US arrests Iranian diplomats in Arbil

I guess this were the (poisoned) first fruits of the “New Way Forward” that Bush announced last night? Early this morning, US forces stormed an Iranian governmental rep’s office in the Kurdish capital of Arbil (Erbil), arresting five employees, including diplomats and staff.
Unbelievable. And that was in the capital of Washington’s Kurdish allies, too. Reuters had this, later:

    Iraq’s Kurdish regional government on Thursday condemned a U.S. raid on an Iranian government office in the Iraqi city of Arbil as a violation of the region’s sovereignty and of international immunity laws.
    In a strongly-worded statement from one of Washington’s closest allies in Iraq, the offices of the Kurdish prime minister and Kurdish president expressed their “concern and condemnation” over the pre-dawn operation and urged the U.S. military to release Iranian staff arrested during the raid.

How to make friends and influence people, huh?

62 thoughts on “US arrests Iranian diplomats in Arbil”

  1. “Asked by a reporter if there would be more raids like the one this morning, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, speaking alongside General Pace, said the United States has warned Syria and Iran not to destabilize the Iraqi government.
    “But we leave to those who deal with issues of force protection how these raids are going to be taken out,” she said. “I think you’ve got an indication of that in what has been happening, which is, the networks are identified, they are identified through good intelligence. They are then acted upon.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/world/middleeast/11cnd-raid.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

  2. of course, there never was any good intelligence and there isn’t now, and that matters not at all in the Bush scheme of things…….
    I am really frightened at what the Cheney administration may come up with next. It is looking like we will not impeach him and get US troops out of Iraq in time to stop all this…..

  3. Consider too the astonishing irony afoot here. 27 years ago, the US had the sympathy of the entire world – on solid established international legal grounds – when the Iranians took over the American embassy in Tehran and held US diplomatic personnel (including intel operatives) hostage.
    Now we’ve done it twice – raided Iranian diplomatic consulates inside Iraq – over the express objections of the host Iraqis and we now could care less about international law.
    Worse, we have Gates & co earlier today bragging about how in the new rules of engagement, US forces (ahem, Iraqi forces “supported” by the US) will no longer have their hands tied….
    Huh? So Iraq in the end won’t have control or even the fig leaf of sovereignty over this new “surge?” And this is supposed to win them over?
    All this is separate from the utter bushito about just why Iran would be wishing to support America’s “enemies” inside Iraq. Really? More likely, and this is just a plasible guess, they’re there supporting SCIRI and/or Kurdish forces.
    Ah, but “the lobby” and certain Saudi/Egyptian interests are out with the line that Iran is at the core of the problem of matters in Iraq. So out with the idea of working with Iran and instead set up the straw man of the Iranian bogey – with Ahmadinejad’s oh so convenient face on it…. and Blitzer media (CNN) and Faux news buys it as fact.
    I’m with Biden and Hagel here is really being suspicious that convicete fellon Elliot Abrams is at it again…. funneling illegal covert arms to would-be insurgents seeking to overthrow a presumed adversary of the US….. (then it was the Contra, now he’s looking to start a war with Iran)

  4. yes, the war in Iraq may be one of the biggest blunders in the history of the republic but the last country in the world that should complain about Americans taking their diplomats as hostages is Iran.

  5. Indeed Truesdell, and at one level a fair point – except that the position ends up as smug “two wrongs make a right.” Ah, but Bolton law of the jungle still rules the neocon/Bushies….
    So, who cares if recognized Iranian consulates are violated in Iraq? We should. If somebody attacks our recognized consulates in another country, say, in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, or Nepal, will our position be as credible? Or will the host country (or say, the Russians – who still have troops in some CIS states) have a point in saying, well, look, you’ve tossed aside international norms on embassies in Iraq, so why should we care about the norm any where else?
    And oh by the way, back in (as I vaguely recall) 1999 or thereabouts, several Iranian diplomats were captured and murdered in Herat, Afghanistan by the Taliban gov’t (the one that the Saudis, Pakistanis and, yes, Rice were lobbying to back).
    Now were some of those Iranian diplomats acting like CIA agents in funneling arms to what became the nub of the forces we used to replace the Taliban? Maybe, maybe not. But Iran nearly went to war with Afghanistan over the incident then – in part because the international community then was not attentive to what in retrospect was a “legitimate” Iranian grievance. It was a warning sign of what the Taliban was – and was capable of hatching – but the Clinton and then Bush Administrations couldn’t give a hoot….. cheers, Scott

  6. The time-dishonored sophistry known as the Tu QuoQue fallacy (i.e., “you do it, too” or “misery loves company”) dialectic wouldn’t pass muster in a medieval monastery, but apparently it still works — at least superficially — in sub-educated America. Letting Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or Iranian students (outraged at our puppet Shah Palahvi) set the standards for American behavior sounds about as banana-republic ridiculous as Deputy Dubya Bush’s America has indeed become.
    Yes, let us complain about Iran and then break all known world speed records acting just like them — or worse, try and provoke them into attacking us so that we can have “justification” for the “Gulf of Tonkin,” “WMD,” “9/11,” “Al Qaida-link” “two-spies-in-Prague” “aluminum tubes” “yellowcake in Africa” “smoking gun mushroom cloud” attack upon them that we have obviously spent a lot of time, money, blood, and effort planning and longing for already. Just when you think the travesty can’t get any more tawdry or transparent, it dscends from Three Stooges slapstick to Keystone Cops farce.
    The last time our military tried to operate in Iran against some students, as I recall, our pilots couldn’t keep from flying into each other and leaving their burning aircraft and dead companions in a humiliating, smoking ruin in the desert. So given that unenviable track-record and our commander-in-brief’s four-years of disintegrating debacle in Iraq — all in the unforced service of Iran’s national interests — I can’t help picturing George W. Bush as Fernand Mondego squandering his family inheritance at Iran’s Iraqi gambling casino, with Jacoppo looking on and telling Edmond Dantes: “He’s losing, and they’re not even cheating him.”

