IRINN, 27 January

On 27 January IRINN broadcast an interview with an international relations expert named Dr. Motefaker, with the title "Iraq and the Challenges facing America."

This piece was an anaylsis of the sort frequently seen in the Iranian media; it paints a bleak picture for the outlook in foreign relations for the USA, and by implication a brighter outlook for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This is a Persian example of some deadly stuff; today we're flirting with war and we've got frightening propaganda flying everywhere in every direction:

Announcer: Mr. Motefaker, the Bush government's new strategy is facing extensive criticism and opposition inside and outside the country. Do you think this new strategy and the sending of additional troops to Iraq will be able to help with America's many problems in Iraq?

Motefaker: To analyze and answer this multi-dimensional question we must first consider America's geopolitical objectives on the international and regional scenes. Since the end of the bipolar system and especially since 11 September the US has been working to create a system of international domination. Do do this it must certainly be prepared with regard to civilization, economically, politically, and culturally and it must lay the groundwork.

In this regard, with the studies the American strategists and geopoliticians have done they have reached the conclusion that if America wants to play the first and basic role in international affairs it must certainly control the geostrategic, geopolitical, geoenvironmental and geoeconomical region of the Middle East.

In other words America must be able to take over completely this geoeconomic region with its oil and gas resources. It therefore decided to take control of this region because three major threats will face America in the future. One is the China threat, the second is Russia, and the third is Islam and the political Islam that is originating in Iran, which has brought about the growth of Islamism in the region and in the world.

They have therefore arranged their strategies in such a way that they are expanding NATO in the direction of Russia's borders, they are expanding NATO in the direction of China's borders and on the other hand they are also expanding NATO from the west of Iran to the Persian Gulf, while the proposal to add Saudi Arabia to NATO is also being made in this connection.

On the other hand by way of Afghanistan's borders they are able to surround Iran completely, because they have designed three major threats for themselves. In view of the process they have seen for themselves in these threats, if Iran is able to form a geostrategic and geopolitical union with China and Russia it will be able in the future to play a basic role in international affairs.

Or, if Iran is able to establish strategic relationships with Pakistan and China, or if it can establish multi-faceted relationships with Russia and India, it will be able to challenge Western civilization.

With this in mind they have decided first to control Islam in the region since political Islam has emerged with the flourishing of the Islamic revolution and can be a threat to Israel. To control Islam they have established a presence in Afghanistan, which is the key to entry to Central Asia.

Afghanistan is the meeting ground for four great civilizations, the civilizations of China, India, Russia and Islam, and it can influence future international developments. They decided to take over this region for 33 reasons, which they did.

Their next step was to take over Iraq. Iraq is the strategic key to the Middle East. In taking over Iraq, they were pursuing several objectives, meaning they were pursuing a four-part strategy. This four-part strategy, in view of the information they published themselves, was that after taking over Iraq they would go in the direction of Iran, in the direction of Palestine.

They decided that after solving the problem in Iraq they would deal with Iran. However because of international conditions, the position Iran had and the capabilities it has, they changed direction and went towards Palestine. They say they would go solve the Palestine problem, then solve the Lebanon problem, and then they would go back to Iran.

On this basis, in this region they are seeking to control geosecurity with military power and to institutionalize their presence there. Here the primary obstacle they see is the influence of the Islamic revolution. The Islamic revolution has made the people in the region aware, it is making the people of the world aware and is questioning America's illegitimate presence in Iraq.

America has therefore taken over Afghanistan and Iraq, but today they see they are being defeated. In other words they have not achieved their objectives in Afghanistan, they have not achieved their objectives in Iraq, they have not achieved their objectives in Lebanon, and in Lebanon the armed triangle of America, England and Israel has been defeated!

Since they did not achieve these things, they have sought external causes and obstacles. In view of international conditions, they have accused Iran of causing America's defeat in Iraq, despite the fact that Iran is an agent of stability, security and aid for the government of Iraq.

Iran and Iraq are geostrategically interdependent. In other words Iraq's security is meaningless without Iran's security, and Iran's security is also meaningless without Iraq's security.

