Iran 'the real winner' in war on terror

[JackC 0]

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1240492006

Eliminating Saddam Hussein and the Taliban had taken out Iran's main regional rivals.

...

The Chatham House report goes on to say: "There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East."

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/index.php?id=189&pid=315

No shit Sherlock

[miked10270 0]

Another spin:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1986881,00.html

What's most interesting in this is the rift between The Ayatolla Khameni and The Presidential zoomer Ahmadinejad
Hopefully Ahmadinejad's days are numbered (without any help launched from the US Embassy by ex-Nazi's please) and we'll see Iran becoming more conciliatory.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Hopefully Ahmadinejad's days are numbered (without any help launched from the US Embassy by ex-Nazi's please) and we'll see Iran becoming more conciliatory.

Maybe, but Ahmadinejad's replacement might not be any better. Especially if he's another Ayatollah Khomeini (late 70's Iranian leader) or a similar hardliner. I don't know enough about the region and it's politics to say.

Either way, Iran must be one of the top players in the region now and given the current regime, their penchant for nuclear technology and historical volatility, should we be worried?

[kallend 1,936]

Interesting piece on NPR yesterday.
While Pakistan is an ally in the GLOBAL war on terror and receives US funding in this cause as a result, Pakistan is NOT an ally in the local situation in Afghanistan, and is actually aiding the Taliban cause there. Hence, indirectly, US funds end up supporting the Taliban.

Pakistan is, of course, already in possession of the Islamic nuke.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Maybe, but Ahmadinejad's replacement might not be any better. Especially if he's another Ayatollah Khomeini (late 70's Iranian leader) or a similar hardliner. I don't know enough about the region and it's politics to say.

Either way, Iran must be one of the top players in the region now and given the current regime, their penchant for nuclear technology and historical volatility, should we be worried?

Have a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran#Presidents_of_Iran

Ayatollah Khameni IS Khomeni's successor. Supreme (Religious) Ruler of Iran. Ahmaninejad is the President, but not the supreme ruler of the country.

Hence, Khameni's dislike of the President for being too hard line is a good sign - The possibility that Khatami will regain power with a resulting thaw in Iran - West relations.
Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Guest]

Quote

Either way, Iran must be one of the top players in the region now and given the current regime, their penchant for nuclear technology and historical volatility, should we be worried?

The Arabs certainly are. That is, they are as every bit as worried, perhaps even more than us, about a nuclear-armed Iran.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1240492006

Eliminating Saddam Hussein and the Taliban had taken out Iran's main regional rivals.

...

The Chatham House report goes on to say: "There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East."

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/index.php?id=189&pid=315

No shit Sherlock

Well Iran certainly has benefitted from the removal of a couple of its enemies. Also, a truely democratic Iraq should in theroy lead to a Shiite majority so that helps them as well. That aside, I have a question. What would actually happen if Iran got nuclear weapons capability? The president postures like a madman but also appears to have the capacity for rational thought. The spiritual leader, Khameinei says that using nuclear weapons is right out, his fatwah forbids it. So where does that leave you? A cold war where the Arabs and Israeli's actually have to negotiate with each other? I know that the US doesn't want them to have them and of course they're going to say that it's because they don't want terrorists to get them and attack us. That's a bullshit reason and I say so because the US doesn't seem to be too concerned with the more likely source of a nuke weapon in the hands of terrorists, that being the missing nuke material from Russia. I see it more as a scare tactic to support a war that is actually based on the fact that the US doesn't want to have to deal with a nuclear armed owner of substantial energy resources. So what do you think the actual result of a nuclear armed Iran would be? Higher gas prices? Overthrow of Chavez? An actual move by the US towards alternative energy? Nuclear war started by the US in the middle east?
Just thinking out loud today.

[miked10270 0]

Iran's possession of Nuclear Weapons has been discussed in depth here.

Nukes are by their very nature DEFENSIVE weapons. Iran's possession of them would most likely render the country uninvadable & immune from "regime-change" from outside.

Strangely, this could in fact stabilise the region!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Iran's possession of Nuclear Weapons has been discussed in depth here.

Nukes are by their very nature DEFENSIVE weapons. Iran's possession of them would most likely render the country uninvadable & immune from "regime-change" from outside.

Strangely, this could in fact stabilise the region!

Mike.

That's what I was thinking. Of course it would mean that we'd (the US) would have to deal with them in a reasonable manner and pay the market price for their natural resource. Damn market based capitalist......uhhhhhh terrorists!

[JackC 0]

Quote

Ayatollah Khameni IS Khomeni's successor. Supreme (Religious) Ruler of Iran. Ahmaninejad is the President, but not the supreme ruler of the country.

