|
Unity government in Lebanon
How about unity governments in Syria and Iran?
01.12.06
Balochistan People’s Front
Reza Hosseinbor
The Hezbollah-led rally in Lebanon is seeking to overthrow the present
government which has been elected fairly and freely according to the
constitution of Lebanon. Hezbollah claims it wants to bring in a unity
government. Since the independence of Lebanon the structure of power has
been based on ethnic power-sharing. Each major ethnic group has been
allocated a top position according to the population of each ethnic group.
The post of the president of Lebanon has been allocated to the Christians.
The job of Prime Minister has been allocated to the Sunnis and the job of
the speaker of the parliament has been allocated to the Shias. These
arrangements have been made by the constitution of Lebanon and create a
power-sharing structure which brings in power all different ethnic groups.
The Hezbollah of Lebanon that is claiming the leadership of majority of the
Shias in Lebanon has been very satisfied with this arrangement for all its
history. After its perceived victory in war with Israel it accumulated
sufficient self-confidence through the support it got from Iran and Syria.
It initially claimed a larger share in the government. After the
assassination of Pierre Jamayel by Iranian and Syrian terrorist groups, the
Hezbollah became even more confident as there was no any concrete and
tangible counter actions by the Lebanese, Arab governments, and
international community.
The Hezbollah in fact became stronger and bolder after a series of
assassinations that were carried out against the critics of Syria and Iran.
The Hezbollah and the Shias, Syria and Iran did not face any major problems
even though everybody believes that they were behind all these
assassinations. Iran and Syria were not only punished for killing so many of
Lebanon's leaders, but they appeared stronger in the eyes of Arab masses,
United States and Europe Union. Iran and Syria established themselves as the
major political players in the Middle East through sponsoring terrorism,
assassinating their opponents, promoting fundamentalism and generating a
Civil War in Iraq.
They used these evil acts and legitimised them so well that turned them in
to main powers of the region.
Iranian clerics always had this ability of turning sins into virtues and
virtues into sins. This strategy was used and mastered first in Iran when
the regime legitimised and justified every sin they committed, every sin
that had been recognised as a sin. To legitimise their immoral and corrupt
behaviours, the Iranian Ayatollahs disguised their sins into virtues and
promoted their behaviours as a model of righteousness. The Iranian people
consequently followed these behaviours and gradually all old established and
recognised moral, religious, humanitarian, social, political, and cultural
values and norms were completely demolished and a new set of corrupt
behaviours and norms were generated and introduced into society as the new
governmental values.
Validating sins became so rampant in Iran that the grandson of Khomeini
announced that today in Iran there was no any difference between sin and
virtue, bad and good. He added that 30 and 40 years ago it was clear in the
mind of the people what was sin and what was virtue. Everybody who committed
a sin accepted that he had committed a sin and therefore he felt guilty; but
today there is no sense of guilt in anybody for committing any sin and
everybody justifies every sin and legitimise them.
The extent of the elimination of recognised values and virtues have gone so
far that today everybody agrees that there is no any read line in Iran and
therefore, people feel free to do what they want without feeling guilty and
having a disturbing consciences.
The Iranian regime exported the same model of behaviour and culture to all
Shia communities all over the world. Seeking power and promoting Shia
supremacy is the ultimate goal that could be justified by any means.
Today what we see in Lebanon is the manifestation of the Iranian model of
culture, religion and political behaviour. They use the best words and
phrases to justify their worst claims and actions. The Hezbollah despises
the Lebanese government for being backed by the Western world while
justifies its own creation and funding by the Iranian government. It blames
Lebanese government for having the moral support of the Arab world but it is
proud and proudly legitimatise its terrorist activities and illegal
behaviour.
When it comes to the unity government, everybody thinks of a concept which
is legitimate and good but what the Hezbollah means is a government that is
dominated by its own ministers. The Hezbollah initially claimed their fair
share in the government but after its acts of assassinations in Lebanon were
rewarded, now it is claiming the ownership of whole Lebanon.
