Balochistan People’s Party

06-01-2007
By Robert Fox

The British media appears to be softening us up for an attack on Iran, says robert fox
Suddenly the smell of Britons being prepared for an attack on Iran is all pervasive. On Radio 4 this week, the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson hosted a bizarre 45-minute round-table on how Britain would react if America and Israel went ahead and bombed Iran. Broadcast on Wednesday and repeated tomorrow, it was pitched as a discussion of hypothetical 'what ifs'.

The next morning, Anatole Kaletsky, of the Times, wrote a column about Blair and US-Israeli-Saudi plans to trash Iran. Yesterday's Spectator went further. In its cover story, it states that Israel is planning to use nuclear strikes to stop the Iranian nuclear industry. It is not a question of if but when Israel will launch its missiles and bombers, we are told.

What is going on? The facts as far as we know them - based on inquiry, investigation and real sources - are these:
The Israelis, according to the strategic think tank at Tel Aviv University, stated last month that the only way to stop Iran getting operational nuclear weapons was by military strike. There are only four or five months left in which this might be done successfully, and if the US won't help Israel to do it, Israel will go it alone. US Vice-President Dick Cheney is signed up to this, and is trying to persuade George Bush.
The US military has drawn up the war plans for a strike on Iran, according to British intelligence sources. However, the chiefs of all three US armed services have told Bush not to do it. "The Americans have no serious human intelligence on the ground in Iran," a senior British commander told me recently.

As I reported on November 1, the British Army Board looked at intelligence assessments of Israeli proposals to attack nuclear sites in Iran. The briefing paper estimated this would "cause hundreds of thousands of casualties".

The Israelis and their supporters who continue to argue for an attack do so because they believe they successfully thwarted Saddam's nuclear weapons plans with their pre-emptive strike on the Osirak plant outside Baghdad in 1981. In fact, according to one of Saddam's leading nuclear scientists, Jafar Dia Jafar, the raid only encouraged Saddam to press ahead with his nuclear programme rather than stop it.

Tony Blair also believes in action. He asked an audience in Dubai last month: "When are you going to do something about it?" Yet neither Blair nor the Radio 4 panel discussed the likely consequences of an attack on Iran.
The fact is, any such strike is likely to halt the oil flow through the Gulf - and trigger a world recession. Iran is likely to attack the offshore gas fields and terminals, knocking out about one-third of the world's gas supply. This in turn could provoke global conflict and make Russia the energy superpower.

Nick Robinson's panel seemed oddly unmoved about the disaster they were considering - not surprising from three of the speakers, Sir Stephen Wall and Sir Jeremy Greenstock formerly of the Foreign Office, and former Tory foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, whose peacemaking efforts for the Balkans under John Major veered from the moderate to downright dismal.
The other two were Reuel Marc Gerecht, one of the saner hawks of the American Enterprise Institute, who was the only one to question the feasibility of an American-Israeli strike on Iran, and George Pascoe-Watson.

George Pascoe-who? George is the newly elevated political editor of the Sun. What was he doing in Robinson's 'hypothetical' symposium on World War III? His main contribution was to say that an attack on Iran would be "a huge new story, a scoop any journalist would love to get his hands on". His presence seemed straight out of the Alastair Campbell handbook on the doctrine of spin.

Our political and BBC masters are up to something. I hope to God I am wrong about all this, but I fear I'm not. Unfurl those banners, fellow protesters, and prepare to march.

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

An unholy alliance threatening catastrophe

The Times

06-01-2007
By Anatole Kaletsky

Our correspondent on a concerted attempt to confront Iran and Shia Islam

Most people think that the bungled invasion of Iraq, climaxing last week with the bungled execution-assassination of Saddam Hussein, will go down in history as the ultimate symbol of the Bush Administration’s hubris and incompetence. They should think again. With the dawning of a new year, the Bush-Blair partnership is working on an even more horrendous foreign policy disaster.
What now seems to be in preparation at the White House, with the usual unquestioning support from Downing Street, is a Middle Eastern equivalent of the Second World War. The trigger for this all-embracing war would be the formation of a previously unthinkable alliance between America, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Britain, to confront Iran and the rise of the power of Shia Islam.

