<http://www.haloscan.com/comments/yoshie/bustani250607/#170204> I think it is rather ridiculous to accuse Iran of having hegemonic aspirations for not taking up arms in sympathy with the Taliban or Saddam, or perhaps Dr. Bustani feels that Iran should have cut off ties to all centers of power in both countries simply because the US decided to invade?
Rehashing Saddam's propaganda and that of the Gulf aristocracies about the 'occupation' of Ahwaz and the islands of Persian Gulf is particularly worrisome; it acts as poor cover for real expansionist projects which have already shown the kind of harm they can inflict on the region.
The truth is Iran publicly and quite loudly opposed the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, but has preferred to engage the powers-at-be in those countries politically (which it has done with some success) rather than turn the entire region into a battle zone.
I beleive Dr. Bustani is also mistaken in dismissing political and military strugles against indigenous imperial agents such as are found in the Fatah movement and the Siniora government as 'sectarian', when these projects have clearly been taken on only reluctantly and when it became apparent that there was no recourse. Interestingly Dr. Bustani manages to reverse his position in the Iraqi case, dismissing the Shiite led government as 'US Sponsored' (Though the only parties the US funded and supported found themselves squarely outside the government), and condemning those he feels have not adequately distanced themselves from it. Dr. Bustani never explicity discusses why he believes that US sponsored Palestinian and Lebanese governments should be revered by the Liberation Movements and the one in Iraq shunned, so we can only hope his analysis in not informed by some kind of latent anti-Iranian/anti-Muslim/Shiite sentiment.
I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Bustani's conclusions, especially about the role of Western anti-Imperialists and the pitfalls that need to be avoided, but I would also warn against trying to build pan-Arab nationalist sentiment at the cost of demonizing Iran and it's attempts to counter the influence of an Empire eager to annihilate it. masoud | 06.28.07 - 2:23 am | #
<http://www.haloscan.com/comments/yoshie/bustani250607/#170312> Hisham Bustani is absolutely right that Iran is pursuing its own hegemonic goals in the region. It's about time that this be recognized.
For those who keep saying that Iran never occupied anyone else's territory, please note, as HB did in passing, that Iran occupied and continues to occupy the islands of Tanb al-Kubra, Tanb as-Sughra and Abu Musa in the Arabian Gulf, that it controls and brutally suppresses the ethnic Arabs in southwestern Iran, and that it has repeatedly violated Afghanistan's sovereignty - beginning back in the 1970s when it was Iranian subversion of the progressive regime in Afghanistan that first prompted the revolutionary authorities there to call in help from a very reluctant Soviet Union.
More recently, Iran backed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, sending the 20,000-30,000-man Badr Brigade militia into Iraq alongside the American invasion force. Those sectarian militiamen who had spent 20 odd years training in Iran went on to form the backbone of the puppet security services set up by the Americans in Iraq.
The US invasion of Iraq took place while the regime in Tehran was that of the liberal Khatimi. When he was replaced by the conservative Ahmadinajad, there were repercussions in Iraq. Specifically, the Iraqi Shi'i sectarian cleric Muqtada as-Sadr - a protege of Iran's conservatives - moved from opposition to the US occupation of Iraq to cooperating with the other Shi'i sectarian clerical forces that are a part of the US-backed political structure. Muqtada's party joined the puppet government installed by the United States and though it has since withdrawn from the government, the Jaysh al-Mahdi militia run by Muqtada continues to work in tandem with the puppet security forces.
There are clashes between the US and Iran for control of Iraq, but the US continues to rely on security forces that have now become largely the fiefdom of Muqtada as-Sadr, who elbowed the Badr Brigades out to a large degree.
And since February 2006 the Shi'i sectarian clerical militias - in the first place the Jaysh al-Mahdi of Muqtada as-Sadr - have been kidnapping, torturing and murdering Sunnis in a massive effort to purge southern and central Iraq of Sunnis and prepare the way to partition Iraq in keeping with the "three-state solution" that was pioneered by Zionist and US neo-conservative thinktanks and strategists, and has since acquired strong support from American liberal democrats as well.
So there is no question that Iran is pursuing a policy of hegemonism in the Arab region.
Of course it is true that the main contradiction remains that between the peoples of the region and the US-Zionists. But the fact that Iran is pursuing its own hegemonic ends at the expense of the Arabs must be acknowledged.