Therefore since the Americans have been defeated in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Iraq, they have designed an international strategy that they want to implement in this region.

Announcer: In view of the fact that most Western experts, including the American analysts, believe that Iran has an important role to play, why is the White House trying to portray a distorted image of Iran?

Motefaker: This has come out of the Cold War era. After the bipolar system and especially since 11 September America has been trying to find a real or hypothetical enemy on the international and regional scenes.

With the studies the American strategists have done, they see that the Islamic revolution and the government of the Islamic Republic have not been challenged by the West's political philosophy. It is this system that is becoming the model in the region and in the future both the nations of the region and the nations of the Third World are likely to turn to such a model in their own regions.

They must therefore control and deal with this system of the Islamic Republic and on the other hand they must have a presence in Iraq, because if the hypothetical enemy does not project itself in the region they can have legitimacy in Iraq and in the region.

On this basis the Americans are trying to portray Iran as a very big enemy, to portray a conflict between the Shia and the Sunnis in the region, to portray a basic clash between Iran and the Arabs in the region and also to portray a clash between Islam and other civilizations.

In this regard the primary essence of this thinking is based on Iran because Iran is Shia and also the source of the appearance of the trend towards Islam in the world. Therefore with psychological warfare and psychological operations they want to portray a special image of Iran for two reasons. First, so that nations cannot move in Iran's direction and second so that in the future they will be able to implement the plans they have for the region.

To answer your first question about whether sending troops to Iraq will be useful solving America's problems in Iraq, I want to say that we must look at America's objectives. It it America's objective in Iraq to provide security? If Iraq had security, there would be no reason for the America to be in Iraq. Therefore the Americans are not trying to create security in Iraq at all. If they had been trying to do that they would have done it by now.

Secondly, in their analyses the Americans have come to the conclusion that if they have not been able to stabilize their presence in Iraq, they need to implement the theory of the Fourth World. Under this theory if a superior power is unable to take over the region, then this geographic region must be broken up into small countries so they will not be able to declare themselves a regional power.

Iran and Iraq are at the center of this region, because if America does not take control of this region and if the Americans are unable to control the Islamic Republic, they will seek to implement this Fourth Word theory so they will be able to dominate the ethnocentric nations in the region and these small ethnocentric will be unable to resist a nuclear-armed Israel.

Therefore one of their objectives in the region is to provide for Isreal's security. If Israel's security is not achieved through America's presence in this region and by making the Greater Middle East operational, which I see as an Israel without borders, then America will certainly seek to break up the region into small nations so these nations will be unable resist Israel and a future with an American presence in the region.

A cartoon ridiculing George Bush's incursion into Iraq was shown.

Announcer: Dr. Motefaker, the participation by the nations in the region in creating stability and security in those nations is useful and effective, but in an unconventional measure America has separated Iran and Syria in the changes in the region and is seeking to create a coalition from the other nations. What is your assessment of this?

Motefaker: In the region's security and changes, the unity of nations and the procurement of security in the region will mean that America must leave the region. It is thus not correct to say that America has come to the region to provide security.

America's presence in the region is planned with the challenges and conflicts in the region. To provide for Israel's security, America must remove the most powerful nations in the region who are opposed to America's policies. Syria is one of these nations.

Syria was able to stand up to Western pressure with respect to Lebanon and the changes in the region. The Americans therefore designed another three-part strategy within its other strategy, which was to have Security Council Resolution 1701 solve the problem, and to solve the Syria problem with the resolution against Syria on the Hariri case and to solve the Iran problem with the Security Council resolutions against Iran, 1737 and 1696.

They are trying with international pressure to make these operational. In this region the Americans are seeking participation and holding people accountable. America's geopolitical strategy is participaion and holding people accountable.

If they can make these operational they will certainly use military strikes. Therefore to have a presence in Iraq and the region the Americans must creat conflicts between the nations in the region, and these conflicts are taking place in Iraq, between Syria and Iraq and between Iran and Iraq.