  9. Between Two Worlds: ‘My Name Is Iran‘
    by Renée Montagne

    I continued to be intrigued by the philosophy of Shia Islam less as a reflection of my integration into life in Iran and more because I sought a true understanding of the pillars and traditions of my faith.

    After six years Iranians were growing weary of the Iraq-Iran war, but daily life became difficult as well. More families took on second or third jobs as poverty was on the rise. The revolutionary morality guards, or Komitehs, added a further element of intimidation and fear into our lives, pressuring society to conform to religious morals while they amassed tremendous amounts of wealth within their own private Islamic foundations. As religious observations increased, I noticed a rise in prostitution and addiction to heroin and opium, especially among the young.

    ” The culture wanted a woman to be childlike, helpless, and passive, which is how a female is accepted as being “pure Iranian”—obedient, submissive, someone who does not step out of her role. This realization came right out of the Shahnameh, the great epic poem of Iran, where a distinction is made between “foreign” wives and “Iranian” wives—Iranian wives have been persuaded to believe that they exist only to serve men. I had just enough “foreign” blood in me; my independence and “fieriness” would not let me fit the cultural mold.

  10. The last time our military tried to operate in Iran against some students, as I recall, our pilots couldn’t keep from flying into each other and leaving their burning aircraft and dead companions in a humiliating, smoking ruin in the desert.
    yes, President Carter sure botched that up.

  11. Truesdell,
    I believe that was a stupid mission, fundamentally ignorant of the Iranian intel and power structure. I guess the Rambos were really itching to pull off an Entebe.
    Yet I can’t see how Carter botched it up. Was he on the mission? Did he have a real say in the operational details?

  12. Another Headache for Jimmy CarterPosted on Jan 12, 2007

    14 members of an advisory board to the Carter Center have resigned over the former president’s new book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”, saying “You have clearly abandoned your historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side.”

    Israelis lobbyist and the Zionist in US well done they are working well in USA

  13. “Carter sure botched that up”
    Our right-wing Zionist friends hate Carter more than they hate Ahmadinejad.

  14. One can’t deny the fact that it was Jimmy Carter who signed off on the aborted desert rescue mission in 1979…but it turned out not to have serious consequences (apart from damaging his reelection chances). However, the same can not be said of another Carter policy – recruiting, aiding and funding the mujhadeen to counter the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan…28 years later, we are still paying and paying dearly for the latter initiative.

  15. US arrests Iranian diplomats in Arbil
    They are not diplomats! US spokesman said five of them had connection with The Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (Basij Forces) and Iraqi foreign minister said that the office that the US forces interred is not Consulate its Iranians Coordination office and their is talk to between Iraq (Kurds) and Iran to open consults in Arbil…
    So they are not diplomats and they are not protected under international law as such…
    the Link in Arabic Text
    http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0B0DD0DB-FBC0-4E9D-8256-AE8943B6DE40.htm

  16. Our right-wing Zionist friends hate Carter
    I suspect that American Jews understand that Carter’s provocateur stance on the Israel/Palestine issue says more about his narcissistic need to remain on the international radar screen than anything else (unlike, say, Jim Baker who has lucrative personal and firm interests in the Gulf).
    Much more relevant is Carter’s actions as President…his brokering of the Egypt/Israel peace agreement has been a boon to Israel…with “enemies” like him Israel has little need for “friends”.

  17. Truesdell,
    I believe you are widely off the mark:
    1- “turned out not to have serious consequences” I guess that is if you are not the son or mother of one of those charred American bodies that were left in the Tabbas desert.
    2- “it was Jimmy Carter who signed off …” Presidents sign off on a lot of things. I think the mission was extremely stupid, because as I said above, it was totally oblivious about the Iranian situation. This could never be another Entebe-style blitz. The hostages were divided into 7 or more batches and distibuted to secret locations around Tehran. The Iranians had warned that their sites were booby-trapped. Even if they did get to free one or two batches, all the others could be killed. In summary, it was quite unrealistic, and was designed with a great deal of Special Forces Ramboid psychology. But, this wasn’t Carter. Do you think presidents actually get involved in operational details. It’s not “The West Wing” my friend. Can you even imagine Bush sitting and listening to a detailed CIA CoOp plan and understanding the operational minutia?
    3- “another Carter policy – recruiting, aiding and funding the mujhadeen to counter the Soviet…” If you read “Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah” by Olivier Roy [from The United Nations Office for Coordinating Relief in Afghanistan (UNOCA)], you will see how the Reagan administration turned the Mujahideen from a rag-tag militia into a lethal military force operating out of more than 4000 bases. In fact, the Soviet invasion took place on December 24, 1979, and Carter barely had one year to do what he did. Under Reagan, the reactionary forces of the Arab world, along with the Pakistani ISI, and the religious parties supporting general Zia were all mobilized to “break the devil’s back in Afghanistan”. If you are really interested in the topic, I recommend Gilles Dorronsoro’s “Revolution Unending. Afghanistan: 1979 to the Present”. And of course, who can forget Reagan’s “Every country and every people has a stake in the Afghan resistance, for the freedom fighters of Afghanistan are defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability.” To blame Carter for the Afghan blowback is quite over the top!
    http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1982/31082c.htm

  18. “… in a telephone interview today from Mogadishu with NEWSWEEK, the TFG [Transitional Federal Government] interior minister, Hussein Aidid, confirmed that U.S. ground forces were involved in the mop-up in southern Somalia.”
    “Villagers reached by telephone and radio on Ras Kamboni, four other small islands nearby, and neighboring mainland villages, said that U.S. airstrikes by gunships were continuing as recently as Wednesday of this week. In Burgabo village, on the mainland, village chairman Ali Bulaale Adan said Islamic hard-liners had been in the area three days before the bombing but were gone by the time the U.S. airstrikes occurred. In nearby Butiye village, Watira Suldan Farah, a mother of five children, said that “at least 35 people were killed in Butiye …”
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16583705/site/newsweek/