Well yes but as I understand it, in the '70's and '80's Khomeni was in charge or everything, he had his finger on all the buttons. In more recent years, the Ayatollah's have left the day to day political stuff to a President and just concentrated on the god angle.

But if Ahmaninejad pisses off the Ayatollah's too much, they might just go back to their religious dictatorship past and they have a reputation for being stubborn as mules.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

But if Ahmaninejad pisses off the Ayatollah's too much, they might just go back to their religious dictatorship past and they have a reputation for being stubborn as mules.

Yeah... That's what's so interesting about this report. Ahmaninejad seems to be pissing the Ayatollahs (at least, the most senior one) off by being TOO nationalistic & anti-American... To the point where they are making preparations to take over foreign policy from him?

This has possibilities.
Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Interesting piece on NPR yesterday.
While Pakistan is an ally in the GLOBAL war on terror and receives US funding in this cause as a result, Pakistan is NOT an ally in the local situation in Afghanistan, and is actually aiding the Taliban cause there. Hence, indirectly, US funds end up supporting the Taliban.

Pakistan is, of course, already in possession of the Islamic nuke.

That is a myth. Palistan has made great inroads into Americas 'war on terror' thanks to Pakistani intelligence the London aircraft plot was stopped. Al Q senior figures have been captured. What people fail to realise is that dispite large amounts of troops being placed on the boarder it is a very porous border which stretchs 1600 miles through desert and mountains and regions that have never been under the control of central government. The British couldn't properly secure the small Irish boarder with our superior millitary and equipment, how the hell are the Pakistanis supposed to control theirs? They can't.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kallend 1,936]

Quote

Quote

Interesting piece on NPR yesterday.
While Pakistan is an ally in the GLOBAL war on terror and receives US funding in this cause as a result, Pakistan is NOT an ally in the local situation in Afghanistan, and is actually aiding the Taliban cause there. Hence, indirectly, US funds end up supporting the Taliban.

Pakistan is, of course, already in possession of the Islamic nuke.

That is a myth. Palistan has made great inroads into Americas 'war on terror' thanks to Pakistani intelligence the London aircraft plot was stopped. Al Q senior figures have been captured. What people fail to realise is that dispite large amounts of troops being placed on the boarder it is a very porous border which stretchs 1600 miles through desert and mountains and regions that have never been under the control of central government. The British couldn't properly secure the small Irish boarder with our superior millitary and equipment, how the hell are the Pakistanis supposed to control theirs? They can't.

You didn't read what I wrote. No denying that Pak has been a great ally w.r.t. al-quaeda, catching potential hijackers... but apparently they are also supporting Taliban fighters in the south of Afghanistan.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,920]

>how the hell are the Pakistanis supposed to control theirs? They can't.

Right. But when they hold training camps for Taliban fighters, that's a little more serious than just "not controlling their borders."

[bogwarrior 0]

The elimination of its enemies is one thing. The report also said that the misguided foreign policy of the US and UK was just as much to blame. Egging Israel on wasnt a good move. It leaves them as the winner as in the eyes of joe blogs over there they are standing up to the " agressor " ?

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

>how the hell are the Pakistanis supposed to control theirs? They can't.

Right. But when they hold training camps for Taliban fighters, that's a little more serious than just "not controlling their borders."

Source?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

I don't suppose that the Taliban aren't training in Pakistan, but that doesn't mean the Govenment are training them any more than the US government is training the WAB in camps in Oregan.
Yet nobody seems to care to much that Russia is funding the Taliban to fight against the US UK (et al) in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile the US UK demand for democracy is undermining Pakistans fight against Islamic extreamism after the hardliners made sweeping gains in yesterdays Pakistani elections. Well done george and Tony, the hardliners are a step closer to having thier fingers on the nuke button.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Russia funding resurgent Taliban
Ian Mather

RUSSIA is funding the Taliban’s guerrilla war against the American-backed government of Afghanistan, leaders of the fundamentalist group have claimed.

In a move that carries echoes of attempts by the United States to undermine Soviet forces during their occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, Russian intelligence is now providing covert backing to a resurgent Taliban, senior figures in the extreme Islamic movement have alleged.

The alarming claim will prove acutely embarrassing to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been trying to rebuild relations with the US in the wake of the acrimonious split between the two countries over Iraq.

Engineer Hamidullah, the Taliban’s former deputy chief of finance, says the Taliban now receive as much funding as they did when Osama bin Laden bank-rolled them before September 11.

"There are some countries that are against the policies of the US and the United Nations, and they support the guerrillas. The most important role belongs to Russia, Iran and Pakistan," he said.

In the 1980s, the CIA’s funding of the Afghan Mujahedin on a massive scale wore down the Russians and eventually forced them to leave. The backing, both financial and military, was never admitted by the US.