The amazing thing is that the governments of Syria and Iran are supporting
Hezbollah in its claim for a unity government while the governments of Iran
and Syria are minority governments in both countries. The Syrian rulers who
are just about 1% of the population of Syria have ruled this country for
nearly 40 years. They are allocating all political and economic powers to
their small minority population.
The government of Iran represents the Farsi speaking population which are
about 30% of Iranian population in terms of ethnic groups; although the
majority of the Farsi speaking ethnic group in Iran have not supported this
regime but if we accept they do as the Iranian regime claims, we can say
that it represents only the Farsi speaking community. 70% of Iranian
population are of Turkish, Kurdish, Arab, Baloch, and Turkmen origins. None
of them support the present government and none of them have any real
representation in the present government.
The idea of unity government is an admirable idea that it must be accepted
and implemented in Syria and Iran first. Those who claim the legitimacy of a
concept must implement it first. If such a government is established in
Syria and in Iran we will clearly see that none of the present governments
or the present members of the governments would have any share in the unity
government. They will be also responsible for criminal activities that they
have conducted against the majority of the people they have ruled for
several decades so ruthlessly.
It seems today that the Iranian regime and the Shia population of the Middle
East are using the global and universal values to claim more share in powers
of the governments while rejecting global and universal values when it comes
to the political involvement of Sunnis in the governments of Iran and Syria.
Iran was called as part of axis of evil because of evil deeds like
sponsoring terrorism, promoting fundamentalism, assassinating opponents and
corrupting its political system. Now the world must not reward it for these
evil deeds that have made %60 of Iranians live under poverty line and
turning the region in four civil wars in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and
Bahrain.
®Copyright, Reza Hosseinbor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran’s Ethnic Groups
Author: Lionel
Beehner, Staff Writer
November 29, 2006
Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12118/
Introduction
Although Iran’s state
religion is Shiite Islam and the majority of its population is ethnically
Persian, millions of minorities from various ethnic, religious, and
linguistic backgrounds also reside in Iran. Among these groups are ethnic
Kurds, Baluchis, and Azeris. Many of them face discrimination and live in
underdeveloped regions. Though they have held protests in the past, they
mostly agitate for greater rights, not greater autonomy. Most are
integrated into Iranian society, participate in politics, and identify
with the Iranian nation. Tehran occasionally criticizes the United States
and Israel for stirring up trouble among its large ethnic groups but the
extent of outside involvement with these groups is not clear.
What are Iran’s predominant
minority groups?
Iran has small pockets of
Baha’i, Turkmen, Christian, and Jewish communities, but its primary ethnic
minorities are:
- Azeris.
Roughly one out of every four Iranians is Azeri, making it Iran’s
largest ethnic minority at over eighteen million (some Azeris put the
number higher). The Turkic-speaking Azeri community is Shiite and
resides mainly in northwest Iran along the border with Azerbaijan (whose
inhabitants are more secular than their Azeri cousins in Iran) and in
Tehran. Although they have grievances with the current regime in Tehran,
most Azeris say they are not treated as second-class citizens and are
more integrated into Iranian society, business, and politics (the
Supreme Leader is an ethnic Azeri) than other minorities. A common
complaint among Azeris is they are often poked fun at by the Iranian
media. Last May, violent demonstrations broke out in a number of
northwest cities after a cartoon published in a state-run newspaper
compared Azeris to cockroaches.
- Kurds.
Predominantly Sunni, the Kurds reside mainly in the northwest part of
the country—so-called Iranian Kurdistan—and comprise around 7 percent of
Iran’s population (there are roughly four million Kurds living in Iran,
compared to twelve million in Turkey and six million in Iraq). Unlike
Iran’s other minorities, many of its Kurds harbor separatist tendencies,
creating tensions with the state that have occasionally turned violent
(the largest in recent years occurred in response to Turkey’s February
1999 arrest of Abdullah Ocalan, then-leader of the
Kurdistan Workers' Party).