  23. “So Saudi Arabia is ready to cooperate with Israel not only against Iran, but also against other “radicals,” such as Hamas.”
    “King Abdullah, worried by Shiite expansionism, was persuaded by Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the head of his National Security Council, to coordinate policy with Israel to counter Iran’s growing influence… So Prince Turki al-Faysal, the long time head of Saudi intelligence, met with Meir Dagan, the head of Israel’s Mossad, while Bandar met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jordan the same month.”
    http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20070111a4.html

  24. But, this wasn’t Carter. Do you think presidents actually get involved in operational details. It’s not “The West Wing” my friend. Can you even imagine Bush sitting and listening to a detailed CIA CoOp plan and understanding the operational minutia?
    David, I think you’re totally wrong on this one. It was precisely Carter who was responsible for the debicle and death in the desert. He approved the operation only on condition that the operations planners reduce the total number of troops and aircraft involved, because he wanted to minimize the potential scale of failure. Had the original troop and aircraft plans been used, there never would have been that tragedy in the desert because half the group would have simply turned back when one of the helicopters had engine trouble. This was all very well documented in the months and years after the event.
    As for presidents actually “getting involved in operational plans” and “detailed minutia”, I suggest that you take a closer look at the Carter presidency. This insistence on being involved in minute details and micromanagement was precisely the source of his poor performance as Chief Executive.

  25. Jes,
    I may very well be 100% wrong. Honestly, I am not speaking from any detailed information about the inner proceedings of presidential teams. I am putting myself, and people I can relate to (me, you, other educated professionals, you know …) in those shoes. Lets say a highly educated professional in any field (physics, law, medicine, pure mathematics, you name it) is sitting at that table. IQ=179 and very perceptive. They start to roll out their detailed plans for a military covert operation. I think one has to be pretty stupid to think that two or twenty hours of briefing puts you in a position to make a sound judgment. To me it sounds like putting the world’s top aerospace engineer in a room with vascular surgeons who are planning an aortic graft. They discuss the different options and pros and cons. No matter how smart the aerospace guy is, and no matter how well he listens, I would never think he could make the call as good as the surgeons. I guess what I am trying to say is that despite what Hollywood shows us, planning the details of a CoOp is a highly specialized task, and no politician, no matter how smart and confident, can participate in the planning. All s/he can say is whether to take the risk or not. All the above is pure speculation, with absolutely no reliable knowledge of the halls of power (I don’t consider the Nixon transcripts or Suskind and Woodward’s books “knowledge” – more like “story”!)

  28. David,
    Nice spin. However, those involved at the time were clear about Carter’s involvement and of his influence, as Commander in Chief, in diluting the task force sent into Iran. Further, the reports at the time were that this was the direct cause of the necessity to abort and land in the desert, and what led to the tragic loss of American lives.
    Where I agree with you is that no executive – especially the Chief Executive of the United States – can, or should, get involved in the detailed planning of such a mission. However, getting involved (probably over his head) is exactly what Jimmy Carter did, and this was, by all reliable accounts at the time, the single most significant contributory factor in the failure.

  29. “It was precisely Carter who was responsible for the debicle and death in the desert.”
    Oh, right. The reason you guys hate Carter is because he was responsible for 8 US servicemen dying in an aborted mission 28 years ago. Sure. How many US servicemen do you suppose are dying in aborted missions every week in Iraq? How many do you think will die if you guys get your wish for air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Your concern for our men and women in uniform is really touching.

  30. “Your concern for our men and women in uniform is really touching.”
    John did you think your “men and women in uniform” purely commanding to US interests without looking for Israeli interest?

  31. “The jihad now is against the Shias, not the Americans”
    “Add this to Dulaimi’s scary video that I posted a couple of day’s ago …”
    An American intelligence official said the new material, which has been authenticated within the intelligence community, confirms “that Iran is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups.” The source was careful to stress that the Iranian plans do not extend to cooperation with Baathist groups fighting the government in Baghdad, and said the documents rather show how the Quds Force — the arm of Iran’s revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads — is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna.
    Another American official who has seen the summaries of the reporting affiliated with the arrests said it comprised a “smoking gun.” “We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to,” the official said.
    One of the documents captured in the raids, according to two American officials and one Iraqi official, is an assessment of the Iraq civil war and new strategy from the Quds Force. According to the Iraqi source, that assessment is the equivalent of “Iran’s Iraq Study Group,” a reference to the bipartisan American commission that released war strategy recommendations after the November 7 elections. The document concludes, according to these sources, that Iraq’s Sunni neighbors will step up their efforts to aid insurgent groups and that it is imperative for Iran to redouble efforts to retain influence with them, as well as with Shiite militias.
    The top Quds Force commander — known as Chizari, according to a December 30 story in the Washington Post — was captured inside a compound belonging to Abdul Aziz Hakim, the Shiite leader President Bush last month pressed to help forge a new ruling coalition that excludes a firebrand Shiite cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr.
    A former State Department senior analyst on Iraq and Iran who left government service in 2005, Wayne White, said he did not think it was likely the Quds Force was supporting Sunni terrorists who were targeting Shiite political leaders and civilians, but stressed he did not know.
    “I have no doubt whatsoever that al-Quds forces are on the ground and active in Iraq,” he said. “That’s about it. I saw evidence that Moqtada al Sadr was in contact with Sunni Arab insurgents in western Iraq, but I never saw evidence of Iran in that loop.”
    Mr. White added, “One problem that we all have is that people consistently conduct analysis assuming that the actor is going to act predictably or rationally based on their overall mindset or ideology. Sometimes people don’t.
    “One example of a mindset that may hinder analysis of Iranian involvement is the belief that Iran would never have any dealings with militant Sunni Arabs. But they allowed hundreds of Al Qaeda operatives to escape from Afghanistan across their territory in 2002,” he said.
    According to one Iraqi official, the two Quds commanders were in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government, which had requested more senior Iranian points of contact when the government complained about Shiite death squad activity. The negotiations were part of an Iraqi effort to establish new rules of the road between Baghdad and Tehran. This arrangement was ironed out by Iraq’s president, Jalal Talabani, when he was in Tehran at the end of November.