The logical outcome of this “pinning back” process would be an air strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities, combined with a renewed Israeli military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, aggressive action by American and British soldiers to crush Iraq’s Shia militias, while Saudi-backed Sunni terrorists undermined the increasingly precarious pro-Iranian Government in Baghdad.

Consider the ominous events that occurred in the Middle East and Washington over the holiday season, while most people were paying more attention to their turkeys and Christmas stockings. The first in this sequence of events was Tony Blair’s abrupt announcement that members of the Saudi Royal Family accused of taking bribes from British defence contractors would be exempted from the application of British law. To risk a confrontation with the Saudi Royal Family, Mr Blair asserted, would have jeopardised Britain’s security interests in Iraq and in the war against terrorism, as well as dashing hopes of progress towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This embarrassing announcement by Mr Blair was quickly followed by his Dubai speech, in which he called for an “arc of moderation” to “pin back” Iran’s advances in the Middle East.

The second event, almost simultaneous with Mr Blair’s bribery announcement, was the equally unexpected resignation of Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, on December 15. Prince Turki has long been a key figure in the Saudi security establishment, whose last abrupt career move occurred in the autumn of 2001, when he suddenly resigned as liaison between the Saudi Royal Family and the Taleban terrorists that they had been financing until just before September 11. Turki was a leading member of a faction in the Saudi Royal Family that has for months been advocating a more conciliatory response towards the Shia hegemony in Iraq, including an effort to open direct negotiations between America and Iran, as recommended by James Baker’s Iraq Study Group. The Turki group’s main rivals in the Saudi establishment have by contrast argued for much tougher military action against what they called the “Christian-Shia conspiracy” created by the US toleration of Iranian influence over Iraq.

The Saudi power struggle came into the open through an article published in The Washington Post in mid-December, by Nawaf Obeid, a Saudi security consultant ostensibly working for Turki, but actually closer to the hardliners. Obeid cautioned that if American troops were withdrawn from Iraq prematurely, in line with the Baker report’s recommendations, Saudi Arabia would have no choice but to intervene forcibly “to stop Iranian-backed Shi a militias from butchering Iraq’s Sunnis”. Turki immediately fired Obeid, but shortly afterwards was himself replaced by a hardliner.

Within Saudi Arabia itself, meanwhile, the anti-Iranian rhetoric is gathering strength. Take this example from al-Salafi magazine, quoted in The New York Times: “Iran has become more dangerous than Israel itself. The Iranian revolution has come to renew the Persian presence in our region. This is the real clash of civilisations.”

The link between Israel and Iran in Saudi thinking brings us to the third event in this chillingly unfestive sequence: the confrontation over nuclear proliferation between the UN Security Council and Iran. If Iran is now really hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons, Israel has made it abundantly clear that it is equally hell-bent on stopping it — whether by diplomatic or military means. Whether Israeli bombing would in practice do serious damage to the Iranian nuclear programme is far from clear, but there are certainly hotheads in the Israeli Government and military establishment who are itching to try.

There is, however, one binding constraint on Israel’s freedom of action against Iran. This is the US. It is unlikely that Israel would bomb Iran without explicit American approval and it is certain that a US president would stop Israel if he believed America’s national interest demanded it.

That has been the situation until recently, since America has depended on Iranian-backed Shia politicians to prevent a total collapse of order and a humiliating Saigon-style expulsion of American soldiers in Iraq.

Although Israel has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, many Israeli politicians believe that they are entitled to punish Iran for its non-compliance with the treaty. For these trigger-happy Israelis, Iran’s backdoor influence over Washington via the Iraqi Shia has become a nightmare. The same is true of the Saudi princes. The Saudi Royal Family rules a largely Shia country on the basis of a fanatically enforced state religion whose senior spokesmen denounce the Shia as heretic scum. These feelings are entirely mutual — Iran’s mad mullahs hate the Wahhabis every bit as much.

