is my first thread   I decided to put out my intentions because I could tell by peoples responses to me that they were very skepticle of my presence here.  So I understand that now and I hope that in time as we discuss many varying topics we will come to understand eachother better.  To tell you the truth being accused of being unsupportive is really ironic and kind of funny if you knew me (but I know you don't so I don't fault you, I'm just saying). About 6 months ago my partner in life told me he would like to join the CF.  Since then I have been on every website, to every recruiting office in my area in order to be directly involved in his decision and show him just how much I will stand by him and support his life with the CF.  So I am confident in my level of support for the CF because I live with it everyday of my life.  So here's to hoping that one day you won't have to use quotations when talking of my friendship or support.



You say that you are in a homosexual relationship which isnt a problem in Canada or in other western countries,but were you living in Iran you could be hung for such a religious offense, which has been widely documented. So how do you reconcile your beliefs and support of Iran's radical Islamic leadership with your life style. In Iran such a lifestyle choice would be very unhealthy. Islam also seems to treat women more harshly than men. For example in Iran and elsewhere if a female is raped she has to be able to produce 4 male witnesses to the rape otherwise she has been unfaithful and is executed. Her rights in the west would be upheld where under Islam she is guilty unless proven otherwise.


----------



## salam (5 Jan 2007)

WHAAAT? I am a female and my partner is male. I choose the term partner because I do not like the term boyfriend/girlfriend, at the end of the day he is my partner in everything. Thanks.


and if I may again repeat my opposition to the human rights violations in Iran as I indicated in one of my first posts, I am personally involved in advocating for human rights to disadvantaged groups in Iran.


----------



## KevinB (5 Jan 2007)

Salam the term "partner in life" is a little ghey


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jan 2007)

:-[
Sorry I just assumed you were male.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Jan 2007)

salam said:
			
		

> Okay i was pretty offended by this comment.
> 
> Palestinians are involved with a very real conflict with Israel...I am not talking about what you think about the conflict but it is fact that it exists.  For you to brush aside the Palestinian struggle and the Israeli struggle for that matter as being against a "fabricated enemy" does complete dishonour to those on both sides who live everyday in this horrible situation but most especially to those who have lost their lives to it, below i have quoted an article by the bbc on palestinian deaths in 2006, and if we want to talk about these topics being personal to the people on this forum, i agree, of these 660 palestinians I knew 4 of them personally (one was political but the other three were not).



Wow.  Eight posts in and you already need to get over yourself.  My comment about a "fabricated enemy" is that if Palestine and Lebanon would stop attacking Israel, Israel would stop retaliating and the area could get on with the business of living.  Yes, you would have to accept that Israel is not going anywhere, and yes Israel has not conducted itself in the most pleasant manner in the past.  However, until those countries get their head around that idea, things will remain combative and unsettled.  They can keep smashing themselves on the wall with the "eye for an eye" gig, but all you are going to see is a heap more death.  And continuing to rail on against the west is useless, since we have no designs for the area, other than to secure our own lives against terrorism.  Creating a perception that all these people are against them is critical for the terrorist organizations to maintain their power.  
But that is the point.  Hamas and Hezbollah have no interest in seeing peace in the region, since once people get over the mourning of a lost one, they will start thinking about life with no job prospects, no infrastructure no hope.  Hell, the way the Hezbollah leaders spin it, if you want to be alive, you have a perception problem.  You should be burning for a chance to "martyr" yourself for Islam.  As long as people are hating and fighting, they won't take time to think about solutions.  And since it is pretty well established that both organizations take their marching orders from Iran, you can see wherein the perception lies.  
There are threads-o-plenty to debate the relative merits of Israel, so lets avoid a further hijack if we can.  Thus far you have done nothing to rebut the assertion that Iran is moving it's terrorist influence into Afghanistan.  

