Just so we're clear, Iran has spent the last 40 years using perceived outside aggression as a tool for societal cohesion. Engaging in actual aggression is the last thing you wanna do.
And it's not as if it's been just "perceived" after all, modern Iran started out by overthrowing their US-backed dictatorship. Iran may be fairly bad guys, but that doesn't mean we're the good guys either.
And lets not forget the recent explosions at Iranian research centers. Mysterious death of a scientist as well...
I sometimes wonder if the current government has essentially decided on covert sabotage and black ops.
Better than overt war.
I'm not trying to sound snarky or anything, and I'm not an expert on Tehran, but this smacks a little too much of an old James Bond movie plot or a modern video game hook, or even tin-foil hat conspiracy theories.
The string of assassinations and sabotage against Iran's nuclear program has been well documented, and it is widely assumed that Israel is primarily involved, maybe with some US assistance.
I may have misread--I meant to say, "I really doubt this was the work of the current Iranian government, as in a false flag operation."
The United States? Given that we've already established the US Government will, besides war and other stuff it loves, fly commando teams in helicopters into a ostensible allies' sovereign airspace without its knowledge to find and kill a high value target, yeah, I guess it's in the realm of possibilty.
I just wanted to point out, even if those "accidents" were orchestrated the US might actually not be behind them. I'm personally more inclined to believe that Russias or Israels intelligence agencies might be doing some dirty work. Medvedev/ Putin definitely seem like the kind of guy/s who might actually do something like that.
That doesn't really make it any less James Bond though, I have to admit. In fact it probably makes it even more so.
On the other hand, this is way less likely. About as likely as a deliberate effort on Tehran's part. As much as we love to think that P.M. Putin or Medvedev, as C-in-C of armed forces, exist solely to fulfill our Cold War conspiracy fantasies, courtesy of being spoon fed Tom Clancy for for the last 3 decades, they actually don't and, shockingly, have their own increasingly delicate relationship with Iran that they don't just decide to shit on for street cred or to prove who has the biggest balls in the Eurasian intelligence community.
Plus, and I have no problem saying this--the notion that the most elite elements in the Russian Federation's security and military intelligence bodies would be capable of pulling this off with no unintended response from the rest of the world is giving them way too much credit. They are living human beings, not God or magicians.
Are foreign secret police services involved in Iran? Yes, including America's. Did they cause that particular incident? Perhaps. But on the list of parties involved, alone or together, Russia is quite a ways down, though still ahead of Iran proper.
'Saudis have concerns about their Shia populations'. I just love how American politicians and commentators just go right ahead and skip over the fact that the Saudi Royal Family is asshole-bigots central, and go straight to highlighting the benefits of being BFF with asshole-bigots.
If nothing else, they have realized their vulnerability on that front, and have begun incorporating minority sects more and more into the state religious apparatus. It's kind of a limited program, though, akin to sectarian affirmative action.
And other fun things, like invading a neighbor in a display of Arab state-on-state aggression not seen since one Saddam Hussein decided that Iraq was missing a province. But it was OK and different, because of something. Oh right I remember, Iran was fermenting revolution and chaos. We sure wouldn't want them bullying neighbors, invading them, and brutally putting down protests. That would be terrible.
It isn't a state-on-state aggression if the other state's government asked for you to come and help.
'Saudis have concerns about their Shia populations'. I just love how American politicians and commentators just go right ahead and skip over the fact that the Saudi Royal Family is asshole-bigots central, and go straight to highlighting the benefits of being BFF with asshole-bigots.
If nothing else, they have realized their vulnerability on that front, and have begun incorporating minority sects more and more into the state religious apparatus. It's kind of a limited program, though, akin to sectarian affirmative action.
And other fun things, like invading a neighbor in a display of Arab state-on-state aggression not seen since one Saddam Hussein decided that Iraq was missing a province. But it was OK and different, because of something. Oh right I remember, Iran was fermenting revolution and chaos. We sure wouldn't want them bullying neighbors, invading them, and brutally putting down protests. That would be terrible.
It isn't a state-on-state aggression if the other state's government asked for you to come and help.
Yes, it's the entirely legitimate kind of aggression, to support the parasitic form of government the Saudi royals want all Arabs to live under. Kind of like how you can't be a rapist if a woman's husband invites you to help him do a little raping.