Thus, if there is one country in the world more worried than Israel about an Iranian A-bomb, it is Saudi Arabia. And if there are two countries in the world with real influence on the Bush White House, they are Saudi Arabia and Israel. Now both these countries are telling President Bush that he must pull the plug on Iraq’s Shia Government, tear up the Baker report, whose most important advice was to open diplomatic channels to Tehran, and prepare to attack Iran, either directly or using the Israelis as a proxy. This is the basis of the unholy alliance between Israel, Saudi Arabia and America, with Mr Blair contributing a few choice soundbites.

The anti-Iranian “arc of moderation” may seem like another meaningless Blairism, not nearly as threatening as Mr Bush’s “axis of evil”. But this soundbite could unleash a disaster on the Middle East, beside which the war in Iraq would be a mere sideshow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Balochistan is so crucial

HindustanTimes.com

Chiranjib Haldar
January 5, 2007

Balochistan seems to be in the news for all the right or wrong reasons. Is it because it straddles Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan borders the Arabian Sea and is a vast and sparsely populated province occupying 43 per cent of Pak territory?

A large part of United States military operations in Afghanistan are launched from the Pasni and Dalbandin bases situated on Baloch territory. For the Taliban, Balochistan is a fertile landmass and sanctuary. The logic is simple. If the pressure on Western forces in Afghanistan were to become intolerable, Washington and its allies could always use the Baloch nationalists, who fiercely oppose the clerics and Taliban, to exert diplomatic pressure on Islamabad and Tehran. In addition, three fundamental issues are fueling this Baloch crisis: expropriation, marginalisation and dispossession.
Although Balochistan houses only 4 per cent of the Pakistan populace, it is economically and strategically important for India too. It is a potential transit zone for a pipeline transporting natural gas from Iran-Turkmenistan to India. Two of Pakistan's three naval bases, Ormara and Gwadar are situated on the Baloch coast.

Located close to the Strait of Hormuz, at the entrance to the Persian Gulf, Gwadar is expected to provide landlocked Afghanistan and Central Asian countries outlet to the sea. The Gwadar complex would substantially diminish India's ability to blockade Pakistan in wartime. It would also substantially increase Chinese supply lines to Pakistan by sea and land during a conflict. Hence Balochistan would also diminish India's ability to isolate Pakistan from external support in any maritime conflict.
Some even consider Gwadar in the southwest of Pakistan to be a Chinese naval outpost on the Indian Ocean designed to protect Beijing's oil supply lines from the Middle East and to counter the growing US presence in Central Asia. Islamabad has always cried hoarse from rooftops that the Indian secret services were maintaining terrorist camps all over Baloch territory.

Since India, a traditional enemy, reopened its consulates in Jalalabad and Kandahar, it has been suspected of wanting to forge an alliance with Afghanistan against Pakistan. India may want to exert pressure on Pakistan's western border to force it to give up once and for all its terrorist activities in Kashmir and bring the 'composite dialogue' to an end on terms favourable to India.
Recent editorials in the Pakistani and West Asian press have continued to refer to India, but they also have expressed suspicion about Iranian and American involvement.
India considers the Sino-Pak entente cordiale in Balochistan, a quid pro quo to Beijing's surveillance post on Myanmar's Coco Islands to keep a watch on India's maritime activities and its missile tests in Orissa.

The Indian Navy has expressed fears that ties forged by the Chinese navy with India's neighbours might endanger India's vital sea links to the Persian Gulf. Iran and Pakistan have a common interest in exporting Iranian gas to India and any insurrection in Balochistan would only harm their chances of building a gas pipeline through the province.
Many Pakistani analysts feel Washington might use Balochistan as a rear base for an attack on Iran and would also like to get China out of the region. That is also disastrous for India.

The American position is equally perplexing. Are they opposing the Baloch nationalists because they are supported by Iran or are they supporting them because they are hostile to the Chinese? Or is it a continuation of the 'Great power game' being played in Central Asia since the Soviet breakup? Proponents of this view believe that the United States, in competition with China and Iran, would like to control the oil supply lines from the Middle East and Central Asia.

