|
Next target Tehran
All the signs are that Bush is planning for a neocon-inspired military
assault on Iran
Dan Plesch
Monday January 15, 2007
The Guardian
The evidence is building up that President Bush plans to add war on Iran to
his triumphs in Iraq and Afghanistan - and there is every sign, to judge by
his extraordinary warmongering speech in Plymouth on Friday, that Tony Blair
would be keen to join him if he were still in a position to commit British
forces to the field.
"There's a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran
is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue - in the country and
the world - in a very acute way," said NBC TV's Tim Russert after meeting
the president. This is borne out by the fact that Bush has sent forces to
the Gulf that are irrelevant to fighting the Iraqi insurgents. These include
Patriot anti-missile missiles, an aircraft carrier, and
cruise-missile-firing ships.
Many military analysts see these deployments as signals of impending war
with Iran. The Patriot missiles are intended to shoot down Iranian missiles.
The naval forces, including British ships, train to pre-empt Iranian
interference with oil shipments through the straits of Hormuz.
Having been given so much advice on what to do in Iraq - most notably by the
Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group - the president went with the
recommendations of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
So much for the idea that the Iraq debacle marginalised the neocons.
The political context as seen from inside the White House and Downing Street
is that we are in a war as serious as the second world war. John Bolton
exemplified this outlook when he compared US problems in Iraq with the
fighting with Japan after Pearl Harbour.
Donald Rumsfeld and the AEI have developed a strategy for regime change in
Iran that does not involve a ground invasion. Weapons of mass destruction
will provide the rationale for military action, though it won't be limited
to attacks on a few weapons factories. It will include limiting Iranian
retaliatory capability, using bombers to destroy up to 10,000 targets in the
first day of any war, and special forces flying in to destroy anything
that's left.
In the aftermath, the US will support regime change, hoping to replace the
ayatollahs with an Iran of the regions. The US and British governments now
support a coalition of groups seeking a federal Iran. This may be another
neocon delusion, but that may not be the point. Making Tehran concentrate on
internal problems leaves it unable to act elsewhere.
Bush has said he will destroy the Syrian and Iranian networks in Iraq. These
may include Moqtada al-Sadr's militia, but are also likely to target the
Iranian-created Badr brigades, now wearing Iraqi police uniforms. In the
south, the withdrawal of British troops to Basra airport looks more like a
preparation to avoid a Shia backlash than a handover to the government of
Iraq.
The US director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, explained that
the threat to launch Hizbullah against Israel was the main deterrent to a US
attack on Iran. Although politically Hizbullah scored a major victory in
holding off the Israeli army last summer, in fact it was badly damaged.
The Iranian regime seems prepared for confrontation, perhaps confident
Washington is bluffing. Next month Iran celebrates its completion of the
nuclear-fuel cycle, in defiance of UN sanctions. Expect Bush and Blair to
ask what the world will do to prevent a new Holocaust against the Jews. In
his Plymouth speech, Blair told us that we could not pick and choose our
wars. He may have been telling us more than we realised.
Dan Plesch is a research associate at the Centre for International Studies
and Diplomacy, School of Oriental and African Studies.
dan@danplesch.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The foreign Policy Center's
Report On Balochistan
The Same Mentality: No knowledge about the Baloch
By S. N. Baloch
21-1-07
Now a days there is a report
circulating on internet websites, which was published by the Foreign Policy
Center, London (FPC). The authors of this report want to portray it as a
brief history about Baloch and Balochistan, to give the people, westerners,
an idea about the past and present of the Baloch people and their geography.
For, as a Baloch this is a good step to show the world that whats happening
in Pakistani occupied Balochistan, the report not includes Iranian occupied
Balochistan and Baloch territories under Afghan control.
This report reveals facts about Balochistan (eastern). But it includes lots
of misinformation.
This is not the era of colonial times. We Baloch people must not sit silent
and watch the European think tank that what ever it says is okay. It is not
that time when colonial officers wrote in their diaries, which were then
published from London in 19th century, that Brahuis are not Baloch by
origion ,the Balochs of Makkuran are different type of Balochs and so on.
This is the time we must speak !!.
Though we are thankful to FPC, which had published this report, depicting
Baloch resistance movements of the past and present. But they, FPC, have no
right to tell lies against us.
The false information which are given in the 72 page Foreign Policy Report
are under following:-
FPC report writes that:
(1) The Ahmadzais (the sub-tribe/clan from which the most famous Baloch
Khans, rulers, belong like Naseer Khan 1) are Pashtun in origion. We must
tell FPC that Ahmadzai is a sub-tribe of Kumbarani tribe, which is a
well-known Baloch tribe. And they must remember that Baloch people had never
adopted any other ethnic group's persons as their rulers, only Baloch. We do
not understand that why FPC has said this about Ahmadzais of the Kambarani
tribe.