'Saudis have concerns about their Shia populations'. I just love how American politicians and commentators just go right ahead and skip over the fact that the Saudi Royal Family is asshole-bigots central, and go straight to highlighting the benefits of being BFF with asshole-bigots.
If nothing else, they have realized their vulnerability on that front, and have begun incorporating minority sects more and more into the state religious apparatus. It's kind of a limited program, though, akin to sectarian affirmative action.
And other fun things, like invading a neighbor in a display of Arab state-on-state aggression not seen since one Saddam Hussein decided that Iraq was missing a province. But it was OK and different, because of something. Oh right I remember, Iran was fermenting revolution and chaos. We sure wouldn't want them bullying neighbors, invading them, and brutally putting down protests. That would be terrible.
It isn't a state-on-state aggression if the other state's government asked for you to come and help.
Yes, it's the entirely legitimate kind of aggression, to support the parasitic form of government the Saudi royals want all Arabs to live under. Kind of like how you can't be a rapist if a woman's husband invites you to help him do a little raping.
This reasoning worked when basically the entire industrialized world (and then some) invaded Russia and Ukraine immediately after the First World War. Some things don't change.
'Saudis have concerns about their Shia populations'. I just love how American politicians and commentators just go right ahead and skip over the fact that the Saudi Royal Family is asshole-bigots central, and go straight to highlighting the benefits of being BFF with asshole-bigots.
If nothing else, they have realized their vulnerability on that front, and have begun incorporating minority sects more and more into the state religious apparatus. It's kind of a limited program, though, akin to sectarian affirmative action.
And other fun things, like invading a neighbor in a display of Arab state-on-state aggression not seen since one Saddam Hussein decided that Iraq was missing a province. But it was OK and different, because of something. Oh right I remember, Iran was fermenting revolution and chaos. We sure wouldn't want them bullying neighbors, invading them, and brutally putting down protests. That would be terrible.
It isn't a state-on-state aggression if the other state's government asked for you to come and help.
Yes, it's the entirely legitimate kind of aggression, to support the parasitic form of government the Saudi royals want all Arabs to live under. Kind of like how you can't be a rapist if a woman's husband invites you to help him do a little raping.
Well, that's sort of the crux of the issue, isn't it? One of the tenets of centralized government is that the state has a monopoly on violence.
Looks like all that sabre rattling in the Gulf didn't do a thing.
Now we will see if the sabers are drawn. Also if several million people get fucked economically. The Gulf States were not exactly in a pretty state before this shit. The sanctions will make Iran worse. If the strait gets blocked, a lot more people are going to feel the pinch.
Looks like all that sabre rattling in the Gulf didn't do a thing.
Now we will see if the sabers are drawn. Also if several million people get fucked economically. The Gulf States were not exactly in a pretty state before this shit. The sanctions will make Iran worse. If the strait gets blocked, a lot more people are going to feel the pinch.
The Govt statement to Iran was that a blockade would cause a slight case of Exterminatus. Of course there would b an economic shitstorm first. Fill your gas tank.
Oil's weird. If I'm remembering correctly literally took a decade (actually more) for the modern Russian Federation to match the average oil production of the Russian SFSR (not the whole Soviet Union, just Soviet Russia). And that's with a flood of "western technology". It also took a dismantling of much of the early-90s corporation boom oil enterprises and a reestablishment of the actual authority of the Energy Ministry.
Of course, we're talking about a historic context in which state ownership was the norm (before the Russian Revoluton, the Tsar owned literally every liter of oil in the ground, and most of it above it, via the autocracy). Not necessarily the same in Venezuela.
'Saudis have concerns about their Shia populations'. I just love how American politicians and commentators just go right ahead and skip over the fact that the Saudi Royal Family is asshole-bigots central, and go straight to highlighting the benefits of being BFF with asshole-bigots.
If nothing else, they have realized their vulnerability on that front, and have begun incorporating minority sects more and more into the state religious apparatus. It's kind of a limited program, though, akin to sectarian affirmative action.
And other fun things, like invading a neighbor in a display of Arab state-on-state aggression not seen since one Saddam Hussein decided that Iraq was missing a province. But it was OK and different, because of something. Oh right I remember, Iran was fermenting revolution and chaos. We sure wouldn't want them bullying neighbors, invading them, and brutally putting down protests. That would be terrible.