They are doing this to show nations such as Saudi Arabia that they are supporting them, and they have established themselves here to attract their support.

Announcer: It is interesting that Mr. George Bush recently issued an order that Iranian citizens in Iraq can be arrested or killed. Is it legal under international law for the president of nation to order the arrest and killing in one country of citizens from a third country?

Motefaker: I said they came to here to create conflict. They want to have Syria, and they want Iraq to be aligned with them in order to have a superior Israel in the region. Iran is at the geopolitical and strategic core of the Middle East. Iran must definitely be taken into account in any change that takes place in the region.

Why are the Americans doing this? It because of Iran's power and influence in the region and to coordinate the other nations to serve their own objectives. To stop Iran's influence in Iraq and in the region they are applying a strategy or tactic of surrounding and limiting Iran--because the Iranians are truly influential for providing security in the region.

Therefore since the Americans are seeking to provide insecurity in the region, they are opposed to this objective that the Iranians are seeking. They have therefore ordered that Iranian citizens in Iraq should be either killed or arrested.

This can be examined politically because it is the greatest psychological war against the country where the president of a nation within the international system or a world superpower issues such a tactical order. This is the highest level of psychological warfare operation.

What is the reason for this? The reason is the frustrations it is having in Iraq and its frustrations with regard to Iran's peaceful nuclear energy program.

This is the political dimension of the case. In terms of international law and human rights, this shows the descent in standing of a president on the international scene who has been defeated to an extent in the region or feels that he is being defeated and issues an order to kill the citizens of a nation, in order to show us that they have come to the region to deal with us, meaning Iran!

Therefore in terms of international law, the UN Charter and the Hague World Court, the president of the republic of a nation has no right under any laws or regulations to order the killing of individuals from another country. It is also clear that he does not know or does not care about diplomatic laws.

He wants to use international law as an implement whenever it is in his own interest and wherever this hurts his interest he disregards them. The law of the jungle is superior to this!

Announcer: Mr. Motefaker, what role did the Iraqis play in the taking of the Iranian hostages in Iraq?

Motefaker: If Iraq were to achieve the security America wants, it would be in the service of American security. In other words they want to establish security with the influence and institutionalized presence they want to establish for themselves, in order to provide for their own economic, geopolitical, and geostrategic interest and to put a clash with Islamic civilization on their agenda, but they are really being defeated.

Iraq's elections showed that they are not achieving their objectives and since they are not reaching them, for true security to be established in Iraq they must leave Iraq, and therefore at this time they are not seeking security in Iraq. What they are really trying to do is portray the Al-Maliki government as being ineffective and over time to claim aht these Shia do not have the ability to govern Iraq. In other words they have started another nation-building project in Iraq, and the result of this dual approach will be unrest in Iraq.

In other words American security will be superimposed over this unrest.

Announcer: Thank you Mr. Motefaker.

Quoting unidentified news sources in Tehran, in his telephone report to PARS TV news from Paris today Morteza Lotfi said secret meetings are underway in Tehran to designate a three-person Leadership Council to replace Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The council will consist of Chief Justice Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi and former presidents Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami; this council is to be confirmed by the Assembly of Experts for Leadership Affairs at its next meeting.

In its television analyses about the current Lebanon crisis, Iran is saying the Western governments do not want the formation of an "independent" government in Lebanon. Here the word "independent" is code for "dependent on Iran instead of the US." Iranian TV speaks only of Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah's noble quest for a "national unity" government in Lebanon. The Syrian connection, and the controversy over the formation of a tribunal to try the accused in the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, are not mentioned on Iranian TV, but these are central elements. Iranian TV says the Hezbollah (which it often lumps in the same phrase with "the nation of Lebanon" as if they were one and the same) want the removal of the Siniora govenment to counter Western hegemony there. Michael Young of the Lebanese Daily Star tells a different story.

Typical IRINN Lebanon Opinion Piece: 26 January

Female announcer: While the political crisis in Lebanon has taken on wider dimensions, Western governments, in holding the Paris 3 Conference, are trying to support the Siniora cabinet. What hidden objectives are the Western governments trying to achieve in holding the Paris 3 Conference?