This is particularly true since Tehran's hegemonic course leads it to pursue complex policies vis-a-vis imperialism and Zionism, just as HB has indicated. At times it sides with imperialism as it did in t
Muhammad Abu Nasr | 06.29.07 - 10:40 pm | #
<http://www.haloscan.com/comments/yoshie/bustani250607/#170383> and <http://www.haloscan.com/comments/yoshie/bustani250607/#170384> These claims of 'Iranian Occupation' need to stop. Khuzestan has been a part of Iran quite literally forever. Iranian nomads have been leading there heards to and from that regioin for millenia, and with the exception of one period roughly five centuries ago, the territory has always been under Iranian sovereignty. The population of Khuzestan is not composed only of ethnic Arabs, but also of Lurs, Bakhtiari's, Lak's, and Persians (and others besides). When Saddam invaded to 'free' his fellow Arabs from Iranian rule, they responded by fighting and dying along side every other minority in Iran to maintain Iran's territorial integrity (this was before Saddam had turned to brutal repression of Shi'ite Arabs). Although there are claims by foreign sponsored (mostly terrorist) groups that Khuzestan is the most underdeveloped region in Iran (foreign-sponsored Baluch and Azeri movements claim much the same thing about there territories) as well as rampant anti-Arab discrimitnation, Arabic is mandatory for all public schools in Iran, and ethnic Arabs as well as Persians who speak Arabic as a first language can be found in important posts of the cabinet and security services and .(The former minister of Defense and the Head of the Judiciary(chief judge) are just two examples).
The islands of Abu Moussa Tunb-e-Bozorg and Tunb-e-Kouchek are also Iranian, as every map made into the early twentieth century can attest to. The Britsh started making claims to these islets (two of the three aren't populated and aren't really habitable) when they invaded the Arabian Peninsula and discovered oil, and both sides agreed to de-militarize the islands while these claims were settled through negotiations. When the British left the Iranians installed garrisons on two of the three islands.
The current UAE campaign to annex the islands was begun in earnest in the wake of Saddam's defeat and the breakup of the Saddam-Gulf Arab alliance. It has no legal or historic merits.
Iranians view both these claims as akin to those made by Israelis, and neither should be so blindly and casually parotted by those seeking to build "a front that includes all the peoples of the region (Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Iranians) to confront US Imperialism and Zionism" as Hisham Bustani does.
That said, there are several other weak points in Muhammad Abu Nasr's contribution. His novel justification of Russia's attempted annexation of Afghanistan aside, he treats the Shi'i Badr Brigade as if they were grown in some Iranian petree dish. The Badr were Iraqi refugees who wanted to return home, Iran had no authority to stop them. The Shi'ites only integrated themselves with the Americans after holding their peace throughout a Brutal three year-long campaign of Bombings by the Sunni's against almost exclusively civilian crowds, during which time the Shi'i were able through a mixture of violent and non-violent action able to force the occupying Americans to adopt a full Parlimentary system rather than one that hinged on American nominations as was orignally planned. They were (in there view) choosing the lesser of two evils, not acting as American or Iranian agents.
Moqtada al-Sadr is enormously popular precisely because he is not a protege of the Iranians, but rather stayed in Iraq throughout Saddam's most brutal repression to build his movement. He is not in league with the Americans, he is hunted by them.
'Hegemeony' means more than defending one's territorial integrity, provding shelter to refugees and seeking to stabilise vacume's of power created on your border. Iran does first and foremost look out for itself; it has not done so at any one else's expense.
Iran does give massive assistance to various states and networks that oppose US Imperialism, but i have seen no evidence that it has used this influence to either meddle in the internal affairs of those groups or exact from them anything other than rhetorical support.
Iran may be a disgusting regime vis a vis it's internal policies, but it is an extremely resposible one on the regional and world stages. Accusations of Hegemonic aspirations are not only unfortunate in that they are misguided , they are uncomfortably close to some of the xenephobic sentiments shared by both Al Qaeda and the autocratic rulers of the Arab world. They have no place in any kind of progressive analysis.
masoud | 07.01.07 - 2:29 pm | #
<http://www.haloscan.com/comments/yoshie/bustani250607/#170404> Unfortunately Iranian hegemonism is patently obvious in that regime's behavior in Iraq and in the behavior of its creatures, the Shi'i sectarian clerics and their murderous militias in Iraq.
The issue of Iranian hegemonism in Iraq needs to be looked at squarely and not swept under the rug, as if the clerical fundamentalist regime there had no interest in using Shi'i clerics throughout the region to further its aspirations. Of course it does and it has been using them with some evident success in Iraq for many years.
How can a materialist analysis fail to take into account the interests of the Iranian ruling classes in Iraq and Afghanistan and throughout the region? How can anyone comprehend developments in Iraq if he or she fails to look into the dynamic between Iran and the US as those two hegemons fight over the spoils in Iraq?
