Iran’s Deterrence Power

This post is an excerpt of an interesting article.

*****

From a general point of view, it seems that Iran’s Deterrence Power is based on 4 basic principles:

1- Avoiding trusting international entities

Considering International Entities and Agencies as ‘means of International Imperialism to Conquer World’ dates back to the very beginning of Islamic Revolution. Iraqi Experience, however, has made Iranian military strategists even more determined not to trust such agencies. According to these strategists, Saddam’s regime for more than a decade cooperated with International Agencies responsible for monitoring production and maintaining its arsenal and these agencies neutralized Saddam’s military capabilities to a great extent. Finally, when they succeeded in completely inactivating Saddam’s arsenal, Bush administration waged a war on Iraq in the name of Weapon of Mass Destruction which never existed at all.

2- Deterrence out of Iranian borders

According to IRI strategists, another important lesson of Iraqi Experience is about encountering Stronger Enemy. They believe that Saddam’s strategy based on encountering occupiers inside Iraqi borders was bound to fail. To avoid similar failure, IRI strategists have maintained that in the case of an American attack on Iran, war zone will be determined by Iran. It means that in the case of war, the aggression will not be limited to Iran, but would include Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Gulf countries, as well as other places. That is because, IRI strategists claim, America has offered Iranians some kind of Potential Hostages in the region. In addition to Iran’s own military capabilities, there are some possible allies who would help Iran fight against US in other parts of the region. Even some non-Shiite groups might be eager to help Iran. And this point can help decipher why some statement made by Iranian Officials about Holocaust, Wiping Israel off the Map, etc. Such statements were welcomed by millions of Muslims who hate Israel and are frustrated by other Muslim rulers who ‘are not man of their words.’

3- Getting Ready to Take Maximum Risks in Worst Cases

Iran normally prefers no military invasion. However, IRI strategists believe that Iran should be ready to pay ‘every’ price to make the enemy suffer maximum loss. For example, Iranians are supposedly ready to embrace martyrdom, i.e. to fight to their last drop of blood. In modern wars in which modern capabilities can make patriotism fruitless, such statements may be underestimated. However, Embracing Martyrdom translates into ‘Taking Every Possible Risk’ and that is what, IRI strategists believe, US can’t afford at all.

4- Maximum Preparedness inside Iran

Maximum Preparedness not only includes arranging for Asymmetric War and Passive Defense but also requires eliminating Fifth Column. IRI strategists believe that Iraq’s failure in First Gulf War did not lead to overthrowing Saddam’s regime for a simple reason: there was no alternative to Bathi Government. Hence, as long as there is no alternative to IRI, even a military failure can not lead to regime change. That is why removing every possible alternative would be on IRI agenda in the case of American-led war.

Just Ahmadinejad can do it

by: Sadegh Zibakalam

I do firmly believe that Iran-US relations' most significant transition which is to emerge is due to the presidency of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Truth is that having diplomatic relations with US is more of a taboo in Iran which may only get broken by a tradition-minded, conservative figure. No one may come to bring about a state of détente, negotiate with US and normalize Iran-US relations, save Ahmadinejad himself. We have not yet forgotten McFarlane event (when Imam was alive) and Mr. Hashemi's efforts to revive Iran-US relations; however, conservatives' powerful hands impeded those efforts and McFarlane event came to standstill. In the period of Mr. Hashemi's presidency, Mohajerani (then advisor to Mr. Hashemi) published a column in Ettela'at daily regarding Iran-US relations, which was much more diluted compare to current expressions of Mr. Ahmadinejad; but conservatives' reaction was so tough that he got forced to publicly apologize. Even when Mr. Khatami, in an interview with Christian Amanpour (CNN correspondent), said some relatively fine things about US, psychological pressures of conservatives forced him to utter some harsh words regarding US just few days later in Imam Khomeini's mausoleum. I think that Ahmadinejad is the only person who may bring about a state of détente. During his presidency, this potential vision has evolved into a practical one. He easily speaks of taking photos with an American commander and his deputy in Iraq, and more easily states that 'if we receive any formal request regarding opening US consulate in Tehran, we will consider it seriously', and such stances do not lead to any reaction from either media or others. I believe that Mr. Ahmadinejad's powerful proponents in the regime make him bold enough to freely speak of having relations with US and even march toward bringing about a state of détente and normalizing the relations. Other side of the coin is US. Current evidences suggest that Barack Obama may win presidential elections. However, I doubt it, for I think that 'Silent Majority' of US voters, who constitute 20-30 percent of voters, have not decided to vote for whom and will decide just few nights before final elections, and they are more likely to vote for McCain only to avoid an African-American finding his way to White House. I hope this is not going to happen. After all, if Obama is to become next US president, vision of normalizing relations with US will be much brighter than ever.