  33. “John did you think your “men and women in uniform” purely commanding to US interests without looking for Israeli interest?”
    I think you kind of missed my point.

  34. And by the way Salah, has it occurred to you that by reposting all of this anti-Iranian propaganda, YOU are serving Israeli interests quite nicely?

  35. John C., Is it Iranian mangling, preterition and the dirty works in my home country “Iraq” can by be denying?
    Do you need me to “shut my mouth “about what Iranians doing in Iraq?
    This is not mean in any shape or form at all that I am in support or push of any US involvement or US war against Iran (as Israelis wishes), I think I made it clear before.
    But I would like to see that international community to be clear with the Iranians that they are interfering in other internal affairs of the other UN members they should holed accountable for their actions in the region.
    Regrettably JohnI think you kind of missed my point. , you missed my position about Iran doggy works in Iraq and in the region from Shah time through Khomeini time and now the Mullahs, its very clear they acting not in the benefits of religion of Islam and interest of all the Muslims world, they have chosen to serve their Parisian’s agenda.
    BTW, John C. Iraq invasion and the distractions the State of Iraq when most of the Americans support GWB for this war on behalf of Israel in ME which serving Israelis not US

  36. Salah,
    Following up on John C’s question about your ultimately pro-Israeli tactics and tone, no my friend, no one asked you to “shut your mouth”. And I think you may be one of the most regular posters, so I don’t see any effort to silence you. A lot of readers may skip your over-the-top posts, but that is their choice. Yet you do need to be reminded whose grain you are sending to the mill. Your propaganda posts from Saudi Rags (with a capital R) like A-Sharg-al-Awsat and Al-Watan, and other bankrupt reactionary papers, which have for years subversively undermined the resistance, really are quite embarrassing to the poster and the reader. They would be very welcome though on O-Reilly’s blog. Why don’t you ever post from As-Safeer? Have you ever hear of Joseph Samahah?
    Your bilious hatred for anything Irani and Shi’i, despite your repeated denials, is more than obvious, and is fine with me. I think you once said you had fought against Iran in the ‘80-‘88 war; maybe it’s from that, maybe not. In either case, you have a right to your opinion. But since you state that you are anti-imperialist in your general orientation, it is incongruent with that to sound like the lowest of the low US puppets like Mubarak and the 2 slavish Abdullahs; sometimes you literally quote them. You say exactly what they intend most of the time. A few days ago you posted a silly link about 60 Israeli officers along with Badr and Mahdi commanders conspiring in a war room to kill more Iraqis. And you were not posting it to show how stupid it is, but actually defending it. And above you are posting garbage quoted from those infamous all-knowing “American intelligence officials”; have you already forgotten how quotes from these same anonymous sources rained fire on your dear Iraq? And now you are posting NPR interviews about the suppression of Iranian women’s rights. Do you think that NPR and the US media/public are suddenly deeply concerned about the plight of Iranian girls? Do you even know Ardalan? Do you know that the Ardalan family is one of the “doggiest” courtier families attached to the Shah? Do you think the Iranians today should pay for the Shah’s hostility toward Iraq? Do you not remember what Saddam did to Iran for 8 years? Did you ever have 25 scuds land in Baghdad’s hospitals and schools in one day? Did you ever hear of tens of thousands of Iraqi teenagers dying from Iranian nitro-mustard? Did they return that fire in kind? Are you trying to echo Saddam when you so righteously decree that Iranians are working against the interests of Islam and only for their “Persian agenda”?! Are you in a position to determine the interests of the Muslim world and Islam itself? Or Mr. Dulaimi perhaps? Do you believe there is a “Persian agenda” that depends on the destruction of the Arabs? Those damn Majoosis want to take revenge for their defeat in Nahavand 1400 years ago?
    I am not asking you to love the Iranis or Shi’is. I am neither, and do not care one bit what you feel for them. But I ask you, as a fellow debater, not to let your bile blind you to whose interests you are serving. You are being an awfully easy victim of divide and conquer.

  37. Jes,
    While having John C’s comment in mind, regarding the beef you have with Carter, is it part of your discourse tactics to call someone’s remarks “spin”, even after he himself has said that they are based on pure speculation, and may be 100% wrong? I am no Talmudic scholar, but I remember having read passages of the Torah (translated unfortunately), which command the faithful to be respectful and just in debate.

  38. I for one welcome having an Iraqi posting from inside Iraq (or am I wrong about that?)…even if I suspect he is partisan and therefore don’t happen to agree with everything he has to say…yes, Salah does sometimes go over the top but, as a contemporary Iraqi, it is quite understandible.
    and, further, I admire his attempts to improve his English…how many here speak Arabic as well as he speaks English?