According to Taliban sources in neighbouring Pakistan and Afghan intelligence sources, the group has a new hierarchy of leaders orchestrating opposition to the US-sponsored Afghan government of Hamed Karzai from Afghanistan and Pashtun tribal areas of north-west Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the Taliban has been mounting increasingly brazen attacks in Afghanistan. Last month its forces seized two remote districts near the Pakistan border and held them for nearly a week.

New-found confidence among the Taliban has led some of its leaders to speak publicly for the first time since the launch of the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom 18 months ago.

Abdul Salam - the former chief justice of the Taliban’s Supreme Court - last week told the Christian Science Monitor newspaper that the Afghan people now want the Taliban back "because during the Taliban times, there was peace and security".

‘The most important role belongs to Russia, Iran and Pakistan’
He was contemptuous of Karzai. Referring to the national council (loya jerga) that chose him, he pointed a finger to his head like a gun and said: "The last loya jirga was done by force. But if there was a real loya jirga, and the people who were appointed were good, then I would work with my head and feet and heart for my country."

Salam, who achieved notoriety in the days of Taliban rule by claiming that Afghanistan had the right to execute foreign aid workers who were trying to convert Afghans to Christianity, lives in his native Logar Province, near Kabul. He refuses to talk about his activities in the Taliban today, but admits that he maintains contact with the movement.

Commenting on the alleged backing of Russia, Pakistan and Iran, he said: "The Russians are not happy with the US presence here, and neither are Iran, Pakistan and even China."

Salam’s interview followed a public claim by another Taliban leader, Mullah Dadullah, that the Taliban had regrouped under the leadership of Mullah Omar, their one-eyed spiritual leader, who is still being hunted by the Americans. Dadullah claimed personal credit for a number of the recent Taliban attacks on coalition forces, and said that the Taliban would fight until "Jews and Christians, all foreign crusaders" were expelled from Afghanistan.

He added that the Taliban were also receiving money from the Afghan people.

A third senior Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammed Hasan Rehmani, former governor of Kandahar, has also re-emerged to renew calls for a "holy war" against the Americans and their allies.

Speaking to a journalist over a satellite phone, something no Taliban leader would have dared to do previously for fear of being tracked by American satellites, he described Karzai as "an American clerk and a toy in the hands of the Northern Alliance", which dominates the present Afghan government.

Despite the massive technological superiority of their forces in Afghanistan and the millions of dollars offered as rewards, the Americans have not managed to catch or kill any of the Taliban’s top leadership.

The fact that many of the names in the new leadership structure are well known from the former regime undermines last week’s announcement by US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld that major combat operations in Afghanistan are at an end.

Barnett Rubin, an expert on Afghanistan at New York University, said:

"They [the Taliban] are now organising for a new offensive and they are still getting some support from Pakistan. Even if Pakistan is not cooperating directly, it is not cooperating in efforts to end the support that is coming from Pakistani territory."

Shahzada Zulfikar, a Quetta-based political analyst, said Taliban commanders continue to receive support from Pakistan’s powerful and secretive intelligence agencies, as they did openly during the time of the Taliban government.

"Pakistan ditched the Taliban due to American pressure, for a while, but now there are fears that their relationship might be restored."

While Pakistan still provides a safe haven for the anti-government Afghan fighters as it did when the Mujahedin were fighting the Russians, there is now a new twist to the Great Game. The Russians, it appears, are on the same side, not on the receiving end.

No one was available for comment at the Russian embassy in London last night.

CHAIN OF COMMAND

AT THE top of the Taliban’s new military command structure is Mullah Beradar, a native of the home village of the infamous Mullah Omar.

Beradar has been hunted relentlessly by the Americans, and at various times has been reported injured or dead.

Under Mullah Beradar are Taliban commanders and religious leaders assigned to different territories. The most active region, from Nimroz Province to Helmand, Kandahar, Zabul, and north to Urozgan, is under the joint control of Beradar’s top three deputies.

The first, Akhtar Usmani, former Taliban corps commander in Kandahar, is also a close companion of Omar. Both men taught in the same madrassa (religious school). Omar is said to have named Usmani as his successor in case of his death after he went into hiding from the Americans in November 2001.

Second is Mullah Abdur Razzaq, a founding member of the Taliban, who rose to head of the customs department and then interior minister.

According to Ahmed Rashid’s book Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia, Razzaq admitted having given the order to kill General Mohammed Najibullah, the pro-Soviet president, who was executed when the Taliban captured Kabul in 1996.

The third man, Mullah Dadullah, was military chief in Kunduz on the front lines against the Northern Alliance, and negotiated its surrender. In his former role he notoriously presided over public hangings from cranes.

Souce:
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=538552003

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[billvon 2,920]

>Source?

Hamid Karzai, Afghani President. May 18 2006.