(2) FPC writes about Baloch languages Balochi and Brahui. And then says that
Baloch and Brahui are different people ethnically. Why FPC is abusing the
Baloch people by saying that Baloch and Brahui are different people. FPC
must remember that Brahui is not a people but it is a language spoken only
by Baloch people. Thus Baloch people have two languages the Balochi and the
Brahui. Both of these languages are related to Kurdi, the Kurmanji dialect.
Brahui is not a Dravidian tongue, as most colonial era westerners thought
and believed that it was. Brahui is a language of its own. FPC people must
read and research more on Baloch and Balochistan before publishing their
reports.
(3) The report also says that Sui area, where natural gas is found, was
gifted to the Bugti tribe by the English colonial government. As a tribute
to Bugti tribesmen who helped the English against the Sindhi Hur freedom
fighters, in Sindh. The fact is that the Sui was a part of Balochistan and
still is. And it was the land of Bugti tribe before Englishs came to
Balochistan. Yes it is a fact that a small number of Bugtis participated
with the colonialists against the Hur tribe of Sindh.
Other minor mistakes, minor as compared with the above mentioned
(1) BNP was formed in 1996 and not in 1991 as the report says. "May be a
typing mistake by FPC". (On page 34 of the report)
(2) The Chief Minister belongs to PML(Q) not from MMA. Both MMA and PML(Q)
are stooges of Pakistan government. .(On page 41 of the report)
(3) Mir Hazar Khan and Sher Mohammad Marri were close allies and not broke
with each other at that time. (On page 29 of the report)
(4) Toba Kakar range is located in Pashtun area not in Balochistan. Toba
Kakar mountain range is located in former British Afghanistan/Balochistan.
(5) And the monogram, which appeared on every page's top in the report, PDF
format, is not a Baloch insignia. In fact it is a Pakistani official stemp
for the colony of Balochistan.
At last , it is not just FPC which have given false information, there are
others too who have given baseless knowledge about the Baloch. One thing is
clear that we, people, must not quote aged old reports of British officers,
who where then serving their terms in British occupied Balochistan, whose
aims were to divide and rule Balochs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The common characteristics of Shia
leaders in Iran, Pakistan and Iraq
Baluchistan People's Front
by Reza Hossein Borr, London, 16.1.07
"Everything you see happening is the consequence of that which you are."
Profiling Shia leaders:
The common characteristics of Shia leaders in Iran, Pakistan and Iraq
Introduction
All the Shia leaders of Iran, Pakistan and Iraq were masters of securing
power through securing the sympathy of the West. All of them were
unsuccessful in retaining power. All of them failed in keeping their
promises. All of them said something and did something else. All of them
betrayed their supporters from the West. All of them massacred their own
people. All of them followed the policy of revenge. All of them turned their
original supporters against themselves. All of them proved to be unreliable.
All of them became self-destructive.
The West had to remove all of them.
The cases of Reza Shah, Mohammad Reza shah, Bhutto, Ayatollah Khomeini and
NOW the Shias of Iraq
Every Shia leader that has been supported by the West to secure power turned
against the West at some stages in his life. This is the case with almost
all Shia leaders of Iran, Pakistan and Iraq.
1. Reza Shah of Iran
seized power with the support of the British government. As soon as he
established himself, he reduced his relationship with the British government
and increased his relationships with Germany which was at war with Britain.
He promoted Germany's political ideas in Iran and aligned himself very
closely with Germany in spite of warnings by Britain and the United States
of America. He insisted in having close relationships with Germany and
consequently, the British and the Americans agreed to remove him from office
and bring his son as the next Shah of Iran.
2. Mohammad Reza shah
was brought to power by the British and Americans and he was restored to
power after the Iranian Nationalist Prime Minister, Mossadeq moved him from
office. CIA and the British Secret Service worked very closely to bring him
back to power. After consolidating his power he began establishing very
close relationships with the Soviet Union and started humiliating the West
and specifically the British. He became so much arrogant that he wanted to
replace the West in the Middle East and therefore, the West had to remove
him and bring Ayatollah Khomeini to power.
3. Ayatollah Khomeini
was promoted as a great
spiritual leader at the level of Gandi by the West to make him acceptable to
the Iranian people. Once Khomeini was established, he ordered the occupation
of American Embassy in Tehran. Since then all leaders of the Islamic
Republic of Iran have worked against United States of America and Britain
and demonised them all of the world.