It isn't a state-on-state aggression if the other state's government asked for you to come and help.
Yes, it's the entirely legitimate kind of aggression, to support the parasitic form of government the Saudi royals want all Arabs to live under. Kind of like how you can't be a rapist if a woman's husband invites you to help him do a little raping.
As dirty as I feel while saying this, none of the 30 deaths were caused by Saudi munitions. We were there to protect governmental and infrastructural buildings. But yes, our presence did release a lot of the resources used to opress and kill the protestors, and that was not cool.
And this is exactly why Iran's not so bad as politicians are trying to make it sound. Iran knows perfectly well that stopping the world's oil supply is going to end up hurting them even harder than anyone else.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Officials said 44 people died in a suicide attack targeting Shia pilgrims in the city of Nasiriya.
Earlier, at least 24 people were killed in a number of blasts in Shia areas of Baghdad.
Sectarian tensions have risen after the last US combat troops left in December and an arrest warrant was issued for Sunni Vice-President Tariq al-Hashemi.
The BBC's Rafid Jabboori in Baghdad says Iraq is going through a severe political crisis and the situation in the country is tense.
Now a bombing in Syria. It really seems like a stalemate there, reminiscent of Libya really. The protesters/rebels can't seem to make any ground, but the government can put down the dissent either. So I guess they'll just kill each other some more and see how it works out.
Now a bombing in Syria. It really seems like a stalemate there, reminiscent of Libya really. The protesters/rebels can't seem to make any ground, but the government can put down the dissent either. So I guess they'll just kill each other some more and see how it works out.
Nice to see them continue to become what they hate.
Are you trying to imply some kind of anti-Arab racism behind this? BOTH Jews and Arabs are barred against being with Palestinian spouses, so the law is not discriminatory! Also, countries are allowed to set their immigration policy, so this is not different than what any other country does. This a COMPLICATED issue that deals SECURITY.
As a side note, would you care to address your extreme anti-semitism?
Nice to see them continue to become what they hate.
Are you trying to imply some kind of anti-Arab racism behind this? BOTH Jews and Arabs are barred against being with Palestinian spouses, so the law is not discriminatory! Also, countries are allowed to set their immigration policy, so this is not different than what any other country does. This a COMPLICATED issue that deals SECURITY.
As a side note, would you care to address your extreme anti-semitism?
All I'm saying is that the ruling probably read better in the original German.
The Gulf States - minus Saudi Arabia - really are a spot to watch in the Middle East.
Make no mistake, they remain corporate/monarchist/totalitarian dystopias straight out of a William Gibson novel, but they are also the place in the region where a lot of different people from all over the world are sharing ideas. The region's middle class is largely made up of Westerners and Asians from democratic nations imported en masse to work in the administrative, public relations/marketing, banking, business, engineering and education sectors.
Those transplants are influencing the culture of the region. Unlike the working class immigrants from places like India and Pakistan, the middle class Westerners are very well compensated and mingle freely with the locals. Entire generations of middle and upper class locals, along with visiting businessmen from across the region and world, are mingling in the same clubs, workplaces, universities, gated communities and apartment complexes, sharing ideas. Al Jazeera is very much a product of this atmosphere.
The monarchies want to at least appear moderate - even if the recent protests show how thin that veneer is - because their populations want them to appear that way. Those small nations have become the region's Mediterranean, a region that remained extremely fond of totalitarians and religious maniacs long after the flowing of the Renaissance.
Now as a non-middle east expert, is this humanitarian motivated or power play motivated. Or is it sectual?
This is a little jargonistic, and I apologize for that, but: Qatar is what we in the international affairs sphere refer to as "a baller." :P
But yeah, they've been positioning themselves for awhile now as a benign intermediary for Arabs and Western powers. You see it in moves like allowing the Taliban to open an embassy in Qatar and in being the primary funder for the Libyan rebels.
I would agree with Phillishere: the Gulf monarchies will probably wind up being the prime movers in the 21st century toward Middle Eastern progress on things like economic liberalization (they're the biggest/wealthiest economies in the region, largely based on global trade and financial markets), combating fundamentalist Islamism (which ties into economic liberalization; Sadik al-Azm calls their moderate faith "good-for-business Islam"), and ironically enough in democratization efforts (King Abdullah already compromised in forming lower majlis councils at the state and municipal levels, and late last year gave women the vote).