  39. David,
    Nice try but you forgot to say that Iran/Shah invaded three islands from Arab neighbours, Khomeini and following Mullah threaten those Gulf countries to take the case to the international dispute.
    Did you forgot also when Khomeini publicly said he would export his revulsions to the Islamic world (he meant the neighbouring Arab and Iraq).
    Did you know that Iran also used chemicals against Iraqis troops? Or you just forgot that?
    Did you know in 1980 each neighs Iranians fighters over Baghdad in the first years through their rockets bombs over Iraqis?
    Did you know how many Iranian rockets fallen on Baghdad or you forget it? Did you know that morning when one of the rockets fallen a primary school (Belat Al-Shohada’a) killed instantly 150 kids …
    A war it’s a war, what you expected when you go to the war? When you list here your war diary please lists the other side things also.
    Al-Dawa’a party was financed and supported by Khomeini regime they did worked inside Iraq by putting bombes and may Iraqi killed, this is not from “Saudi Rags” in 1984 a group of al-Dawa’a party “Iranian proxy” went to Vice Chancellor building of the University of Technology in Baghdad “I was working there” and they tried to shoot the Vice Chancellor but fortunately they intersected by some admin stuff they shoot three of them, did this acts inside Iraq supported by Iran, what your thought about this David?
    Look now days if one Muslims hold knife in some western world he will be a terrorist he will face I don’t know what he will end with. but you forget or left those facts from inside Iraq and list your points as if Iran an angel and Iraqis and Arabs are savage rhetoric’s regimes, look to your posting many times speaks about Saudis and others what that mean? Your hatred to them make you unbalanced we all knew they are US/West Puppets and they supported and protected by US/West. What make you so passionate each time you post rise you finger on them not including Iran regime!
    If you accusing me about my ejection for Iranians because of 1980 war your are 100% wrong, I lived watching Iranians in Iraq and Iraqi proxy for years when I am 12 years old and after, I knew all those tricks and works they doing in Iraq no one tell me I saw them I knew them closely those in Najaf and Karbalah, Kufa and Kadimiya David.(” David, I don’t hate Shia’at, as you trying again for 2nd time to put your words in my mouth” I hate the Iraqi proxy to Iranians those who are loyal to Iran but they live between Iraqis and they waiting for any opportunity to kill Iraqis as we seeing now), I am familiar with it, look what they done in Iraq after US invasion….. Who serve US in Iraq, Iranian men in Iraq from Sistani, Al-Hakim, and Al-Sader and others those rushed inside Iraq and every one created his fake Marjaaiah covered with the lies of “Loving Al-Biet”?
    What happen in Iraq now is a matter of fact that US and Iran Mosad and others each one hand in hand doing the killing and destroying the State of Iraq what Iranians Islam you talking about?
    Just last thing to let you know if you don’t read it, Asistani fatwa about going to Arafat Mountain due on Sunday!!
    All Muslims knows that Al-Hajj is one ceremony, and its one for all Muslims from around the world and the Eid will be one for all Hajjij and in the same day, so Sistani asked his folks to go to Arafat on Sunday not on Saturday as the Hajj ceremony was, till me is this the behaviour of a man he called himself Ayatollah and Marijaa? This is just one simple example of your friends doing their works all around…
    BTW, I saw you are quoting from Iraqslogger!!!

  40. Salah,
    I am sorry. You are digging deeper. I am not defending Iran against “savage” Arabs. I am asking you to not do the opposite. As I said before, I am neither Irani nor Shi’i. With all their ills and wrongs, if you don’t see the immense difference between the ayatollahs’ regime in Iran with the tin-pot dictators that are propped up along the Gulf, and elsewhere in Jordan, Egypt, … I can just say that I am sorry. And if you actually believe the things you say such as “US and Iran Mosad and others each one hand in hand” or “those who are loyal to Iran but they live between Iraqis and they waiting for any opportunity to kill Iraqis as we seeing now”, well again all I can say is that I am sorry. You talk about the war as if it just “happened”. No it was actually started by a certain party. I don’t want to go into the game of refuting your item by item points. They are not things that we haven’t heard elsewhere (yes, including in A-Shargh-al-Awsat !) My point, again, that you will not understand, and I will leave it at that is that Iranis and Iraqis are on the same side of this conflict; only if people like you would understand. The Iranis are not the enemy, just as the Iraqis are not. The enemy is elsewhere, but you don’t get it since are too busy cheering when Dulaimi’s courageous men do what they do best. Keep on fussing and festering over whether the Shah did or did not take three worthless islands 40 years ago, or if Sistani should or should not ask his followers to go to Arafeh on Sunday, while what happens happens to you and your nation. It is sad. I think it is the poet/philosopher Sa’adi that has a story about a man who was obsessed with the rotations of the stars and constellations, who would spend every night at the telescope, while someone was using his wife. As I said before, you are such an easy victim for divide and conquer.

  41. David, for the Iraqi the enemy obvious they knew who the enemy is.
    But those who helped Iraqi’s enemy those who lived and speaks their language and they came acrossing the borders, they looking like Iraqis those who helped the enemy, those who giving the cover, support and lead the enemy to break down Iraq to its knees David.
    For Iraqis the enemy is one who doesn’t love the land of Mesopotamia, who dose not love the Iraqis, those who are the enemy of Iraqis no matter which ethnic or nationality.
    Thank you for the advice but I am not as you think so easy to be “easy victim”…. I am hearing from my big families and frinds, reading and see what happing on the ground from a bigger picture not as those went to Iraq and tell us stories edited to serve their master, painting themselves as Iraqi sympathizers and peace lovers with cancers hearts and poisonous mind they just keep listing writing each time it’s a Shia’ats and Sunni conflict in Iraq and they hid and cover the real enemy who working for last four years to ignite the ethnic war as they dreamed.
    I say to those who believe and thinks that Iraq have Sunni/Shia’at conflicts, you are wrong and what is in Iraq there are enemies behind the curtains who killing from both sides to ignite the civil war and use it for excuses for long stay in Iraq, can some one tell us why Iraqi Sunni not run from the first day and killed Iraqi Shia’at in 2003 0r 2004?
    Also the Kurds are mix of Sunni and Shia’ts (20% Shia’ats if my figure right) why there is no killing between Sunni Kurds and Shia’ats Kurd?
    Any one asked himself why?
    Last thing to say go and visit Iraqis in Syria and Jordan who feeling Iraq every day from 2003 on daily basis and see yourself are they all Sunni or all Shia’ats, dose they hate each others and killing each other!!!….you will find the truth and who is lying on you