If Balochistan were to become independent, would Pakistan be able to withstand another dismemberment, thirty-four years since the secession of Bangladesh and what effect would that have on regional stability? Pakistan would lose a major part of its natural resources and would become more dependent on the Middle East for its energy supplies.
India may be tempted to look at the further partition of Pakistan as an opportunity for forging a new anti-Pak alliance. An insurgency in Balochistan might force Islamabad to resolve the Indo-Pak imbroglio over Kashmir.
But a redrawing of regional boundaries could revive fears of irredentism in Kashmir and in the Northeast that a resentful Pakistan would be only too eager to exploit.

Despite the secular nature of Baloch nationalism, the United States is apprehensive about the likelihood of a war for independence complicating the US fight against Islamic terrorism in the region. If the United States were to embark on a military action against Iran, it could also utilise Pakistani Balochistan for conducting subversive acts in Iranian Balochistan.

For the United States to accomplish this, the Pakistani province would have to remain tranquil and not pose a peril to the well being of Washington's allies.

Chiranjib Haldar can be contacted at chiranjibh@tatainteractive.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CONCEALED MASSACRE BY THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC REGIME; THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC’S PROJECT OF EXTERMINATE

06-01-2007

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has recently mentioned his intention to raise the population of the Islamic Republic to 120 million. This statement has created great repercussions in the Islamic Republic and the men of the regime strongly supported the speech. The opponents, on the other hand, rejected it by stating that so much an increase in the population would cause unemployment increase, the country weaken economically and failure to provide people with sufficient means. However, no group or movement was able to see the underlying sly plans behind Ahmadinejad’s speech. That sly plan dates back several years. That sly plan aims to exterminate people that do not belong to Farsi and Shiite communities.

In his statement, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not clarify the type of growth in population and concealed his real objective. However, a few days later, in a meeting held with reporters, Iranian Parliament Speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel stated the views of the leaders of the Islamic Republic regime on the growth of population.

In a meeting held with reporters on November 22, 2006, he indirectly announced the sly plans of the chauvinist and extreme theocrat Shiite regime. In regard with the objective of the President of the Iranian regime on the growth of population he stated the following: “The President believes that family planning should not be the same all around the country. The President’s concerns in this regard should be taken into consideration.”

In his statement announced by the Islamic Republic’s official news agency IRNA, Haddad Adel stated the following: “We should see the underlying thought within the President’s discourse. We should come to the conclusion that geographical equilibria should be taken into consideration in family planning.”

The geographical equilibria which Haddad Adel believes to be the objective of the Islamic Republic are nothing but the wish to change the demographic equilibria of the nations in Iran to the advantage of the Farsi and to increase the population of the Shiite against the Sunnis.

This project that the Islamic Republic regime has been considering is nothing but a plan of quiet holocaust that would exterminate the people, nations and sects in Iran. This sly plan that has been devised against Turkmens, Azerbaijani Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Baluchis and other nations within the Islamic Republic dates back to the past. This plan that has been inherited from the previous regimes is still maintained, becoming more violent everyday.

Roughly 100 years ago, the then Shah of Iran settled the Kurds intensively in the Turkmen regions so as to break up the relation between the Northern and Southern Turkmens. As a result, obstacles were formed between the Turkmen settlements in Northern Khorasan and Razavi Khorasan. However, they failed to create hostility between those two nations.

The previous regimes suppressed the freedom movements in places like Turkmensahra and Azerbaijan. The Islamic Republic regime, on the other hand, has applied pressures against the revolts of the Turkmens, Azerbaijani Turks, Baluchis and Kurds and committed massacres since the beginning of the revolution and the coming into power of the mullahs.

The Islamic Republic has put forward several plans for years so as to weaken different nations in Iran. In 2005, through a letter of the Vice President of the Islamic Republic, non-Arab people were forced to migrate to Khozistan region and this caused the rebellion of Arab people. The Revolutionary Guards and the Police Forces of the Islamic Republic suppressed the rebellion by torturing, imprisoning and murdering several Arabs.

