Iran Moves Into Afghanistan

[George Wallace]

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]

  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]

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]

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]

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]

salam aleikum

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

 

[tomahawk6]

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]

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]

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

 

[tomahawk6]

:-[
Sorry I just assumed you were male.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

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]

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.  

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.

  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.

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:

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.