  42. David,
    I am sorry if you are upset by my use of the term “spin”. I guess that this is a reaction to the common practice of people here – including the moderator and host of this “forum” – to call those who provide arguments that counter the received wisdom “hasbaristas” who are guilty of “dissembly” (i.e. lying) and the use of meaningless, negative constructs such as “the military-industrial-neocon-Likud complex”.
    As to my “beef” with Carter, this has to do with his poor performance as President of the United States. Personally, I believe that had he shown more leadership at the time, the world would not be experiencing much of the death and destruction that we have witnessed over the past decade, but I cannot, of course, prove the causality implied here.
    For what it’s worth, I also find it totally unfounded to question my concern for American servicemen (or, for that matter, Iraqi civilians) or to make the wholesale assertion that anyone who does not agree with the arguments presented here is somehow “wish[ing] for air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities”. If you feel that statements such as these somehow contribute to a “respectful and just… debate”, then please feel free to tell us how.

  44. “I also find it totally unfounded to question my concern for American servicemen”
    JES, if you would like to post a sincere denunciation of the neocon agenda here, I would be glad to reconsider.

  46. “Believe it or not, John, I’m not interested in your approval.”
    And yet, you are so easily offended by my contempt.

  47. Jes,
    – I was/am not upset, just wondering about your usage of the term “spin”.
    – I don’t know what “hasbaristas” means or who says it. I looked it up but couldn’t find it. I tried different similar roots in the OED and still no luck. What does that mean? Do you know the root?
    – About my use of the term “the military-industrial-neocon-Likud complex”, yes I did make that up. But it makes sense to me in the contemporary circumstances. It seems obvious to me that the military-industrial complex has been working hand-in-hand with neocon-Likud cabal over the past few years. If you’d like, I can throw an “oil-media” into the complex for the sake of completeness. I can imagine how you could find that a “negative construct”.
    – I have no idea about your feelings for American servicemen. Did I say anything about that?
    – I don’t know if you are “wish[ing] for air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities”. Again, I didn’t say so. Are you?

  48. I don’t know what “hasbaristas” means or who says it. I looked it up but couldn’t find it. I tried different similar roots in the OED and still no luck. What does that mean? Do you know the root?
    I suggest you do a JWN archive search for the term.
    “neocon-Likud” cabal? Is this related to a liberal-Islamofacist coven?

  49. Jumping in just long enough to be a pedant:
    “Hasbara” is a Hebrew word that, as far as I understand, means “public relations.” Entities that engage in hasbara include (1) all advertisers in Israeli media; (2) nearly all Israeli political, media and cultural figures; and (3) the Israeli government, which engages in various PR/propaganda efforts abroad.
    Some non-Hebrew speakers have adopted the term “hasbara” exclusively in the third sense – i.e., that of official propaganda – and use it to describe either pro-Israel advocacy by the Israeli government or pro-Israel advocacy in general. The use of “hasbara” in this way, like any insertion of a foreign word into an English sentence, also connotes that the propaganda under discussion is a somewhat alien phenomenon that the word “propaganda” doesn’t fully describe. It has also become common, in some circles, to characterize any defense of Israel as “hasbara,” thus intimating that the defender is a propagandist (or, depending upon the listener, a member of a state propaganda machine) rather than an individual rightly or wrongly speaking his mind.
    The use of “hasbara” for pro-Israel advocacy is appropriate in some circumstances but not in others. If the editor of, say, the Guardian gets 5000 pro-Israel letters that all read the same, then it’s fair to conclude that the letters are part of an organized propaganda (or, if you will, hasbara) campaign. On the other hand, I’d argue that the term usually isn’t fairly used to describe someone speaking his mind on a blog. Your mileage may vary.

  50. Jonathan,
    The word hasbara means, literally “explanation”. There is another word for propaganda, which is ta’amula. Public relations is yahasei tzibur.
    While the latter two terms definitely have the connotation of “spin” or even “sleight of hand”, there is no such implied meaning in the term hasbara. The idea of hasbara has always been – rather naively perhaps – that if the Israeli point of view is explained carefully and patiently enough, that the inherent justice of the position will be clear. The idea has never been one of propaganda or, as some here have claimed, “obfuscation and dissembly”.
    Anti-Israel advocates (as well as propagandists) apparently find it useful to label any pro-Israel position as being “hasbara” – using the Hebrew word, I believe, for exactly the reasons that you have stated. I think it is troublesome because it is an attempt (often rather crude) to silence opposing opinions without the need to analyze or respond to them.
    The specific term “hasbarista” is not only problematic; it is also offensive. This term was proudly coined by the owner of this blog and moderator of its forum, and it not only uses the highly misleading and inapropriate term “hasbara”, it also rests on her implied assertions that Israelis sit in Tel Aviv “sipping lattes” while effectively giving Palestinians the finger. (She responded quite emphatically to my tongue-and-cheek suggestion that she and others might be referred to as “HizboLobbyists”, yet she fails to grasp how I might be offended by being referred to as what amounts to an uncaring, “latte-sipping propagandist”. Introspection is not something I’ve come to expect here.)
    I have a further problem with constructs such as “neocon-Likud”, in that they (a) imply a relationship which does not really exist and (b) because they imply that both “neocons” and “Likudniks” are part of monolithic, ideological movements with clearly stated manifestos and unified principles and objectives. This is not the case for so-called “neocons”, and it certainlly is not the case for “Likudniks”. I have, on numerous occasions here, asked for people to define for us exactly what they mean by “Likud” or what they understand the Likud to be. No one has ever taken me up on this, and I find that interesting.
    In the absence of a clear and substantiated explanation of exactly what a “neocon-Likud cabal” is, I can only conclude that it is simply used in the same way that some people throw around terms like “Islamofacism”.