The governments of Turkey and Iran fear the creation of a semiautonomous
state in northern Iraq might motivate their own Kurdish minorities to
press for greater independence. But Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, a U.S.-based
expert on Iranian foreign policy, says Iran’s concern about Kurdish
separatism does not approach the level of Turkey’s. Still, there have
been repeated clashes between Kurds and Iranian security forces, the
most recent of which was sparked by the July 2005 shooting of a young
Kurd. Some experts say Israel has increased its ties with Iranian Kurds
and boosted intelligence-gathering operations in northwest Iran to
exploit ethnic fissures between the Kurds and the majority Shiite
Persians.
- Arabs.
Along the Iranian-Iraqi border in southwest Iran is a population of some
three million Arabs, predominantly Shiite. Arabs, whose presence in Iran
stretches back twelve centuries, commingle freely with the local
populations of Turks and Persians. During the 1980s, they fought on the
side of the Iranians, not the Iraqi Arabs. However, as Sunni-Shiite
tensions have worsened in the region, a minority of this group,
emboldened by Iraqi Arabs across the border, has pressed for greater
autonomy in recent years. In the southern oil-rich province of
Khuzestan, clashes erupted in March 2006 between police and
pro-independence ethnic Arab Iranians, resulting in three deaths and
over 250 arrests (the protests were reportedly organized by a
London-based group called the Popular Democratic Front of Ahwazi Arabs).
In April 2005, rumors spread that the authorities in Tehran planned to
disperse of the area’s Arabs, leading to protests that turned violent,
according to Human Rights Watch.
- Baluchis.
Iran has roughly 1.4 million Baluchis, comprising 2 percent of its
population. Predominantly Sunni, they reside in Baluchistan, a region
divided between Pakistan and Iran. The southeastern province where
Baluchis reside remains the least developed part of Iran and boasts high
unemployment rates. That, plus the porous border between the two
countries, has encouraged widespread smuggling of various goods,
including drugs. Iranian Baluchistan, despite holding few resources,
remains an important region militarily because of its border with
Pakistan. Earlier this year the Iranian government built a military base
there. Tehran has kept a watchful eye on Baluchi militants in the
region. In March, a group called Jundallah attacked a government
motorcade (which left twenty people dead), kidnapped a number of
hostages, and executed at least one member of Iran’s Revolutionary
Guards.
What are these groups’
grievances with the Iranian government?
Although the Iranian
constitution guarantees the rights of its religious and ethnic minorities,
many of these groups say they face discrimination. They say some schools
do not teach their languages (as the constitution requires), they are
denied government jobs, and their regions are neglected by the state,
resulting in above-average unemployment. A February 2006
Amnesty
International report points to land and property confiscations,
restrictions on movement, and unlawful imprisonments of ethnic minorities.
Iran’s Sunni population, which includes Kurds and Baluchis, complain there
is not a single Sunni mosque in the country (the authorities reportedly
blocked one from recently being built in Tehran) and the government has
barred public displays of Sunni religion and culture.
How has the Iranian
government responded to ethnic unrest?
In general, the authorities
in Tehran downplay differences and grievances among Iran ’s ethnic groups.
But most experts and rights monitors say the state marginalizes its
minorities, puts down demonstrations with force, and extracts public
confessions from those it suspects of initiating unrest, executing those
ethnic minorities found guilty.
A. William Samii,
regional analysis coordinator at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, writes
in the Christian Science Monitor that the typical government
response is “a combination of
repression
and scapegoating.” In 1981, for instance, an Azeri uprising in the
northwest city of Tabriz was put down violently, resulting in the
executions of dozens of Azeris. More recent demonstrations by Arabs in the
southwest province of Khuzestan have been blamed on the British, Samii
says, because of their military presence across the border in Iraq and the
historical role of British oil companies like Shell in the region (90
percent of Iran’s oil is located in Khuzestan).
What role does the United
States play with these groups?