Perhaps you have ended up agreeing with this?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (5 Jan 2007)

I don't think it is just Iran that is funding Afghanistan insurgency and I haven't heard of any evidence that they're involved in Sudan.  (I wouldn't be surprised if there was,  I just haven't seen it) Of course Iran is involved in a serious way in many operations,  from supplying Hezbollah to simply throwing money into the Palestine situation.  There can be a debate on who's right and wrong on that topic,  however I respectfully submitt that there is little doubt that Iran is involved in Palestine,  as are we.  



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Skittish?  You have got to be joking.  There is nothing threatening Iran, other than Iran's stoic pursuit of regional (dare to dream, world) control.



If I was a member of an oligarchy,  and two similar countries on my border were just toppled,  I'd loose sleep.  There is a difference between agreeing with a position and understanding why a person thinks what they do.  If you think everyone thinks like you,  you'll rarely be able to predict what they are going to do or why.  Iranian leaders see our actions through their eyes,  they see us and attribute our actions to that which motivates them.  Most of us in turn do the same to their actions,  I for example see them trying to setup a long term power base to dominate culturally, militarily and economically the region and to eventually become the base for a Pan-Islamic nation.  But that is my own bias for long term thinking.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> It was quite obvious that as a result of the cold war, the world would not tolerate nuclear proliferation.  Yet, Iran pursues it, to the detriment of its people.



Just like Pakistan,  Just like India, Just like North Korr ... oh multiply then add,  silly math - give them time to get it right.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> And to suggest that they should "wake up to the opportunities" is pretty naive.  They are quite aware what the opportunities are, they just happen to be pursuing the ones that will bring them to greater power.



Like most oligarchies.  Not what is best for most and is just,  what is best for the ones making the decisions. And yes I know it is arrogant beyond belief that I think I can offhandedly suggest a better tactical plan for a nation known for cunning,  but there we go, I did.  :warstory:



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> They are also engaging in the same tactics as other terror ridden countries (read Lebanon and Palestine) in keeping their people are all whipped up about a fabricated enemy and focusing on the business of killing.  They hope that if everyone is running around in the streets burning flags and effigies they won't notice the clowns running the show are completely nonviable to get their country on with the business of living.



A slightly bloodier version of Wag the dog?  I do have to agree though,  but there is more to it than making busy work,  I think there is a real play for power. But I think I brought myself back to that "how I perceive their intentions from their actions" thing.  My question is how can we convince the Oligarchy in Iran that it is in their interest to play with,  not against us.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Jan 2007)

Zell, I think we are close to agreeing on this.  Perhaps I am not being clear.  I guess my point was that if Iran were not conducting themselves like dicks, they would not have to be concerned with who was near their borders.  I deal with people all the time, but the ones who decide to carry a gun or a knife get dealt with far more harshly than the ones who don't.  And I generally don't give to much merit to their assertion that "I need it for protection".  
As for the nuclear question, just because some have slipped through the cracks doesn't mean we should just say "NUKES FOR ALL MY FRIENDS" and have at 'er.  If anyone is going to do something stupid with a nuke, Iran would be my odds-on favorite.  Li'l Kim likes his caviar, and until Pakistan is lost in a civil war to radical Islam, I won't be overly concerned with them for the time being.


----------



## salam (5 Jan 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Wow.  Eight posts in and you already need to get over yourself.  My comment about a "fabricated enemy" is that if Palestine and Lebanon would stop attacking Israel, Israel would stop retaliating and the area could get on with the business of living.  Yes, you would have to accept that Israel is not going anywhere, and yes Israel has not conducted itself in the most pleasant manner in the past.  However, until those countries get their head around that idea, things will remain combative and unsettled.  They can keep smashing themselves on the wall with the "eye for an eye" gig, but all you are going to see is a heap more death.  And continuing to rail on against the west is useless, since we have no designs for the area, other than to secure our own lives against terrorism.  Creating a perception that all these people are against them is critical for the terrorist organizations to maintain their power.
> But that is the point.  Hamas and Hezbollah have no interest in seeing peace in the region, since once people get over the mourning of a lost one, they will start thinking about life with no job prospects, no infrastructure no hope.  Hell, the way the Hezbollah leaders spin it, if you want to be alive, you have a perception problem.  You should be burning for a chance to "martyr" yourself for Islam.  As long as people are hating and fighting, they won't take time to think about solutions.  And since it is pretty well established that both organizations take their marching orders from Iran, you can see wherein the perception lies.
> There are threads-o-plenty to debate the relative merits of Israel, so lets avoid a further hijack if we can.  *Thus far you have done nothing to rebut the assertion that Iran is moving it's terrorist influence into Afghanistan.  *
> Perhaps you have ended up agreeing with this?