  51. JES, thanks for correcting my Hebrew.
    In January 2005, I attempted to pick apart the numerous factions that made up the Likud Party at that time. That analysis is no longer accurate in light of the Kadima split-off, but even the truncated Likud of today is multipolar and multi-factional: there’s the Likud built on Mizrahi identity politics, the Likud of Thatcherite neo-liberals, the Likud that is a lineal descendent of Herut, etc.
    My experience is that many Americans use “Likudnik” as a synonym for “greater Israel fanatic” or “Israeli far-rightist,” which is ironically a definition that includes only part of the Likud and would better describe parties like Yisrael Beiteinu and Ichud Leumi. I tend to use “Herutnik” as a term of convenience for such people, but this term requires a certain knowledge of Israeli political history, and “Ichud Leuminik” totally fails the euphony test. I’m not a fan of reductionist terminology in general, and I’d argue that this kind of shorthand is an example of why such terms often obscure more than they reveal.

  52. Jes and Jonathan,
    Thank you for your etymological dissection of the term hasbara; it was interesting learning. I have not been a reader of this site for that long, and I guess I had missed the coining ceremony. You do know that the OED loves to hear about new word lineages and their usage; if it passes their vetting process, they include it on their online edition, and in the next print/DVD version whenever it comes out. Why don’t you drop them a line? Unless they are infiltrated by “the lobby”, in which case you may be put on a watch list. (I am most certainly kidding Jes.)
    About the terms neocon and Likudnik, I agree and disagree. Yes, like most other social categories, they can very seldom be monolithic. We recently had an interesting dialogue with Jonathan (and Helena, for part of the way) about the diversity of opinions and ethnic roots in Iran and Israel. Jonathan explained some of the basic dynamics of the Israeli groupings, and how it does not bode well to use caricature notions of these, or any other groups for that matter. I accept that. And hence, as he points out here, these kinds of short hands or “reductionist terminology” would not be well suited for a scholarly paper or other serious usage. Yet, if not just being used as a cheap-shot jab, I don’t believe their usage to be detrimental.
    The terms at hand for example. Yes there are many neoconservative professors in the ivory towers of academia who completely disagree with “the cabal’s” recent projects, and perhaps if Leo Strauss himself were alive he would have looked on with disgust. But, in the US public eye, most of the political players who have been identified with the neocon stripe have more or less worked in lockstep (tactical differences permitted). Hence, if you read the term “American neoconservative agenda” in an Italian, Brazilian, or Romanian paper, the authors have the same thing in mind. Yes, the Likud party has many subdivisions, and an interesting historical evolution. Yet to the non-Israeli world at large, it has come to symbolize the view that the Palestinian national aspiration is a non-existent and forged narrative, which should be ignored altogether. The land between the Jordan and the sea (or some would say between the Nile and the Euphrates) belongs to the heirs of Joshua (even if not in the religious, then in a secular sense) and anything that stands in the way of this objective should and will be crushed. (If applied to a non-Israeli, it usually implies dual loyalty.) I understand that not every past and present member of the Likud thinks like this, and there are parties with less international fame (notoriety?) who represent this view much closer, but the Likud has come to symbolize this view (and it has not done much to dispel the image). The same can be said about the opposing side. “Hezbollah”, was used many years before the Lebanese party came into existence by groups of mystics who claimed that they shunned all human groups, and were just members of God’s own group, as mentioned in the Koran. The term jihad has been used many more times in Islamic texts to refer to the quest for enlightment and self-growth, than battle with a sword or rifle. Yet these two words are now used almost exclusively to represent a certain view that is very different (some would say diametrically opposed to) those original meanings.
    I apologize for my ramblings on, but I guess my simple point is that when terms such as “neocon-Likud” are used, they clearly are not meant as a scholarly dissection of those schools of thought. Any such discussion would necessitate the inclusion of many opposing viewpoints (as evidenced by the very interesting comments on Jonathan’s Likud post). Since such a vast discussion is not practically possible whenever mentioning political trends and gestalts, such terms essentially refer to the tactical alliance of members of those groups to achieve certain goals, symbolized by certain prominent members. There is nothing wrong with their usage, IMHO. What would be wrong would be taking them literally as face-value representative terms.
    The term Islamo-Fascism on the other hand is of a different category. It would be the equivalent of Zio-Nazi. I find both terms revolting, and detrimental to a meaningful discourse. In most case, I have seen them used basically as hate-speech.

  53. David, I agree up to a point. Words do acquire meaning through usage, and if a certain word is commonly understood as meaning X, then non-malicious use of it to mean X isn’t objectionable.
    Two caveats, though: First, a shorthand term that’s understood a certain way in one country or among people of a given ideology might not be understood the same way by people of other countries or persuasions, thus potentially causing miscommunication. Second, if common usage contains more than a certain level of stereotyping, then its use might be counterproductive even in casual discourse. Granted, all shorthand terms contain a certain amount of simplification and stereotyping, and reasonable minds may disagree as to how much of each is tolerable, but if someone started using “Hizbullah” as shorthand for all political Islamists (or all Lebanese Shi’ites), I’d certainly object to that usage.
    Then again, someone near and dear to me has often said that I care too much about semantics, and she may be right.
    BTW, I’d love to continue the Iranian part of that conversation one of these days. I learned a great deal from it, which doesn’t always happen in discussions about the ME.