*****

Sadegh Zibakalam is a leading reformist author and professor of political sciences in Tehran University. This paper was published last week in Shahrvande Emrooz (today citizen), leading reformist weekly.

Wise Word

It's said that a former Japanese foreign minister once said to his Iranian counterpart: "US is like a wild buffalo. You have stuck to her horns, while we try to stick to her breasts."

On the current tension in Lebanon

Here is my comment to "Mullahs’ Whim in Lebanon" which claims speaks of Iran's role in the current tension in Lebanon and Arab countries' reaction to it.

*****

Sustainable stability may never be achieved unless a balance of power comes into existence. In the world’s new order, it was Superpower’s duty to maintain the balance of power. However, right now the only Superpower’s position is frankly in favor of Israel: it has decided to side with Israel, whatever the reasons.
On the other side of the battle, Hizbollah is probably the only armed group which may balance the power struggle with Israel in the Mideast, at least in a psychological level. So, to my view, the American-induced decision of Lebanese administration to destruct this power balance is what might be called an act of destabilizing.
Let me make it clear: I really believe that an armed party is more of a nightmare to the political interactions of both the country and the region. When ‘guns’ find their way in political conflicts, they mark an end to the peace. BUT it’s almost naïve to believe that Hizbollah is merely the product of Iranian/Syrian masterminds. Hizbollah finds its roots in the wrong policies of the US in the Mideast.
Another point is Arab countries’ reactions (mostly that of Saudi Arabia) to the current conflict. I think that Arab countries prefer to have Hizbollah under their own control. In other words, they like the Hizbollah, but not an Iranian-driven Hizbollah. They, however, will not side with US to end the life of Iranian-driven Hizbollah, for this undermines their position against Israel. Thus I think that such reactions are just to remind Iran that “Ana Sharik” (I’m a partner), and Arab leaders don’t want the currant tension to lead to a real confrontation with Iran.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, what if Israel attacks Iran and you are elected as president of the USA?

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinto

US Presidential Candidate

Your Excellency,

In one of your recent campaign interviews you stated that: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. . . . In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them" (Interview with ABC).

This is not different from President Bush's stated policy towards Iran. The logic of threatening a total obliteration of Iran, possible only through a nuclear holocaust, is based on the "right of power", not the "power of the right".

As you may know, chapter I, article II of the United Nations Charter states that:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Regardless of any hypothetical attack on Israel, the United States is legally bound not to threaten Iran or any other country. In addition to the UN Charter, the US constitution prohibits such threatening policies. Article IV Clause II states:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

As an Iranian, I feel compelled to ask you some questions. First, why are you threatening "the Iranians"? Second, if Israel attacks Iran and you are elected as president of the USA, what would then be your policy and position?

I do not agree with the rhetorical statements and foreign policies of Dr. Ahmadinejad, the President of Islamic Republic of Iran. However, while the military capability of Iran to attack Israel is questionable, Israel's capabilities concerning the conventional and non-conventional armaments to attack Iran is beyond any doubt.

With respect

Ebrahim Yazdi,Secretary General, Freedom Movement of Iran and

Former Foreign Minister, Islamic Republic of Iran

May 6th, 2008
*****
Ebrahim Yazdi was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the interim government of Mehdi Bazargan until 6 November 1979, when he, along with the rest of the Bazargan cabinet, resigned in protest of the takeover of the United States Embassy by the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line.

Source

Who is Iran's Obama?

Foreword:

Shahrvand Emroz (Today Citizen) is the only Iranian weekly dedicated to reformist cause, and probably the most professional journal of today Iran.
Mohammad Ghouchani, chief editor of Shahrvand Emroz, is a popular columnist as well as a well-known reformist figure whose articles attract a lot of attention from almost all political parties in Iran. Here is a translation of last part of his editorial in the last published volume of Shahrvand Emroz, entitled 'Who is Iran's Obama?'
Interestingly, most of Iranians have a high opinion of Obama. Conservatives compare Ahamdinejad to Obama, a comparison which is not that irrelevant, especially in terms of utopian promises and slogans. On the other hand, reformists think of Obama as a reformist figure. By the way, it seems that, to Iranians, black Obama means more of a utopia; and probably a lost utopia.