(Red IRINN transitional screen appears with "point of view" written on the left side of the screen in Persian)

Female announcer: The Paris 3 Conference, which was held to help the Siniora cabinet, was really a part of the biased policies of the Western powers favoring a special group in Lebanon. During the last two years or so, meaning since the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the Western governments have tried, by abusing this event, to reinforce and bring to power a group dependent on the West in Lebanon.

In this framework, with political, economic and even military support for the ruling coalition in Lebanon, they have tried to prevent the realization of the demand of the nation of Lebanon for the formation of a national unity government.

The peak of support by the Western governments for the ruling coalition in Lebanon came after the Zionist regime's 33-day war against the Hezbollah of Lebanon. The Western governments, with the aim of weakening and marginalizing the Hezbollah, supported the Siniora cabinet and even gave arms support to the groups opposed to the Hezbollah.

The Paris 3 Conference is also a measure intended to support the ruling coalition in Lebanon. Even so, the basic question that arises is, what long-term and short-term objectives are the Western governments pursuing in Lebanon by holding this conference?

Political affairs expert Mohammad Hassan Qadiri Abianeh: Lebanon is in a very important position. Western support for the Zionist regime in bombing Lebanon, slaughtering the Lebanese and eliminating the Hezbollah was given to achieve greater domination and to perpetuate the Zionist regime's existence and sovereignty, but they were defeated.

However, the West has not given up! Naturally they predicted that since the Hezbollah won the war they would seek to put a national government in power in Lebanon rather than the groups that saw the Israeli aggression as being in their own interest.

Therefore the Hezbollah with the help of combative Christians and those who are opposed to American domination are organizing resistance to establish a national unity government in Lebanon, or in other words a Lebanese national government without American domination, an independent government!

Naturally America and the Westerners are completely opposed in general to the formation of independent governents in the region, including and especially in Lebanon. They want to preserve at any price the government that is now in power in Lebanon, meaning the Siniora government, and not to permit sovereignty to fall into the hands of the people of Lebanon. Therefore they are trying to reinforce this regime; the conference in Paris is really being held to reinforce the Siniora government.

Female announcer: What is clear is that the Paris 3 Conference will approve financial assistance to the Siniora cabinet. The short-term aim of this help is to reduce some of the economic problems of the ruling cabinet by strengthening Lebanon's ruling coalition, the long-term goal is to reinforce influence and intervention by the Western governments in Lebanese affairs.

Estimates that have been made show that after the Paris 3 Conference Lebanon's debt will go from the present $41 billion to more than $50 billion, and this prepares the way for Western governments to seize Lebanon's political and economic infrastructures. This is opposed by the Hezbollah and the national opposition groups in Lebanon.

The question that arises now is, can the Western governments, by supporting a special group in Lebanon, take control of this nation's destiny while national groups in this country have great public standing and social support?

Mohammad Hassan Qadiri Abianeh: Now the Americans have begun giving arms to the Lebanese army and the government of Lebanon to use against the Hezbollah rather than for example against Israeli aggression to achieve Lebanese independence. They are even arming a series of groups in Lebanon, perhaps for use in religious and ethnic war in the future.

They want to continue this resistance at any price, but the Hezbollah and the nation of Lebanon are vigilant, strong, determined, hopeful and prepared to make sacrifices. Therefore victory is certain for the nation of Lebanon while defeat for the West is certain in this illegitimate interference in Lebanese affairs.

Female announcer: What is clear is that the existence of political groups with an extensive social base in Lebanon will eliminate the possibility of any kind of domination of Lebanon by the Western powers, as current events in Lebanon demonstrate.

IRINN on 26 January:

UPI's Claude Salhani commenting during Al-Alam's coverage of Bush speech

Tehran's Arabic satellite station Al-Alam provided live coverage of President Bush's state of the union speech. The broadcast included remote feeds with two guest analysts, Washington-based UPI International editor and political analyst Claude Salhani and Islamic Institute Chairman Khaled Saffuri, who also lives in Washington. The coverage was surprisingly straightforward, without too much political invective.