  54. David,
    I assume that you are too young to have experienced any “red-baiting” in the late 1950s early 1960s US, but that’s what your use of terms like “neocon-Likud cabal” remind me of. It has all the elements of implied collusion in a doctrinaire conspiracy that places the interests of another state and a global movement first. It’s no different than calling someone a “Commie”, a “Red” or, worst of all, a “Fellow Traveler” without really specifying what one really means by these terms. It’s not only offensive; it’s dangerous.
    As to your “understanding” of what the Likud is, I suggest that you take a closer look at that “historical evolution” you mention and examine the various roots – revisionists, liberals, mizrahim, etc. You might also want to examine statements such as:
    The land between the Jordan and the sea (or some would say between the Nile and the Euphrates) belongs to the heirs of Joshua (even if not in the religious, then in a secular sense) and anything that stands in the way of this objective should and will be crushed.
    I note here that a good amount of Palestinian propaganda has filtered into your own definition. The “Nile to Euphrates” crap, for example, was never part of even the most extreme revisionist dogma, and it is questionable about how much “crushing” has been called for. Not even Jabotinsky’s heir – Menahem Begin (who, I remind you was, just like Jimma, a Nobel Lauriate) – espoused such beliefs.
    At any rate, I hope that the following reported in Haaretz this morning is, indeed, true, and that local players have managed to forge a local agreement:
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/813817.html

  55. Jes,
    No I was not personally present in the 50s to experience red-baiting. But I think I know enough about the era to see a deep flaw in your “commie vs. neocon metaphor”. The commies/pinkos were persecuted, lost jobs, and much more; hundreds of lives were ruined. I have yet to hear of any harm coming to any of those considered neocons or Likudniks. I may be wrong.
    About how much crushing has actually been going on in Palestine, you fault me for listening to the crushees’ stories. It just occurs to me that they seem to be more reliable than the crushers’ self-acquitting version. The ‘Nile to Euphrates’, I have heard first hand from people who claimed eternal rights to that deed. If you really haven’t seen them, consider yourself fortunate. I don’t think Begin’s Nobel prize makes him any less of a criminal. I don’t find that institution as a litmus for anything. They gave one to Kissinger for goodness sake (in the same year he was busy overthrowing Allende!).
    I too hope that the Ha’aretz report is true. I am not holding my breath though.

  56. Jonathan,
    I agree with both of your caveats (the possibilities of miscommunication and the dangers of oversimplified stereotyping).
    Your personal adviser may be right, but I think you are an attorney; to my understanding, it is an occupational hazard.

  57. David,
    You are correct that you have not yet seen “any harm coming to any of those considered neocons or Likudniks.” However, judging by the rantings of many here and elsewhere, I am reasonably certain that there are those who would like to see such “harm” come to leading representatives of the supposed “neocon-Likud cabal”. From there, it is not difficult to imagine, say, a failing first-term senator holding up a piece of paper and declaring “I have here a list of neocon-Likud members of “The Lobby” currently serving in government positions.” This is what could turn the metaphor, as you call it, into a historical analogy, and it is precisely why I believe that your imprecise use of these loaded terms is dangerous.
    You may have heard “Nile to Euphrates” rants from individuals. Were they Likudniks or neocons? I doubt it. I am certain that there are radical Islamists who believe that they have “eternal rights” to the real estate from the Indus to the Rhone. So what? And, while it may be true that members of Betar still sing “both banks of the Jordan”, a reading of the Hamas Covenant is quite clear that they claim a deed to all land from the river to the sea as part of the Muslim awqaf by right of conquest. I really don’t see much difference.

  58. At any rate, I hope that the following reported in Haaretz this morning is, indeed, true
    The timing of the story is certainly interesting, isn’t it? I’m guessing that it’s a leak from Livni’s office, with two goals: (1) to prod Olmert into reopening negotiations; and (2) to force Condi to say something positive about Israeli-Syrian peace. My read is that Livni wants to pick up where the secret talks left off, but she believes that the United States is opposed to negotiations.
    If this is true, then Olmert had better grab it with both hands, or if he isn’t willing, step aside and let Livni do it herself.

  59. Yes Jonathan. Quite possible. Livni is ahead in the polls for leadership of Kadima.
    I heard Akiva Eldar on the radio this morning. He put forward as a reason for the strong government denials that for Israel to have been negotiating with Syria over the past two years would be a significant breach of understanding with the US not to do so. He also said that the denials were very “technical”, rather than absolute. For what it’s worth, Eldar was extremely confident in his story, which is a hopeful sign.
    What is truly a hopeful sign here is that, if the story is indeed true, it is a case of understanding having been reached by the parties themselves without prodding from outside on either side. This would be a really good thing, because I believe that such an agreement would have a much better chance of succeeding. I particularly liked the idea of turning much of the Golan into a park accessible to both sides. This is a highly creative solution, which shows that the parties are trying to make a go of it.
    I guess we’ll have to wait and see, but maybe there’s still a chance for me to realize my dream of visiting Damascus.

  60. What is truly a hopeful sign here is that, if the story is indeed true, it is a case of understanding having been reached by the parties themselves without prodding from outside on either side. This would be a really good thing, because I believe that such an agreement would have a much better chance of succeeding.
    It certainly seems to give both sides what they want – Syria gets the Golan back, Israel gets secure water rights and a third-party early warning station, and both countries get a demilitarized frontier. The park idea certainly overcomes the objections that scuttled the last round of talks under Barak.
    My own pet proposal regarding the Golan was to cede sovereignty to Syria but lease back about half the land area to Israel, as was done with the border adjustments that accompanied the Jordan peace treaty. This would have the advantage of reducing relocation costs. On the other hand, if the withdrawal is spaced over 5 to 15 years as envisioned by the agreement, the cost of relocation can be amortized, and an international park is something Damascus is much more likely to accept.
    At any rate, one of the key aspects of this story, which has been an open secret for several months (and which I believe Helena mentioned in one of her recent posts), is that the United States has been blocking bilateral Israeli-Syrian negotiations. At least to my untrained eye, that seems inconsistent with the notion that American foreign policy is run for Israel’s benefit.

  61. Jonathan Edelstein,
    At least to my untrained eye, that seems inconsistent with the notion that American foreign policy is run for Israel’s benefit.
    Really Jonathan Edelstein? You are kidding us…
    Did any one needs training to see “American foreign policy” for decades “run for Israel’s benefit”.
    I thought you are smarter than that?

  62. BTW, for decades billions US tax payers money goes to Israel Jonathan Edelstein, and I recall you saying you have no problem, with that……

Comments are closed.