Maybe what I am trying to get accross is that Hamas and Hezbollah does not equal Palestine and Lebanon.  And the entire populations of these countries are not walking zombies who just take orders and all want to see the distruction of Israel.
  
And as for your last point I am responding on my own sched and taking the time to read others posts, so if we could please avoid the assumptions of what i do or do not agree with.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Jan 2007)

salam said:
			
		

> Maybe what I am trying to get accross is that Hamas and Hezbollah does not equal Palestine and Lebanon.  And the entire populations of these countries are not walking zombies who just take orders and all want to see the distruction of Israel.



Oh, I realize they are more than just zombies.  But one has to wonder what a population expected when they VOTED for a terrorist organization to run the country.  Gee, I don't know.....Terror?



			
				salam said:
			
		

> And as for your last point I am responding on my own sched and taking the time to read others posts, so if we could please avoid the assumptions of what i do or do not agree with.



Hmmm, being disagreeable and not posting any back up of your disagreements.  Seems there is a word for that....can't quite place it.....Scroll?


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> All your arguments have been concerning Coalition Forces in the Region and why they are there.  There is another Front that none of you have considered, and it goes back to before Gulf War I.  Iran is one of Three countries vying for the "Seat of Islam".
> 
> It has been a while since I have had this discussion, but the gist of the problem is Iran, and I believe it is Iraq and the Sudan, are all vying to be the "Seat of Islam" and the "Holiness of Holiness".  We already see Iranian arms and subversive activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Perhaps they are also clandestinely involved in the Sudan.  They are in fact conducting a 'Religious War' against other Moslem's who are not of their Sect, and attempting to be the 'Power' behind Islam.  Western activities in the Region give them an opportunity to conduct their 'war' beneath the surface.
> 
> ...



I have argued this as well, although my "troika" is Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria vying for regional control under their respective ideological banners (Shiia, Wahhabi and secular Ba'athist). How Sudan fits is a nexus between radicals exporting their versions of Islam and the Chinese supplying money and arms to secure the oil, although there may be some religious dimension originating in Sudan that I am unaware of.

So long as the West, and the United States in particular, is determined to thwart these nation's dreams of regional hegemony in order to maintain stability and protect Israel, then they will be allies of convenience, but it seems certain that they will be confronting each other as well. Syria in particular seems to be sputtering out of the game, since the power center of Ba'athism was historically Iraq and Syria's regional dominance over Lebanon has been challenged both by the Lebanese and the Iranians (who have supported the growth of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon). The West could do a lot more to force Syria out of the game, given their support for the anti coalition insurgency in Iraq and the relative weakness of Syria relative to some of the other contending powers.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (5 Jan 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Zell, I think we are close to agreeing on this.  Perhaps I am not being clear.  I guess my point was that if Iran were not conducting themselves like dicks, they would not have to be concerned with who was near their borders.  I deal with people all the time, but the ones who decide to carry a gun or a knife get dealt with far more harshly than the ones who don't.  And I generally don't give to much merit to their assertion that "I need it for protection".
> As for the nuclear question, just because some have slipped through the cracks doesn't mean we should just say "NUKES FOR ALL MY FRIENDS" and have at 'er.  If anyone is going to do something stupid with a nuke, Iran would be my odds-on favorite.  Li'l Kim likes his caviar, and until Pakistan is lost in a civil war to radical Islam, I won't be overly concerned with them for the time being.