There are mixed accounts
about U.S. affiliations with such groups. Seymour M. Hersh reports in the
New Yorker the Pentagon has established “covert
relationships” with many of Iran’s minority groups and “has encouraged
their efforts to undermine the regime’s authority in northern and
southeastern Iran.” Although many of these minority groups have satellite
offices in the United States (as well as in Europe), some experts remain
doubtful. Although the Pentagon and Kurds in the region have longstanding
ties, Afrasiabi doubts the United States will assist the Kurdish desire
for greater autonomy. “The Iranians believe the United States is not
foolish enough to push this arc of Kurdish separatism in Iran too far
because of the compounding effect this would have on regional security
issues,” he says. But whenever demonstrations break out among Iran’s
minorities, Tehran blames foreign agitators, says RFE/RL’s Samii. “In the
May 19 Friday Prayers sermon in Tehran, which was broadcast across the
country by state radio, Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashani pinned
southeastern [Baluchi] violence on the United States and Israel.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran is the final winner in the
Middle East
05.12.06
Balochistan People’s Front
Reza Hosseinbor
Winning partly depends on how much strength or force you have, but mostly it
depends on how much strength or power your opponent does not have. It is
also true that resources, equipments and number of troops are not the only
factors of winning a war. The wars are mostly won or lost because of tactics
and strategies used in the war. Conduct of the war is more important than
every other single factor that is required to knock down the opponent.
When the Americans decided to remove the Taleban from Afghanistan the main
winner was Iran . The United States of America and its allies used their
resources and armies to remove the Taleban, the main enemies of Iran , and
bring in power the main allies of Iran . Iran became the winner of
Afghanistan 's civil wars and turmoil before and after Taleban at the cost
of US. The Iranian regime supported nominally the new government of
Afghanistan headed by Karzai but secretively assisted financially and
militarily Taleban, Hekmatyar and many Islamic militants in Afghanistan . A
democratic, successful, stable Afghanistan cannot be in favour and interests
of the Iranian regime. A failed state with warring factions that destroy
their country and each other is in the best interests of the Iranian regime;
not a stable, successful and peaceful Afghanistan.
Whatever the situation in Afghanistan , Iran is the winner of Afghan civil
wars. Iran understands that it needs to be needed by other people and
countries; therefore it will be needed more when the people and countries
fight each other. Stable and peaceful countries do not need Iran .
Iran was also the winner of the change of regime in Iraq . The United States
of America invested about $300 million dollars to remove Saddam Hussein and
bring into power the main allies and in fact, the agents of Iranian regime.
Iran had fought for eight years with Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein and bring
into power the same groups that America brought to power. What a better win
than this? One of your enemies overthrows another of your enemies and gives
the power to your friends.
A successful, stable and democratic Iraq is not definitely in the interest
of Iranian regime which is a totalitarian, fundamentalist regime. A secular
system in Iraq is against the totality of Iranian regime and must never be
successful in that country. However when it came to the change of regime in
Iraq , the Iranian government fully co-operated with the Americans and other
countries. They had already prepared an alternative while the Americans did
not have an alternative for Saddam.
Now it has been established that Iran has more power and influence in Iraq
than any other country. The big question is how Iran can have more influence
in Iraq while America has more than 100,000 troops and Britain about 15,000
troops in Iraq ? The increase of influence of Iranian regime in Iraq is
something that has confused a lot of analysts and politicians.
How Iran becomes the
winner of any war that America undertakes?
And now it is Lebanon . The winner of Lebanese change of regime or civil war
will be definitely Iran . The Hezbollah of Lebanon is an exact copy of
Hezbollah of Iran. It has been formed, led and financed by Iran . This has
been well established by reliable sources. Now, how Iran will be the winner
in Lebanon ?
First of all the Hezbollah is not looking for the change of government but
it is looking for the change of regime. The Hezbollah is seeking to change
the political structure. It is seeking to establish a new regime which is
totally dominated by the Iranian ideology of an Islamic state although there
are different religious over there. The structure of the future regime will
be a revolutionary structure that will enable Hezbollah to engage in ethnic
cleansing and forcing the Sunnis and a large number of Christians to leave
Lebanon for other countries.