*****

Who is Iran's Obama?
In the age we are going to embrace, every nation should seek for its own Obama: professional, fulltime politicians whose only preoccupation is politics, who are not afraid of [political] defeat, and who know very well how to play in the political system while being ready to break [ill-defined] structures [if necessary]. There are some prominent political figures who play a good game within the current structure, but their ambition is so limited. [On the other hand,] there are many ambitious figures who fail to follow the rules of the game. Obama [even] if got to surrender to Hillary Clinton, will not ever revolt against his party. And even if got to lose the election to McCain, will not revolt against the whole system.
America has never committed anything more notorious than what she did in Vietnam, yet Vietnam veterans are still the super-heroes of Americans. This by no measure means that Americans respect a bunch of war criminals; rather they oppose the military policy of their administration while defending their [patriot] representatives, i.e. their soldier (not their chief of staff). This sweet contradiction is what leads the democrat, anti-war Hollywood to ask US soldiers in Iraq to announce the final results of Oscar 2008, though directors of US movie industry [generally] oppose the Iraq war.
In countries such as Iran, one needs 'Medals' of national honor so as to be able to enter the political ground. This phenomenon is not unique to Iran. John Kerry and McCain are also veterans. If being republican or democrat translates into being loyal to the US Revolution and Constitution in US, being Conservative or Reformist translates into being faithful to Iranian Revolution and constitution in Iran. If being a Vietnam or WWII veteran is of a high importance in US, fighting Iraqi army is supposed to be important in Iran.
Iran, 30 years after its revolution, observes a generation who has not fully experienced the Revolution and War. Young democrats in US are of a similar position. Obama, from this new generation, finds his way into the political ground; the generation which should offer its respect to the Revolution, War and Republic, though in order to prove its political qualifications, it needs something more than just its political resume.
By the way, Iranian conservatives have surprisingly found their George Bush; and now, it is Reformists' turn to find their Obama. We have a full year (*) to find this 'Iranian Obama'.

(*): 15 months are left to Iran's next presidential election.

Iran-US direct talks... how US generals think of it?

Today Pentagon Channel broadcast a briefing in Iraq in which two US generals were answering media correspondents. One of the Arab reporters asked US generals of the next round of security talks with Iran on Iraq issues, and the general responded: "that is not a dialogue between US and Iran; rather it is a direct talk between Iraqis and their Iranian counterparts and we participate in it trying to elaborate for Iranians how they could help Iraqis in security issues."


Note:
Pentagon Channel
Hotbird, Frequency: 11096000, Horizontal, Symbol Rate: 28000

Controlled Torture: American style of Interrogation

A series of blows to Bush administration happened during the past week. In the last one, Washington Post and Guardian reported that CIA destroyed videotapes showing use of harsh interrogation techniques, including Waterboarding (simulating drowning), against Al-Qaida suspects. Here is the beginning and the end of Guardian’s article:

The CIA destroyed video evidence of the coercive interrogation of al-Qaida operatives held under its secret rendition programme in order to shield agents from prosecution, it was revealed yesterday. The decision to destroy two videotapes documenting the use of waterboarding against Abu Zubaydah and another high value al-Qaida detainee was made in November 2005 - as American media were just beginning to focus on the existence of the secret CIA prison network... The footage would have clarified what practices such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation - both of which a gravely wounded Abu Zubaydah was subjected to - involve.

Another daily calls it ‘Simulating drowning in a controlled environment’! I don’t know how exactly they practice it, but let’s assume that they use supercomputers to control the amount of water which enters the lungs of the accused person. Then, if the person dies due to a bug in the programs coded to control the process, that would be just an accident, yes?

Also, I think that ‘amputation in controlled environment’ is not much different from ‘simulating drowning’: “let’s cut some fingers, and then order professional medical stuff to repair it.” Whatever reason they suggest to justify Waterboarding, one might use that very reason to justify Controlled Amputation.

What about rape? Less painful and more productive.

UN should pass a resolution to set limits for being shameless, I believe.

Cup of Poison

Once I read in an article about the Modern International Politics that in a Newtonian system of politics, i.e. a democracy, each nation’s strong and weak points are clearly visible to all sides; then, in the case of conflict, each nation exactly knows its own limits and maximum possible benefits it can achieve in the struggle. That way, war can be easily avoided.
When a non-democracy (i.e. a country of which there is no accurate estimate of power) there exists in the above equation, the whole debate changes. Clearly the non-democracy, usually the weaker side, tries to pretend being stronger than what it really is, in order to take advantage of the situation. If the conflict of interests ups to an extremely high level, around the threshold of war, weaker one finds itself in a very dangerous status: on one hand, it can avoid war; on the other hand, it may be fully devastated. The stronger the other side, the more scaring would be the case for the weaker side. Here, weaker side starts sending mixed signals: it shows some signs of compromise if the other side is ready.