4. Zolfeghar Ali Butto
was helped by the British and Americans to acquire power after the
disintegration of Pakistan. As soon as he consolidating his power, he
followed the same pattern and established close relationships with the
Soviet Union against the interests of United States and the West. Henry
Kissinger wrote a letter and warned him. He organised dozens of hugs
demonstrations and showed Henry kessinger's letter as a document of United
State’s interfering in Pakistan. At the end, the British and the Americans
decided to remove him from office in a coup d'etat and replaced him by
general Zia who executed him later.
5. The Shias of Iraq
were brought to power after American and British invasion of Iraq and the
removal of Saddam Hussein. They deceived the British and Americans and
persuaded them to abolish Iraqi military, security forces, civil service and
all other institutions in order to create a vacuum which would be filled by
themselves only. They brought in their own militia to establish law and
order and got engaged in ethnic cleansing of Sunni population of Iraq. While
the Shia militia is massacring the Sunnis and cleansing them from Baghdad,
they work against the interests of the United States of America and their
own initial promises for establishing a popular democracy in which all
Iraqis have their fair share of power.
6. Ahmad Chalabi
was one of the main Iraqi Shia leaders who persuaded the Americans to invade
Iraq. He forged false documents that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction and he was a great threat to the West. After the invasion, it
was proved that there were not any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but
Chalabi had already succeeded in making the Americans believe him. Nearly
all the Shia leaders have mastered this tactic of making themselves
believable. It was his believability that gained the trust of the Americans.
When Saddam Hussein was removed, Chalabi betrayed his American and European
supporters and spied for the Iranian regime. The level of espionage
conducted on his behalf was so significant that the Americans had to attack
his house and confiscate all his documents.
7. The former Prime Minister of
Iraq, Jaffery followed
the same pattern of thinking and behaviour. He encouraged sectarian killing
by supporting Mahdi Army and Shia militia. He did not respect his promises
of keeping his impartiality. He alienated his Western supporters. He failed
in reconstructing the country. He followed the policy of revenge. His
Western and Kurdish allies had to remove him from the office.
8. The present Prime Minister
of Iraq, Nouri Al- Maliki,
is another good example of securing power through the support of the
Americans. As usual he made some promises and pledges to be impartial in
dealing with all Iraqis: Shias and Sunnis but as soon as he secured power,
he allowed Shia militia to continue massacring the Sunnis. The level of
ethnic cleansing and sectarian killing reached a new level. President Bush,
in his latest strategy for Iraq, warned the Iraqi leader to keep his
promises but as the pattern of the behaviours of all these Shia leaders have
clearly demonstrated, it is unlikely that he will perform his duties as the
Prime Minister of Iraq and not the leader of Shia militia. I believe that
his support for Shia militia to cleanse Baghdad from the Sunnis would
continue unless the Americans take initiative and devise policies which
bring harmony and equality of opportunities for all Iraqis.
Now under the nose of the Americans and the British, and against their
public utterances, they are engaged in surging sectarian killings. They have
made America and Britain accomplices in these criminal acts and therefore,
the whole Arab Middle East and Islamic world are turning not only against
the Shias but also against the West; thus causing their own downfall as
other Shia leaders have caused before them. In fact what they did to Saddam
Hussein during his execution is what they have done with the Sunnis in the
last three years since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
The common characteristics of
these Shia leaders
1. All of them were brought to power and removed from power by the West or
the help of the West
2. All of them failed in their ambitions
3. All of them broke their promises and agreements with the West and their
own people.
4. All of them became very arrogant at some stages in their lives.
5. All of them rebelled against those people who supported them initially.
6. All of them turned in to self-destructive elements.
7. All of them failed to develop their countries and established democracy.
8. All of them became extremely ruthless to their own people
9. All of them lost the support of their own people and when they were
removed, there wasn't any body to support them
Conclusions
1. There is something in the nature of Shia people that leads them into
failure and self-destruction.
2. While they are very successful in seeking sympathy and power, they are
very unsuccessful in retaining power and sympathy.
3. There are not reliable allies.
4. They broke their promises and agreements whenever they think they can get
away with it.
5. They have multiple personalities and they can easily conceal their true
intentions.
6. They are ungrateful people and do not appreciate the support and favours
they receive from others.
7. They betray their supporters and backers.
8. They establish close relationships with the enemies of their supporters
and at the cost of their supporters.
This is what the British and Americans have experienced with the Shia
leaders of Iran, Pakistan and now Iraq.
As the British and Americans regretted supporting the leaders of Iran, they
will regret supporting the Shias of Iraq. The regret may come today or
tomorrow when there will be the realisation that supporting the Shia leaders
in the Middle East had cost the West unprecedented damages.
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
www.coachingandmentoringonline.com
|