Aljazeera English Channel reported that there are 1.8 million refugees from
Iraq . It is not yet established what percentage of these refugees are Shias
or Sunnis. But it is clear that the majority of these refugees must be
Sunnis. So how Iran will benefit from producing Sunni refugees? The first
benefit is that the Shias will have more majorities in Iraq and the number
of the Sunnis will be substantially reduced. The second benefit comes from
the Shia refugees in the Arab world that will be used later by the Iranian
government to act as their agents wherever they are.
The new waves of refugees that will be generated in Lebanon will serve the
same purpose. As the civil war develops and widens a large number of
Christians will leave their country and take refuge in European countries.
The Sunnis of Lebanon would migrate to Arab countries. The Iranian regime
will force Hezbollah of Lebanon to continue the civil war until there is a
clear majority of Shias in the country. When the Hezbollah forms the new
regime, it will be very easy for them to import Iraqi Shias, Iranian Shias
and other Shias from other countries and give them Lebanese identity card to
generate a viable majority.
Now the big question is
how Iran has won in Afghanistan , Iraq and Lebanon ?
The Iranian regime has a very clever and complicated strategy of convergence
of interests with its enemies. The Iranian regime has been able to clearly
understand the interests of the United States of America in Afghanistan and
Iraq and change its own interests to become very compatible with the
interests of the West. It is the convergence of interests of Iran and US
that has enabled the Iranian government to win in Afghanistan and Iraq .
Iran has achieved its interests and outcomes through American wars and
resources.
Iran has been the only winner of American wars.
It will be the same in Lebanon . If the Arab governments maintain their
present inaction policies and wait for America or the West to save the
Lebanese government, they will make a deadly mistake and will enable Iran to
be the winner again. It is not the strength and the force of Iran that has
made it the winner in these countries, but rather it has been the inability
of the West and Arab world in realising and understanding the secret agenda
and intentions of the Iranian government that have been disguised in the
interests of the Arabs and the West.
The Iranian regime has been able not only to use the Western values, monies,
armies and resources to achieve its own goals but it has been able to use
all Western resource against them.
Reza Hossein Borr is a leadership consultant and the creator of 150 CDs.
He is also the author of Manual Success, Manual of Coaching and Mentoring,
Motivational Stories that Can Change Your Life, and a New Vision for the
Islamic World. He can be contacted by email: balochfront@aol.com
©Copyright, 2006, London , UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baker-Hamilton’s Report is a
recipe for disaster
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
KurdishMedia.com - By Eamad Mazouri
Since its release, much has been said and written about this report that
took about six months and millions of tax payers’ dollars to be prepared.
The report in general is stating the obvious and has not come up with any
new and creative blueprint, except for the recommendations that are seen by
a wide range of concerned parties and observers as nothing, if implemented
by Bush administration, but a perfect resume for disaster and chaos. So far,
the report has been sharply criticized by Kurds and Shiites who compromised
more than 80% of Iraqi people as well as many prominent Congress members
such as Mr. Joe Biden.
First of all, the authors based on their inadequate field data (they did not
visit the most stable, secure and prosperous part of Iraq, namely Iraqi
Kurdistan that has been rightly dubbed the success story of American policy
in Iraq) are launching their study and subsequently their recommendations
from an erroneous supposition that the only way to end the cycle of violence
in Iraq is to go back to a unitary state, emphasizing on a stronger role for
the central government at the expense of the regions such as Kurdistan,
bringing in all the renegades, Bathists, Sunni Arab nationalists, fanatic
Muslims , suicide bombers, and worse yet the regional countries who have
created the ongoing Iraqi chaos and are sustaining it by all means. The
report unfortunately and in particular is undermining everything the Kurds
have gained. This include but is not limited to weakening Kurdistan Regional
Government, meddling with the articles of the Iraqi permanent constitution
of 2005, and empowering Baghdad over the natural resources that America
itself has never sanctioned.