You're right.  I was responding to the "you must be joking".   :warstory: Yes they are doing things that will force other countries to take action.  Apart from providing money and arms and allowing its citizens to freely go into Afghanistan,  I don't know what Iran is doing in Afghanistan, the plans or other objectives.  I'm sure deep insides CSSIS there are people with photos, tape recordings and "liberated" documents detailing Iran's plans,  I'm not privy to them.  I just am going on what I see in the news.  It doesn't make sense to me that a grass roots effort can last this long,  there has to be an outside support network,  a sophisticated one. And Iran has already been exposed as doing this sort of thing in exactly this way.  They've the motive, the ability and a history of doing exactly this sort of thing. Still,  I wish my Farsi was better so I could read those secret plans  ;D

Now off topic a little,  I assumed that salam was a female.  I kinda assumed that she hasn't seen Palestine herself,  insted being a child of a displaced family who grew up in the golden horseshoe in Ontario.  It is funny how when reading someones posts you can't help but form background stories to them to try and colour in the meanings.  I likely am 100% wrong on everything but the gender - which she confirmed, I think.

I'm really glad to see that others see the same problems with a pan-islamic nation as I do.  Although, I used to think that a EU would never have a single currency or a common border, for the exact same reasons, it is painfull being wrong so often. (But the world would be more than boring if I wasn't surprised all the time)


----------



## cplcaldwell (5 Jan 2007)

I don't think zombism has anything to do with it. In fact I think that Palestine and Lebanon represent a manifestation of radicalism that grows from the same source, because of,  perhaps, different reasons.

In Palestine the population is radicalised for any number of reasons, they are displaced, they are poor, they are oppressed.

In Lebanon much the same mechanisms are at work. Throw in the Shia vs Maronites, Shia vs Druze, Shia vs Baathist secularism and Shia vs Sunni cards for fun. Add a healthy dose of economic dis-enfranchisement for seasoning. 

In Palestine the desire for Hamas seems to have grown out of a desperation to get rid of Fatah, apparently about as corrupt and ineffective a regime as the world has ever seen. Did the population buy into a terrorist regime... yup.... but I think they did it to get back at Israel as much as to get the 'trains to run on time'.

In Lebanon the oppressed Shia signed on with Hezbollah to get the 'trains to run on time' and the Katyushas were an unintended benefit (i.e. get back at Israel).

In both cases the role of Iran cannot be underestimated. The Iranians are smart enough to recognize an opportunity and to capitalize on it, a radicalized population is about as big an opportunity as one can get when one is in the business of fomenting revolution.

Can they do it again in Afstan? Well the country is mostly Sunni, even the Pashtuns are mostly Hanafi Sunni so... Although I wouldn't underestimate the ill will that could be generated against the Ismaili Tajiks. Religion seems a poor choice here to exploit.

There is no hated nearby 'enemy' like Israel to vilify, and then attack.

I guess a lot boils down to economic advancement, the establishment and maintenance of the rule of law and the preservation and strengthening of the social fabric....

I don't think the Afghans are as radicalized yet as the Palestinians or the (Shia) Lebanese. (But hey, we could screw that up quick if we're not careful, eh?)

Unless the Iranians can play the 'ummah' card or appeal to cultural affinities, they may have a little more problem here than elsewhere.


0.02


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jan 2007)

Like cplcaldwell and others I will stipulate that there are reasons for the Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians, Iraqis, Saudis, Quebecers, Scots and English to be radicalized.  All of them have instances where they have been poorly done by.  Many of those instances have created systemic problems that need to be dealt with - call it draining the sea or root causes it is the same issue and requires the same attention.

However we can't lose sight of the fact that people create radicalized societies - either to move out an oppressor or just to create instability and tie down a third party - by exploiting those issues.  A population can remain passively embittered for generations.  It takes effort to stir up a population - just take a look at western elections and the difficulty of getting the population behind any government course of action. The effort is an active effort with an inimical purpose.  