Although the officials of the regime claimed that the letter was fake, the Islamic Republic has made several Farsi and Lor migrate to Khozistan in previous years. This situation clearly indicates the regime’s intention to change the demographic structure in Khozistan.

Additionally, in the framework of the sly plan implemented to change the race and language of the Azerbaijani Turks, the Kurds of Kermanshah and Kurdistan were made to migrate to Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani Turks are concerned about this situation.

Through social and economic pressures, the Islamic Republic regime has made the Kurds, which have encountered the racist and religious discrimination of the Shiite mullah government themselves, migrate to different regions and spoiled the popular equilibrium in Azerbaijan.

The forced migration of ten thousands of Zaboulis from the southeast of Iran to the northeast, i.e. Turkmensahra, is one of the sly and very dangerous plans of the regime to exterminate the Turkmens. Currently, the Islamic Republic has settled more than 250 Zabouli colonies in Turkmensahra and is encouraging more Zaboulis to migrate to the region through the means it has created. On the other hand, the regime wants the Zaboulis to increase their birthrate. The government of the Islamic Republic has been telling the Zaboulis to increase their population in order to acquire their rights.

The Islamic Republic regime keeps on implementing the project of exterminating the Turkmen by building houses for Zaboulis that seized the lands of the Turkmens’ ancestors, granting them lands and providing several facilitations. Right from the beginning , the Turkmens have resisted and struggled against the cruel and sly plans of the Islamic Republic government. The Islamic Republic is nowadays trying to seize 50 thousand hectares of arable Turkmen land between Gomish Dephe and the Turkmenistan border. The previous regime could not seize these lands from the Turkmens. At the present time, the Islamic Republic, with that great power it feels inside, appended those lands to the Alawite Foundation subordinate to Ali Khamaney and they will be given to the disposal of non-Turkmen people, the Zaboulis in particular.

Along with all these sly plans, the fascist regime of the Islamic Republic has been trying to eradicate all non-Farsi Iranian nations by means of its faulty project called geographical equilibria. It is strange that no human rights organization has condemned this sly plan, yet. This time, this sly plan has been publicly announced by the President and the Speaker of the Parliament, both being official positions of the Islamic Republic regime.

It has been years since Hitler committed the Holocaust against the Jews. What Hitler did to the Jews during the World War II was a disaster for humanity. Presently, the Islamic Republic tends to eradicate nations both covertly and overtly so as to spread its authentic views and to resist any opposition. This attitude of the Islamic Republic, which is a type of concealed holocaust, should be condemned by liberalist people.

The Turkmensahra Liberation Organization strongly condemns these fascist movements of the Islamic Republic regime and calls all organizations and institutions defending human rights not to remain silent and to fight against this quiet massacre committed by the Islamic Republic regime.

سازمان آزادیبخش ترکمن صحرا – تورکمن صحرا آزادلیق قوراماسی

TURKMENSAHRA AZADLYK GURAMASY

TURKMENSAHRA LIBERATION ORGANIZATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Persian intervention and violence in Balochistan

By D.S. Baloch
11-01-2007
http://www.radiobalochi.org

The Baloch nation was a self-sustained society contained within Balochistan boundary for centuries. The Baloch resisted many invasions, Persian claim over Balochistan sovereignty first appeared in 1844, but was rejected by Baloch and other players in the region. Empires had conquered their neighbors, in order to obtain tribute from them. That was the old school of politics. The emperor wanted to enhance his image by forcing neighboring nations to pay tribute and conform to the empires, by force. Baloch is a nation that has been subjected to Persian conquest.

For centuries Baloch were able to develop resources that suited their environment, to maintain their life. Baloch cultivated crop that suited their need, water is in short supply in Balochistan, Baloch developed many underground cannel systems, and each cannel is 25 km long. This system was developed over thousands of years with unique experience and continuity. Sphere of Baloch civilization is underground water system, Baloch created these systems to sustain life, other methods made it impossible to sustain life. Water is a symbol of existence and civilization; life could not exist without water.