*****

During the 8 years of war with Iraq, Iranian leaders would always insist on this slogan that “we will fight to the last drop of our blood, to punish Saddam and free the Iraq.” Many young volunteers died for the sake of that holy war, which was in the name of Imam Hussein (the symbol of martyrdom for Shiite).
But when late Ayatollah Khomeini found that it wouldn’t be possible anymore to fight (with all the support Saddam had from westerners, the economy of Iran being a full bankrupt and the Iran’s army loosing the war to the re-empowered army of Saddam and all of his WMD), he almost gave up on all those fanatic slogans, wrote a letter and accepted the ceasefire… he said: “I drank the cup of poison”.

*****

The tradition of ‘drinking the cup of poison’, which politically means ‘compromise’ in the glossary of extremists, plays an important role in their understanding of the world. (Though right now Iran seems to have the upper hand in Persian Gulf,) US administration should understand that IRI leaders would never commit suicide if they find the act they are doing is suicidal. Compared with suicide, drinking ‘a cup of non-lethal poison’ and keeping the power is a more rational choice, I think.

Ahmadinejad in Columbia University

Breaking news: Iranian state TV is supposed to air the event tonight. I'm very eager to know how much of the program is going to be censored. if all the program is aired... I dont know what may happen!
*****
More to read:
Transcripts of the event (beginnig by Mr Ahmadinejad's Speech)
Another Transcript (containing Mr. Bollinger's Introduction)
Washingtonpost's remarks (makes a fun of Ahmadinejad)
Jerusalem Post ("Ahmadinejad grilled in Columbia Q&A)
NewyorkTimes' report (just read)
*****
As an example of his mistakes, Ahmadinejad infromed the audience in Columbia University: "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country". Provided that following videos are available to many westerners, what do you expect them to think about him?

Out of Iran
the persecution of homosexuals in the islamic republic of Iran (Broadcast on the CBC’s Sunday Night, Feb.18.2007)
part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAzMuHyg8Eg
part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QMcfSuJkMo
part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUZiMCsNNcQ
*****
One sentence to Mr. Ahmadinejad:
Mr. President, if you dont know the way you should appear to westerners, don't insist on it, plz.

Will Iran and US begin a war?

few weeks ago, a very good friend on Facebook asked of my opinion about a possible war between Iran and US. here is her message and my response (with few edits in both letters):

-----------------

I keep hearing all the time that people in America are so worried that Iran will one day bomb them. Why do Iranians hate Americans? Although I probably know the answer, it is because Americans are invading Iraq and ruining the country....

Elissa

-----------------

hi
yesterday, I was reading some quotes of Ernest Hemingway, and one of them best applies to this case:
"War is no longer made by simply analysed economic forces if it ever was. War is made or planned now by individual men, demagogues and dictators who play on the patriotism of their people to mislead them into a belief in the great fallacy of war when all their vaunted reforms have failed to satisfy the people they misrule."
if your compatriot, Ernest, were still alive, he would be much excited to see how his prediction came true in this case...!

Elissa,
America's invasion and Iraq's story had 2 lessons for Iranians, 1 for the people and 1 for the regime:

I) for the people: US would not care about the country and its natural resources or infrastructures or even the society's future, when it decides to attack.

II) for the regime: Vietnam's story would never happen again; if US decides to attack, it will change the regime for sure, no matter how much it may cost.
add following facts to the above lessons:

1) Iranians don't hate Americans, or at least I feel so.

2) Extermists would bomb/attack America, if they could. (note: in this case, Time goes in favour of US, because my country's problems weakens extermists more and more, day in, day out, espicially when we consider future UN sanctions. nowadays, more people ask Ahamadinead to do something for inflation, unemployment, etc. and give up on other things, and the number of this group is on rise).

3) There is a very wide spectrum of ideas about Iraqis' current situaion. some even say that Iraqis had to be punished for the crimes they did against us during 8-years-of-war. from this point of view, US was the hand of God, though somehow a dirty hand!

4) look at recent direct-talks between Iran and US in Iraq. following the news, I felt that Iranian politicians were more thirsty for these talks!

5) moderate groups will win next presidential elections in Iran, godwilling.

6) it seems that Democrats in your country are more likely to enter the house. true?

7) Iran knows that no country would help it in the case of a possible US attack.

8) Iran's regime makes a massive propaganda about its military capabilities, but most of the people doubt it seriously. and a pre-emptive attack can stop any kind of possible attack on Israel or other local interests of US by Iran. Iran is not that strong.

when I try to consider above lessons and facts together, I come to believe that Iran would never enter a war. this is the only rational conclusion of these facts on the ground.
BUT,
'never underestimate the power of idiots, espicially when they come as a group'!an idiot may never think of rationality, and 2 idiots together can do their best to destory a whole world. this is what I am afraid of, not facts, truths, or Americans.
Take care

Mohammad

Who thinks US-Iran direct talks are really serious?!

Who thinks US-Iran direct talks are really serious?!