In his comments on the speech today Behrouz Souresrafil was supportive of Bush, but wished he would go further with his attacks on Iran. With reference to the war on terror he praised former US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's call for regime change in Iran. Souresrafil said the problems in the Middle East will never be solved until the current regime in Iran is eliminated; "You don't go to war with tolerance." He also said Israel is the anchor of stability in the Middle East.

Video Clip from 24 January:

On 24 January Iranian state TV (IRINN) broacast this video collage along with the following announcer commentary about George Bush's state of the union speech yesterday:

"Bush's annual speech to Congress contained various points about problems related to US foreign policy as well as this nation's domestic problems. Even so, in this speech Bush tried to concentrate mostly on his government's policies in Iraq and the Middle East and to justify his government's current programs.

"Bush's concentration on the complex problems in Iraq and his portrayal of Iran as the cause of the clashes in this country appear to be an effort to compensate for the failure of Western nations to get any result from putting pressure on Iran regarding its peaceful nuclear activities, by accusing Tehran with respect to Iraq's problems.

"Another point that stands out in Bush's remarks is his anxiety about the failure of his government's policies and programs in Iraq and the Middle East, in such a way that for peace of mind he asked the US Congress to agree to the sending of additional troops to this nation and the full implementation of his new program there.

"Yet in the last three days most of the Democrats and Republicans in this nation's Senate and House of Representatives, along with the experts and US allies, emphasizing the ineffectiveness of the Bush policies in Iraq, have opposed sending additional troops and increasing the costs and casualties of the war.

"It is interesting that in this speech Bush acknowledged clearly for the first time that he thinks carefully about the fact that most Americans are opposed to his program. Bush implicity acknowledged that in polls 67 percent of the American people are opposed to the continuation of his policies in Iraq and the Middle East."

Today in the New York Post Amir Taheri discusses political tensions in Iran and how some Iranians view the significance of a US Attack.

Behrouz Souresrafil, 22 January

Behrouz Souresrafil, a well-known Iranian commentator broadcasting in Persian by satellite on PARS TV from Winnetka California, continued yesterday with some of his perennial themes, including hatred for the Islamic Repubic of Iran for ruining the country and oppressing its people, contempt for the USA's incompetence dealing with it and mistrust of the Iranian expatriate opposition, which he considers corrupt and halfhearted.

Souresrafil sets the tone for his program each day with a Zoroastrian admonition and prayer, then a self-introduction: "Listen to the best words with the ears of the soul, and observe with clear thought. Then each man and woman of you must choose between the two good and bad paths. O wise God! I ask you, with the good and pure deeds you perform with wisdom and fine knowledge, to make the world prosperous and the people happy. Dear viewers, I am Behrouz Souresrafil, a small soldier working to liberate Iran from the humiliation and evil of living under the domination of the Islamic Republic of Iran's usurper regime, this shameful regime that arose from the evil and disastrous Islamic revolution led by Seyyed Ruhollah Khomeini, that sick, backward psycho and anti-Iranian terrorist, who has brought nothing to Iran since he first set filthy foot on the pure soil of our land other than shame, evil, calamity, backwardness, defeat, bankruptcy and every other imaginable form of loss of face for kingdom and nation in this world."

Nouri Al-Maliki

Yesterday Souresrafil said Iraq's current prime minister Nouri al-Maliki was chosen by Syria and Iran, and that all the members of the current Iraqi government are beholden to and chosen by outsiders. He added that this has been true since the US first invaded Iraq in 2003. He also recalled that when the Iranian revolution began it was welcomed by the Carter administration, which provided it with aircraft fuel. Noting that the US makes a speciality of being deceived, he also recalled that Fidel Castro was once a popular romanticized figure in the United States.

Souresrafil said Nouri al-Maleki's recent appeal to the US for arms is an event in this category, and predicted that this heralds the formation of another anti-American government in Iraq. He asked rhetorically why it is that the Americans have never chosen sound people for their political relationships.