It's why I wanna try to make a study abroad in Dubai happen. :P
Gulf Monarchs is a bit too broad, I think. It's important to remember that while Sheikh Hamad's Al Jazeera was covering the Egyptian protesters while Mubarak was still in power, the Saudi royals were urging the US to get behind Mubarak, and urging Mubarak to start shooting as many protesters as he could. And when those protests started happening closer to the Saudi sphere of influence, they showed exactly what kind of future they had in mind for the region. And in the UAE, it's all about "We have X... in a desert!" Not something I necessarily oppose, but it's different.
Hamad bin Khalifa is unusual, and I'm not sure how he came to view the establishment of powerful regional news network that advocates for democracy and free press as the best way to establish a legacy instead of just building the world's tallest building that's also 50% gold.
Gulf Monarchs is a bit too broad, I think. It's important to remember that while Sheikh Hamad's Al Jazeera was covering the Egyptian protesters while Mubarak was still in power, the Saudi royals were urging the US to get behind Mubarak, and urging Mubarak to start shooting as many protesters as he could. And when those protests started happening closer to the Saudi sphere of influence, they showed exactly what kind of future they had in mind for the region. And in the UAE, it's all about "We have X... in a desert!" Not something I necessarily oppose, but it's different.
Hamad bin Khalifa is unusual, and I'm not sure how he came to view the establishment of powerful regional news network that advocates for democracy and free press as the best way to establish a legacy instead of just building the world's tallest building that's also 50% gold.
That's why I excepted Saudi Arabia from that description. They're showing slow signs of moderating, but they are a religious theocracy who are as responsible for anyone for keeping the Muslim world unstable. Lots of Saudi money has gone to bad causes over the years. Westerners in Saudi are also segregated from the general society in ways that they aren't in the other Gulf states, so you don't exactly have a flourishing exchange of ideas and attitudes.
So I'm applying to this scholarship, in the hopes that they will foolishly entrust me with $8,000 to spend on hookers and/or blow somewhere in the Middle East. The program is basically set up so that they provide just the funding -- it's up to me to find a reputable study abroad program to host me for a summer or spring/fall semester. The only stipulation is that it can't be a country on the State Dept's Travel Warning list, and that pretty much just leaves:
Jordan
Oman
The UAE
Turkey
Qatar
Kuwait
Egypt (though I'd have to check with the Foundation -- I could've sworn Egypt was on the Warning list)
Russia received information that members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and some Persian Gulf countries are preparing military intervention in Syria, the head of the Russian Security Council said.
Turkey, a NATO member, may play a key role, Nikolai Patrushev, who used to head the country’s intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service, told Interfax in comments confirmed by his office. The U.S. and Turkey are working on a possible no-fly zone to protect Syrian rebels, Patrushev said.
“We are receiving information that NATO members and some Persian Gulf states, working under the ‘Libyan scenario’, intend to move from indirect intervention in Syria to direct military intervention,” the Russian security chief said.
I'm taking this with a massive grain of salt. The Russians have a bad habit of starting false rumours about impending events in the Middle East.
I was dumb and didn't notice that there's a Travel Warning for Lebanon, so scratch that one.
I considered Turkey, but they don't (to my knowledge) have many programs for Arabic language there; the scholarship will only give me $5,000 if it's a general academic program, but $8,000 if it's a State Dept. "critical need" language, of which Arabic is obviously one.
Right now I'm leaning towards Jordan or Oman. Jordan because it's right smack in the middle of the Arab world, has loads of history and culture, and there're a lot of solid study abroad programs there; Oman because I have Pakistani relatives there who are apparently close to the royal family, and who are accordingly pretty wealthy, so unexpected expenses and just general comfort shouldn't be an issue (even though I doubt they would be otherwise).
Again, this all assumes I even get accepted to the scholarship, though I feel like I have as good a shot as anyone -- the program is specifically intended for people pursuing "nontraditional" study abroad programs, highlights critical needs languages, and is targeted directly at me (Pell Grant recipient who attended a community college).
American University in Cairo has a solid program, and I'm considering it, but al-Azhar presumably has a better Islamic Studies program that would fit better with what I'm trying to do academically. Either way, they're both excellent options.