Obviously Sunni regimes that are also clients of the US are playing the sectarian card in reverse to justify their own alliance with the US. But the entire picture would look very different if Iran's agents in Iraq - the sectarian militias and clerics - had not (1.) joined the US invasion of Iraq, and then (2.) joined the US-installed sectarian regime and political process, and (3.) launched vicious sectarian campaigns of kidnapping, torture, and murder that have driven literally millions of Iraqis out of their homes.
To accuse Iran of hegemonism is no slight of Iranians as human beings, obviously, but an assessment of the regime in Tehran which is, after all, not a regime of the working people but one with exploiter-class interests.
Muhammad Abu Nasr
Muhammad Abu Nasr | 07.01.07 - 7:18 pm | #
<http://www.haloscan.com/comments/yoshie/bustani250607/#170484> Everyone is aware that if the south of Iraq was populated mainly by clones of Mahatma Ghandi, the situation on the ground would have been different. But it's not, so things are the way they are. There's no need to go pointing fingers at any outside influence to understand why they are acting the way they are. They were subject the most vicious campaign of car bombings which targeted not only police recruits, but mosques, shrines, and crowded markets and residential areas for at least two years before they started retaliating. Before that they were brutally supressed for decades by the most vicious tyrant in the region, the specifics of which are by now familiar to everyone, and that history can be traced as far back as you like. The death squads are not beneficial to anyone, but they are entirely understandable without having to imagine that the Shia are some how under the hypnotic control of a bunch Iranian mullahs.
Iran for it's part wants access stable markets, it definitely doesn't desire the breakup of Iraq as the Sunni center of the country would probably serve as base for Sunni Arab fanatics to launch attacks against it, and Israel would also be enabled to launch terrorist attacks against it from Iraqi Kurdistan. Iran desires a stable trading partner and has no interest in yet another humanitarian disaster on it's borders and the waves of refugees it would have to accomadate.
At present Iran doesn't have enough sway with the Iraqi government to have it's five diplomats released from prison, there's no way it could push these genocidal policies onto such a besiged government.
Care must also be taken to not paint all Shia with the same brush, Sistani has issued Fatwa's stictly forbiding any kind of retaliation against the Sunni's and Moqtada has always openly supported the resistance, even though it has been overwhelmingly Sunni form day one.
Any cogent analysis of the situation in the middle east would have take into account the interest of the Iranian regime and the various classes that support it, but this not the same as blindly externalizing the very real and bloody contradictions within the Arab world. An Iran-US alliance against the Arabs of Iraq is conspiracy theory, nothing more.
masoud | 07.02.07 - 11:06 pm | #
<http://www.haloscan.com/comments/yoshie/bustani250607/#170488> No, Muqtada has not and does not support the Iraqi Resistance. Muqtada has been a part of the puppet regime installed by the US and now is working with that same puppet regime and his militiamen, often in their capacity as actual members of the puppet security forces, join US troops in battling the Resistance.
as-Sistani is of the same ilk. In no way are those characters anti-imperialist. They are working entirely for their own sectarian clerical interests.
The reason Iran isn't able to get its people released in Iraq is because the "Iraqi government" is a puppet of the US. Yet, please note, the Tehran clerical regime recognizes that puppet regime installed by Washington! What kind of "anti-imperialist regime" recognizes puppet rulers set up by the world's leading imperialist power on its border?
Stirring up sectarianism was part and parcel of the US strategy in Iraq from the very beginning and as I said in a previous post it enlisted the aid of the 20,000-30,000 Badr brigades who were living and training in Iran for deacades and who joined the Americans in the invasion of Iraq. That is not even collaboration with imperialism; it's participation in an imperialist invasion.
I'm not arguing that Sunni religious fanatics are better than Shi'i fanatics. But to whitewash the fanatics in Tehran and try to pass them off as an anti-imperialist force is grossly misleading.
Muhammad Abu Nasr Muhammad Abu Nasr | 07.03.07 - 12:51 am | #
<http://www.haloscan.com/comments/yoshie/bustani250607/#170492> I can't see how either Dawa or SCIRI can simultaneously be tools of Iranian hegemony and a pupet government for the US.
I can accept that they have accomadated US imperialist policy on some issues, and that they would pursue closer ties with Iran than other Iraqi's would be comfortable with, but these two facts alone demonstrate that they are charting their own (probably misguided) course. It might also be usefull to recall that they came to power on a mandate to do so from the overwhelming majority of Shi'ites in Iraq.
As for the Badr Brigade, which divisions of the Republican Guard or the regular army or police force did they engage in battle? Which divisions of the American army did they coordinate with? Which cities did they conqer for the US?