Moqtada Sadr

As examples, he cited the US choice of the Mojahedin-e Khalq as allies in its efforts to deal with the Islamic Republic and the recent call by some Americans for negotiations with Iran. He added that it is clear that al-Maleki's sympathies lie more with Moqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards than with the US. He elaborated on this point by mentioning the large numbers of Parliamentary deputies and cabinet members who are loyal to Sadr's group.

Continuing his theme that the IRI is gaining power in the region due to US neglect or ineptitude, Souresrafil said Moqtada Sadr was personally responsible for killing the son of Ayatollah Khoei by stabbing him in the stomach, and recalled Sadr's background of activity in the Iranian city of Qom. He noted that when Paul Bremer was governor of Iraq he had ordered the CIA to arrest Sadr, but this did not happen and now Sadr has become a powerful anti-American figure with many allies in the current Iraqi government.

Souresrafil said if he were a Sunni in Iraq he would join the fight against the Shia there as soon as possible to prevent the spread of Iranian influence, and he said the American notion of elections in Iraq is misplaced because democracy will not work in a nation that lacks the required institutions and attitudes. Democracy is one of the best human prerogatives, but elections in Iraq are like giving a gift of a goldfish without the bowl or the water! They have no context in which to function.

Irbil Arrests

Regarding the recent arrest of five Iranians (whom he called murderers and terrorists) in the Iraqi city of Irbil, Souresrafil said mockingly that the Iranians were in Iraq with the consent of president Jalal Talibani, whom he called a "servant" of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He added that the Iraqi government itself has admitted that these Iranians were not diplomats and the building in which they were arrested was not a consulate. Souresrafil said these Iranians ought be brought to the US for trial and there ought to be a Pentagon public relations effort to explain why they were arrested. In this context Souresrafil recalled the 1984 abduction in Lebanon of US CIA station chief William Buckley, whom he said was taken to Tehran to be tortured and killed, and added that the US has done the worst imaginable job of presenting to the public the rationale for its actions in Iraq. Souresrafil said President Bush has lost the war, but he did not lose it in Iraq; he lost it in Washington.

Dan Halutz Resignation

At the end of the program, Souresrafil responded to a fax from a viewer in Iran named Omid, whom he called a hezbollah agent of the Islamic Republic. Omid asked for comment on the resignation of Israeli Defense Force Chief Dan Halutz. Souresrafil said Halutz had resigned because he knew the Israeli public held him responsible for Israel's failure to achieve the desired result in the 33-day summer war in Lebanon against the Hezbollah. He said this should be compared to the case of Mohsen Rezai, who as head of the Revolutionary Guard had admitted that his mistakes as commander were responsible for the Iranian failure to win the war with Iraq, but remained in government service and continued to sell out the country instead of resigning, as did Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani despite his disastrous mistakes as president. Souresrafil concluded by saying that Iranians must remove the government of the IRI themselves, and that this is doable now.

The Arabic newspaper Al Hayat reported today that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards have begun four days of maneuvers in the Garmsar area to test Iran's Zalzal 1 and Fajr 5 missiles. The paper also quoted sources in Iran who said that the government has begun holding a series of meetings to study the likelihood of a US attack on Iran in February that will target nuclear, military and oil installations.

The paper quoted informed sources in Iran who said that the Iranian "Ministry of Security" had submitted a report to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei emphasizing the "certainty" of an American military attack, whose highlights Khamenei ordered distributed to certain government officials. The paper reported that Ayatollah Ali Montazeri has severely criticized Ahmadinezhad and called upon Iranian officials to study American power and to refrain from provoking the people in the region. The report is here.

Broadcast 23 January by IRINN:

Yesterday the Arabic newspaper Al Hayat reported the Iranian secretary of the Assembly for the Discernment of Interests and former Revolutionary Guard Commander Mohsen Rezai is expecting current tensions to lead to an extensive military confrontation between the US and Iran within the next two months.