Balochistan is gifted with a long cost, therefore trade was one of the main sources of employment in costal Balochistan. After 1928 Baloch was no longer master of its own destiny.

Persian expansion and violent intervention and controls on the western and northern part of Balochistan outsourced Balochistan.

Persian conquered Balochistan in 1928 and has been able to maintain their direct rule since. Baloch fort was destroyed; surname and Balochi name, cities names, crops, fishing industry all became victim to Persian conquest. Names of people and places were changed to conform with the Persian identity in order to humiliate Baloch. Artisans and middle classes all lost their jobs and with it their way of life and became unemployed. Adviser to Dost Mohammed Khan Baranzai (last ruler of independent western Balochistan) status was reduced to beggar; one could imagine the situation on the rest of the nation. Property was confiscated; their way of life became illegal overnight.

One Iranian prime mister said Baloch existence of strategic importance was mere incident, Baloch should move to other parts of the world. (It is on record) he said “Money is precious to spend on Balochistan, while there is not many Baloch anyway.”

Saravan (Dizak) for example was once an important district in western Balochistan comprising of;

A) Dizak and Bampusht (Dizak changed to saravan)
B) Jalk and Kalagan
C) Kuhak
D) Sib- suran and Paskuh
E) Ashar and Afshan
F) Magas (changed to Zaboli)
G) Kahn douid (destroyed in 1928 by Persian army)
H) Nough

About 40 years ago in the middle of invasion on western Balochistan only in the district of Dizak there were about 16 water cannels totaling together more than 300km long. Today only 3 survived but these 3 would not survive another decade. (Before 1928 there were about 80-water cannel and a water spring in Dizak)

The disappearance of water canals is not a mere environment disaster, but a calculated effort by the occupying forces to wipe out the nation, and make its existence impossible.

Total tax revenue from 10 percent income, (court dewan income were tax exempted).

Dizak and dependent tax collected were; Rs. 46,500

(According to 1902 tax collected, ruler of Dizak and dependent was Dilavar Khan Bozorgzadeh).

Dizak cotton was famous throughout Balochistan; it was exported as far as Menab and Bint. According to the Europeans who surveyed the area, there were 1000 weavers settled in Dizak.
Balochistan once had the confidence to mange it resources and produce life necessities.

One should ask not only Iran but all nations, how a once a prospers nation able to maintain a reasonable life expectancy within 85 years is reduced to the status of a drug dealer. What Mini Dublin group should know about Balochistan, is that Iran is treating Baloch not an equal amongst citizen but Godless creature with no past and future, no right. There is a limit to how low humanity can fall, but there is no limit to measure it.

Iranian rule in Balochistan is not a rule on will, Iranian rule by force once force ceases Baloch will seek to rule by will.
No nation on earth ever takes jobs from their people, except a colonizer that wants to occupy a nation, destroying the occupied nation reduces that nations existence to no more than a savage.

What effect Baloch as non-Persian have on their children’s education, apart from uniform education one for all? Mini Dublin group were in a position to ask this question from the Persians, if western Balochistan is their property, what about the people of Balochistan, they have no right to be themselves, and rejected by Persian where should they turn to. Is there any justice in this world? Persian as occupier has responsibilities they should fulfill their responsibilities whatever way Persian like to define them self.

Baloch lost their jobs to Persian and they are in the process of losing their identity to Persians.
What else are Baloch ready to sacrifice for Persia, I believe Baloch should not scarify one night’s sleep for Iran and Persia, instead struggle to obtain their nations Self-determination. Baloch as nation and god give right to homeland have right to unite with any nations on earth in order to protect their dignity.

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

Sunni Saddam is executed and justice is served for Shia and Kurds in Iraq.

O God when we witness the Shia rulers of Iran to end up on the gallows for justice to be done for Sunni Baluch and others in Iran.

E-mailed by S. Baluch
10-01-2007