We don’t need to reiterate the entire horrible Iraqi peoples’ experience
with such an option and their painful journey for the last 80 years under
such a scenario. This is the exact reason behind the atrocious situation
Iraqis are finding themselves entrapped in today. These gentlemen wish to
repeat the whole excruciating chapter. I doubt it if Iraqis in general and
Kurds in particular are willing of their own free volition to go through
such an ordeal once again.
The fundamental nature of the report is hovering on what it has described as
not only the failure of Bush administration in Iraq in the post Saddam era
and the impossibility of victory over terrorists, but also is implicitly
stating that there was no need for the Bush administration to even overthrow
dictator Saddam and free Iraqi people in the first place.
In their attempt to find a way out, the creators of the report, are
basically dismissing the significance of liberating Iraq from the tyranny of
dictator Saddam and his bloody Baath regime. Their recommendations are
clearly calling for the restoration of the old order of pre- liberation,
undermining everything the Bush administration has accomplished to free
Iraqis. It should not have come as a surprise, if the report had called for
the dictator Saddam to be reinstated instead of facing the gallows.
This is actually what the report is calling for stopping only short at
demanding Saddams’ enthronement once again.
Luckily the findings and recommendations of the report while bipartisan, are
not binding for the American administration. Nevertheless, the report, is
advising President Bush to build a strong central government in Baghdad,
forgetting that this particular formula is the main reason behind the
catastrophic state Iraqis are finding themselves in today in the first
place. It is not tough even for a casual observer to see that the only way
for Iraq to stay together is through a true democratic federation where
regions preserve most of the powers to a degree where they are not
threatened by the federal government in Baghdad while enabling this
government to function and represent all the regions that will make up the
federation. Evidently, Mr. Baker and Hamilton along with their colleagues
are not fully aware of the depth of differences among various Iraqi groups
and the unfeasibility of imposing on them a solution to force them to live
in a unitary state as before after tasting the freedom they are enjoying
now. They rather have their own regions within a democratic federal Iraq
where they are able to progress and prosper at their own pace and in their
own ways.
The political equation today in Iraq is like this; Iraqi Shiites are
strengthened and supported by Iran. Sunni Arabs enjoy the support of the
entire Arab and Sunni world, while everyone is trying to weaken the Kurds
and take away their gains and achievements. Kurds are wondering who will
stand up for them in the middle of this chaos. They are the only secular and
pro-Western ally in Iraq and they are still not been listen to and are on
the verge to be betrayed one more time as if their agonizing past that is
full of tragedy and suffering is not sufficient to convince the world that
it is time for them to be free and protected. The report not only has
ignored Kurds but is utterly calling for their weakening and the
intervention of regional powers that have traditionally conspired against
them. No wonder the Kurds are weary of this report. They are wondering if
this is the beginning of another Kurd sell-out or rather another American
betrayal following the 1975 and then again 1991.
The Bush administration should not take these recommendations seriously.
That would have disastrous consequences now and in the future where United
States would find herself once again compelled to face the same problems,
perhaps this time at a much bigger scale. It would be a grave mistake to
abandon Kurds to the mercy of the regional powers. Obviously the whole
episode of deprivation, denial, oppression, chemical attacks, mass exodus
and genocide were not enough to move the world conscious. Perhaps the total
annihilation of the Kurds would eventually convince the world to intervene
at least to ensure that the same fate does not befall other nations similar
to that of the Kurds. Therefore I consider this is as a humble appeal to Mr.
Bush, the American people, EU, UN and the entire world not to sell out the
Kurds once again, their achievements and the dreams of their children. Kurds
are in need of every voice in every part of the world to join protests
against Baker-Hamilton report and its infamous recommendations. Kurds have
suffered too much and for too long and they deserve a decent chance, the one
they are enjoying in Iraqi Kurdistan today if kept and protected.
|