The report is here.

Broadcast on IRINN 22 January:

IRINN Satellite TV Video of US Forces, with Announcer Persian Commentary:

On 21 January Iranian government satellite TV (IRINN) broadcast a video collage of US forces in Iraq and made the following commentary:

"The existing realities show that despite the fact that the US government is trying to strengthen its position and overcome the defeat of its army by intensifying military operations in Iraq, the recent killing of about 20 US soldiers and the wounding of a number of other occupation forces indicate that the evolving Iraq crisis is getting the US deeper than ever into a quagmire.

"Meanwhile the Americans are trying to prevent disclosure of the number of US casualties by censoring news and information. Yet the limited published statistics on US casualites prove that the American occupying government in Iraq is facing profound difficulties, and increasing the number of military forces cannot reduce them.

"In studying the developments related to the status and position of America's occupying government in Iraq, one can conclude that America's problem in Iraq is related more to the software than to the hardware. In other words in Iraq America is facing a problem with the people of Iraq, and as the people of Iraq have proven in the last four years or so, they are not willing to submit to American occupation and domination.

"Therefore the US government's strategy pf sending military forces and increasing the pressure on the government and people Of Iraq will have no result other than to increase the Iraqi nation's resistance to the occupying government, and it will also increase casualties among the occupying forces."

Today Juan Cole said:

"Iran is a poor weak third world country and poses no threat to the US. It hasn't aggressively invaded another country for over a century."

Iran is not poor and it is not weak. Iran threatens the US every day verbally and in every other way it can manage. Moreover, it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, an idea which itself has been seen by every US government as a direct threat to its own interest. Iran is known for proxy wars, international terrorist attacks and assassinations. It has military and paramilitary capabilities that it cultivates and exports wherever possible and is an admitted advocate of suicide operations.

The US has no greater enemy than the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Iran is indeed the logical successor to the former Soviet Union as the world's chief US antagonist. In its propaganda Iran refers to the US every day as its enemy and as the Great Satan. Military analysts have said a US attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences for the US. Is this the profile of a "weak" country, or of one that poses no threat to the US? I'm not advocating war with Iran, but it should be seen as it is.

In context, Cole was trying to make a case for the impeachment of Dick Cheney, and he did make some good points.

Comments on Iran's economic situation and the nature of the threat it poses to the world were published here today by Amir Taheri.

Broadcast 19 January on IRINN

Broadcast on IRINN 18 January 2007

Broadcast on IRINN 18 January 2007

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

After posting a link to an account of the bombings yesterday in Iraq killing over 100 civilians, Juan Cole had this to say:

"We should be clear why these bombings are taking place. It is because Bush's policy in Iraq was total victory, along with his Shiite and Kurdish allies, over the previously dominant Sunni Arabs. Bush did this thing as a zero sum game, one where there is only one pie and if one person gets a bigger piece, someone else gets a tiny sliver. The Sunni Arabs-- among the best educated and most capable people in the country-- were offered the tiny sliver. They won't accept US troops in their country for the most part, and won't accept reduction to a small powerless minority. They have succeeded in provoking the Shiites to form guerrilla groups and engage in reprisal killings, as well, as a way of destabilizing the country. Bush's allies won't share power and wealth with them, and Bush himself keeps pushing for what he calls 'victory.' Today is what his victory looks like after nearly 4 years, and it is highly unlikely to look different any time soon."

Iraqis settle their disputes by perpetrating murder and mayhem, and this is George Bush's fault? I don't doubt that a lot of Iraqis are angry about what George Bush is doing. What I doubt is that things would be any different if, say Hillary Clinton, were trying to direct some other kind of effort in Iraq (whoever is the next US president will still be trying to do something in Iraq). If Hillary or some other democrat were trying to deal with US problems in Iraq, there would still be angry Iraqis. I believe those angry Iraqis would also be taking it out on their compatriots with bombs. It takes two sides to make a violent, lawless civil war with gruesome suicide bombings, tortures and lynchings. Any policy in Iraq, whether Cole agrees with it or not, will still get a violent response from some Iraqis. That's how all too many Iraqis express themselves when they are unhappy or feel threatened. This violence will still be something somebody can blame on the US using this logic: If they act like murderers and criminals, it isn't their fault. George Bush made them do it!