While it may be geared toward achieving redress on the part of the Palestinians - and therefore there is a negotiable end state for the majority of the population - for the third party supporters, like Iran, it is all about fomenting discord and instability.  This ties down Israel and the US, whom they perceive as threats, especially since Iran itself has so much trouble internally with Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, Students, Moderates, Hafsenjani, Khomenei's grandson, Moderates in the Council of Guardians, unemployment, taxes, rising military and nuclear development costs with declining oilfield efficiencies......Galtieri launched the invasion of the Falklands with fewer problems.  Likely to equal effect in the long run.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (5 Jan 2007)

To Zell,

There have been reports that Iran has been directly involved in Somalia (my recollection was I read a couple of articles in major newspapers which off-hand were probably the Washington Post and one of the big British papers).  The claims made at that time (and I'm not vouching for accuracy) was that Iran had an interest IF Somalia was successfully turned into an Islamic State that it should become a Shia Islamic State.  They were therefore willing to send money and equipment in order to try buy that loyalty.  At the same time the Saudis and other Sunni Gulf States were providing funding (although apparently not weapons) in order to ensure it became a Sunni Islamic State.  Tie in with that reports that there were Somalis training with Hezbollah in Lebanon, the inherent logic of a struggle within Islam, and I think there's a high likelihood they were involved on some level as it would be in their self-interest to do so....


Matthew.


----------



## Dare (5 Jan 2007)

salam said:
			
		

> Okay i was pretty offended by this comment.
> 
> Palestinians are involved with a very real conflict with Isreal...I am not talking about what you think about the conflict but it is fact that it exists.  For you to brush aside the Palestinian struggle and the Israeli struggle for that matter as being against a "fabricated enemy" does complete dishonour to those on both sides who live everyday in this


I don't think he mentioned brushing aside the Israeli struggle or said it had a fabricated enemy..

That being said, it's clear you support Palestine quite a bit, my question would be to you, since you have no problems sharing your views, what Palestinian political party do you prefer? If none, why do you support Palestine so much? What do you perceive Israel doing to worsen the conflict other than trying to stay alive? Do you have a problem with Iran having nuclear power or nuclear weapons?


> horrible situation but most especially to those who have lost their lives to it, below i have quoted an article by the bbc on palestinian deaths in 2006, and if we want to talk about these topics being personal to the people on this forum, i agree, of these 660 palestinians I knew 4 of them personally (one was political but the other three were not).


Were these 4 people you know by chance men in between the age of 18-44? If one was political, what was he doing politically that made him a target?


> I have no problem discussing my views, most are not set in stone and i am open to learning a lot and I have a lot of respect for people that chose to have an opinion (and it most certainly does not have to match my  own) but I cannot overlook the disrespect to the dead of my own..as I know for sure that none of you would tolerate this either
> .


In absolutely no way did he disrespect the dead. Such overboard claims work in the public media arena, but not here. 

What motivated your husband to choose a career in the Canadian Armed Forces?


----------



## Dare (5 Jan 2007)

salam said:
			
		

> Maybe what I am trying to get accross is that Hamas and Hezbollah does not equal Palestine and Lebanon.  And the entire populations of these countries are not walking zombies who just take orders and all want to see the distruction of Israel.


Of course, but Hamas is still there and represents Palestine. Democratically. Placing a Hamas' constitutional inclusion of the required destruction of Israel right to the top of the priority list in said government (not that it wasn't there before, but it solidified it). So if they are not zombies, why don't they clean their house up a bit and get rid of the terrorist groups? Is that Israel or the Wests fault that these non-zombied people won't fight for their country? I am curious.


----------



## salam (5 Jan 2007)

Dare said:
			
		

> I don't think he mentioned brushing aside the Israeli struggle or said it had a fabricated enemy..
> 
> That being said, it's clear you support Palestine quite a bit, my question would be to you, since you have no problems sharing your views, what Palestinian political party do you prefer? If none, why do you support Palestine so much? What do you perceive Israel doing to worsen the conflict other than trying to stay alive? Do you have a problem with Iran having nuclear power or nuclear weapons?Were these 4 people you know by chance men in between the age of 18-44? If one was political, what was he doing politically that made him a target?In absolutely no way did he disrespect the dead. Such overboard claims work in the public media arena, but not here.
> 
> What motivated your husband to choose a career in the Canadian Armed Forces?