Some might view the Shia's cooperation with foreigners as sacriligious, but they themselves have their own priorities and wasting their blood and treasure in fighting off the Americans to turn around and find themsleves alone in facing a resurgent Sunni backed in all likeleyhood by every single other arab state with only a wary Iran to maybe rely on is nowhere near the top of that list.
There's no point in going back and forth about Moqtada or Sistani's positions, any one interested enough can look it up, but remember: Being a fanatic, recaltricant, sectarian in no way contraditcts being anti-imperialist, it might contradict beeing a fanatic leftist, but that's a different story.
As for Iran, it's never going to openly challenge the US millitarily, but no one needs to whitewash the regime in Iran to pass them of as anti-Imperialst, just ask Chavez. The only remedy i can recomend for anyone who doesn't see that is a dictionary. masoud | 07.03.07 - 2:24 am | #
<http://www.haloscan.com/comments/yoshie/bustani250607/#170503> I will just make a couple points.
1. The Da'wah Party and SCIRI, which has recently changed its name, by the way, are able to work for Iran and the US precisely because as I've been saying Iran and the US have been collaborating in the occupation of Iraq. Only someone who persists in fantacising about an anti-imperialist Iran dedicated to national liberation has trouble understanding this.
Those two hegemonic powers the US and Iran are not 100 percent in total agreement, hence there are contradictions between them - as often arise between rival gangsters - but they have been working together both in Afghanistan and Iraq for years and continue to do so now.
The US wishes to control Iraq and so does Iran. But the US cannot control Iraq without Iraqi collaborators and the sectarian militias such as are run by SCIR and Dawah and the cleric Muqtada play that role, but they play it because they expect that eventually the US will leave and then they can have their clerical "Islamic Shi'i state" in Iraq.
This brings up the second point, namely sectarianism. Massoud speaks of the Shi'ah needing to defend themselves against the Sunnah. But this is precisely the sectarianism that is at issue. The national identity of Iraqis is Arab, not Shi'i, Sunni, Christian, Sabaen or whatever. To prioritize sectarian identification over national identification leads - as is obvious - to splitting the country.
Therefore although clerics of all stripes have sectarian tendencies, the vast majority of the laity of Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'ah do not necessarily identify with the clerical schemes of the religious leaders and can see that an "Islamic state" run by Shi'i clerics will obviously be unacceptable to Sunnis, just as a "Sunni Islamic state" such as al-Qa'idah has pushed for in the Sunni parts of Iraq is also divisive.
Presenting the matter as if throwing the Shi'i masses into the hands of the Shi'i clerics who collaborate with the American occupation were a way to "defend" them against the rest of the Arab Iraqi population is clearly playing into the American hands.
Muhammad Abu Nasr | 07.03.07 - 10:15 am | #
<http://www.haloscan.com/comments/yoshie/bustani250607/#170515> As can be seen from the mobilisation of Shiah in the last 'election', the massive street demonstrations they organized back when street demonstrations were feasible, and the huge mourning ceremonies during Ashura the Shia masses have embraced their releigion, their clerics and all the sectarianism that goes along with it, this is the most basic observation one can make about the Iraqi situation right now. Sometimes reality can be bitter, but it's not going to go away because we don't approve, and ascribing their actions to some devious third party isn't going to help heal what is a virtually non-existent sense of Iraqi unity. Besides, those who warn against playing into American hands should be more careful about plagirizing CNN 'breaking stories' about Iranian meddling in Iraq.
I think Muhammad severely understaes the problem when he talks about 'contradictions' and the lack of '100 perecent agreement' between Iran and Amercia. Theese two have had direct talks exactly once in the history of the regime, and are on the verge of all out war, to think that they have somehow secretly put their difference aside and have been quietly working side by side in Iraq for the past six years is infantile.
The unfortunate reality, as much as it may pain some to admit it, is that Iraq, due to it's own violent history, is no longer a unified country. There is no way to work twoards changing that reality without first admiting it, and not attributing the problems it causes to the 'usual suspects'.
The next step would be to honestly evaluate the positions and intentions of the various players in Iraq and not mindlessly demonize them. I still beleive that Muhhamad is misrepresenting Moqtada's nationalist Iraqi instincts as well as Sistani's anti-sectarian views, the main culprits seem to be Dawa and SCRI (or elements within them), who it must be emphasized have made their own calculations based on very real concerns, not pan-Arabist fantasies, and are not just mindless agents of either Iran or the US.
I'm not really sure what the step after that is, so you can take it from there, but building an analyis on hostile prejudices twoards any group involved is a recipe for disaster.
Cheers
Masoud masoud | 07.03.07 - 1:37 pm | #
-- Yoshie