Cole's "Informed Comment" blog has a wealth of valuable information; I'm a regular reader because of its links to sources, but I can't agree with Cole's ideas about what is causing this violence. I don't think Cole's blog today really clarifies why the bombings are taking place in Iraq, but I do think the suicide bombers there are trying to foster the very conclusions he draws. His specialty is rounding up every scrap of bad news he can find with the implication that the US is the cause of it. That is such a consistent drumbeat that it takes on the odor of propaganda, in some ways a lot like what comes out of Iran.

On 16 January Iranian satellite TV (IRINN) showed an editorial cartoon from the Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat and made the following commentary: "The purpose of Condoleeza Rice's trip to the Middle East is to fan the flames of war and prepare the way for sending additional troops to Iraq. To illustrate this reality Al-Hayat shows Rice leaving tracks made by military boots even though she is wearing women's shoes. This shows the militaristic thinking of this woman and US President Bush."

On 12 January Cole said concerning Iranian involvement in Iraq:

"One scenario you could imagine is that Iran was sending some aid and weaponry to the Peshmerga on condition it be shared with the Badr Corps paramilitary of the Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The US raided a compound of SCIRI leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim recently and captured Iranian intelligence officials there, who had come to consult about the shape of the Iraqi government.

"Kurdistan authorities have long had good relations with the Badr Corps, to which they gave bases in Kurdistan late in the Saddam period when they were jointly trying to overthrow him.

"Although Bush keeps implying that Iran is supplying weapons and aid to US enemies in Iraq, the circumstantial evidence is that it was helping the two main US allies in Iraq with their paramilitary capabilities-- Kurdistan and SCIRI. But it is likely that the money and weapons do bleed over into insurgent groups and have a destabilizing effect."

This is funny. It seems Cole thinks those nice Iranians are just trying to help their old friends in Iraq, and that if any lethal weaponry happens to get into the hands of people who would use it to kill US soldiers, it is just an accident; that stuff is merely bleeding into the hands of those Iraqis who happen to share with Iran a hatred for the US. The Iranians aren't sending it there deliberately!

Cole is only speculating, or "imagining," as he says, but this speculation can't be fed by any real awareness of the torrent anti-US venom that emanates daily from the IRI propaganda mill.

Even if Iranian money and weapons are accidentally getting into the hands of people who want to kill US soldiers, George Bush has every right to prevent it with whatever force may be necessary and to hold the Iranian government responsible and accountable. As a former soldier in the US army, I give him my permission. Although I am not comfortable with the US mission in Iraq, I support the right of US soldiers to defend themselves; depriving those who do not wish them well access to high-tech weaponry is definitely part of that self-defense.

I've been watching the Arabic broadcasts from Tehran, the ones the Iranian government uses to tell the Arabic speaking world what it thinks, and wants them to think. I expect if I watched the Syria broadcasts I'd be seeing similar things. It is very clear that the Iranian government approves of what happened, and they are trying to make it look like most Iraqis are happy about it too. They are showing interviews with Iraqis saying how appropriate the whole thing was; they are showing groups of Iraqis dancing in celebration, and of course they're showing old films about Saddam's atrocities to make it all look more necessary and justifiable. Iran loves to hang people, but they do it with cranes in front of people passing by on the streets. They hang people, including teenagers, for relatively minor crimes in which nobody dies, such as sexual misconduct and drug dealing. They probably don't like it that Saddam was hung privately. The Iranians also make a practice of flogging prisoners brutally before hanging them. They would have done that to Saddam too if they had been in charge of killing him.

I'm opposed to both the death penalty and identity politics. I am not moved by the fact that Saddam was hung on a Muslim holiday. It doesn't matter to me that he was Iraqi and Muslim. I'm angry because he was hung, period.