I have never read a single post full of such assumptions:
1. To support Palestine does not equal supporting a particular political party.  I support the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, what I see as a fundamental right of any and all nations.  And no he did not mention brushing aside the Israeli struggle, I DID because I refuse to see things through only one perspective and understand that BOTH peoples are suffering.  
2.  "What do you perceive Israel doing to worsen the conflict other than trying to stay alive?" Here we go with the minute someone says they support Palestine the why do you hate Israel so much...I never even gave my views on the state of Israel, but I will say that like I support the right of Palestinians to self-determination so do I support the right of Israelis to self-determination.  But at the end of the day I support the pursuit of diplomacy and human decency in reaching a peaceful situation for both Palestinians and Israelis.
3. Nice remark about the male 18-44 thing, the article I posted breaks down the demographics of the dead and negates this myth.
4. This is not a thread where you all get to throw every personal question you want at me, it has a topic, if you want to speak to me personally please PM me.


----------



## salam (5 Jan 2007)

Wesley (Over There) said:
			
		

> Firstly, welcome to army.ca
> 
> In this war, it is us against them, they even call it that, because there is no PC here, and thats how it is. The infidel or kufar against the extreme true believers. Thats what hapened on 11 Sep 01, Kuta Beach etc, just to name a couple. What do you think this war is about, and why its happening? Lets here your views.
> 
> ...



Please excuse the late reply, I haven't had time to reply as quickly as I would have liked (this is the first forum I have ever participated on so bear with me as i get used to it)

Your question on war being us against them, when I said my comment I was not exactly talking about war, I was talking more about the idea that many believe that there is this huge divide between east and west.  If you are familiar with Edward Said's work then you know where I am coming from, basically that I believe that divide is false.  I am going to be the first to admit that I do not think I will be able to express myself fully here.  I don;t support the clash of civilizations theory, I think that this rhetoric used to reach the masses (used by all players i mean) and often covers a more complex power relations (economic and such) paradigm.

I also think our disagreement is going to stem that I do not see CNN or AJ as credible news sources, I believe actually that they are in fact very similar in their approach to news and I cannot agree with you that any one of them is non-bias! 

I wish u luck on your deployment and I look forward to hearing more of your perspective as you most certainly have an advantage on the situation in iraq.


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Jan 2007)

Salam, Palestine will never see peace or to achieve its goals unless it abandons violence. Once that happens I think both people will prosper. Unfortunately the Palestinians want nothing less than Israel proper. The Israelis are there to stay. They arent going to leave the land. Meanwhile Palestinians have few economic prospects and a very bleak future.


----------



## salam (6 Jan 2007)

Okay guys, I just wanted to let you know that at this point in time it is unfeasible for me to keep up with all these posts, I am not trying to ignore at all, I will contribute what I can.  To tell you the truth I was only hoping to be a participant of the thread not the topic..and so I will from now on try and act accordingly.

Thanks!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Jan 2007)

salam said:
			
		

> To tell you the truth I was only hoping to be a participant of the thread not the topic



Yeah, well that is how most every middle eastern topic goes.  An Israeli oriented pissing match.  However, if you get a chance, check out some of the older threads.  Perhaps you would have some insight on the topics that has not been touched on already.  Be warned, there is a heap of reading to get through.  Bonne chance.

So, in the spirit of staying on track...



			
				salam said:
			
		

> I believe that the role of Iran in Afghanistan is actually a step in the right direction.  I believe strongly in regional partners contributing to regional problems, Iran has a cultural, lingual and historical closeness to Afghanistan and under the right conditions it could help contribute to the rebuilding of Afghanistan and more than anyone Iran has only to gain from a strong and stable Afghanistan.



Having read all of our misgivings and concerns for Iran and their many ulterior motives, would you still feel that they could play a genuinely helpful role in Afghanistan?  And if so, how would you see them best contribute?


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jan 2007)

Hi salam, I hope you do get a chance to stick around. As zipperhead says the Middle East is tough territory to jump into, especially with alternative opinions.

Cheers.


----------