Dubai seems like it might be an interesting place to to go. The Las Vegas of the Middle East. Don't know what their academic programs are like, but didn't they build a replica of Avignon or Tours or some other medieval French university?
American University in Cairo has a solid program, and I'm considering it, but al-Azhar presumably has a better Islamic Studies program that would fit better with what I'm trying to do academically. Either way, they're both excellent options.
Posts
I may have misread--I meant to say, "I really doubt this was the work of the current Iranian government, as in a false flag operation."
The United States? Given that we've already established the US Government will, besides war and other stuff it loves, fly commando teams in helicopters into a ostensible allies' sovereign airspace without its knowledge to find and kill a high value target, yeah, I guess it's in the realm of possibilty.
On the other hand, this is way less likely. About as likely as a deliberate effort on Tehran's part. As much as we love to think that P.M. Putin or Medvedev, as C-in-C of armed forces, exist solely to fulfill our Cold War conspiracy fantasies, courtesy of being spoon fed Tom Clancy for for the last 3 decades, they actually don't and, shockingly, have their own increasingly delicate relationship with Iran that they don't just decide to shit on for street cred or to prove who has the biggest balls in the Eurasian intelligence community.
Plus, and I have no problem saying this--the notion that the most elite elements in the Russian Federation's security and military intelligence bodies would be capable of pulling this off with no unintended response from the rest of the world is giving them way too much credit. They are living human beings, not God or magicians.
Are foreign secret police services involved in Iran? Yes, including America's. Did they cause that particular incident? Perhaps. But on the list of parties involved, alone or together, Russia is quite a ways down, though still ahead of Iran proper.
It isn't a state-on-state aggression if the other state's government asked for you to come and help.
Yes, it's the entirely legitimate kind of aggression, to support the parasitic form of government the Saudi royals want all Arabs to live under. Kind of like how you can't be a rapist if a woman's husband invites you to help him do a little raping.
This reasoning worked when basically the entire industrialized world (and then some) invaded Russia and Ukraine immediately after the First World War. Some things don't change.
Well, that's sort of the crux of the issue, isn't it? One of the tenets of centralized government is that the state has a monopoly on violence.
Looks like all that sabre rattling in the Gulf didn't do a thing.
Now we will see if the sabers are drawn. Also if several million people get fucked economically. The Gulf States were not exactly in a pretty state before this shit. The sanctions will make Iran worse. If the strait gets blocked, a lot more people are going to feel the pinch.
The Govt statement to Iran was that a blockade would cause a slight case of Exterminatus. Of course there would b an economic shitstorm first. Fill your gas tank.
Of course, we're talking about a historic context in which state ownership was the norm (before the Russian Revoluton, the Tsar owned literally every liter of oil in the ground, and most of it above it, via the autocracy). Not necessarily the same in Venezuela.
As dirty as I feel while saying this, none of the 30 deaths were caused by Saudi munitions. We were there to protect governmental and infrastructural buildings. But yes, our presence did release a lot of the resources used to opress and kill the protestors, and that was not cool.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/iranian-commander-backs-away-from-threat-to-close-strait-of-hormuz-strategic-oil-route/2011/12/31/gIQARFAhSP_story.html
Exterminatus cancelled.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16420554
Now a bombing in Syria. It really seems like a stalemate there, reminiscent of Libya really. The protesters/rebels can't seem to make any ground, but the government can put down the dissent either. So I guess they'll just kill each other some more and see how it works out.
http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/israels-top-court-backs-bar-palestinian-spouses-135427485.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us
Nice to see them continue to become what they hate.
Fucking Assad.
Are you trying to imply some kind of anti-Arab racism behind this? BOTH Jews and Arabs are barred against being with Palestinian spouses, so the law is not discriminatory! Also, countries are allowed to set their immigration policy, so this is not different than what any other country does. This a COMPLICATED issue that deals SECURITY.
As a side note, would you care to address your extreme anti-semitism?
All I'm saying is that the ruling probably read better in the original German.
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/13/a_win_for_progressives_on_israel/
Holy Shit!
Now as a non-middle east expert, is this humanitarian motivated or power play motivated. Or is it sectual?
Make no mistake, they remain corporate/monarchist/totalitarian dystopias straight out of a William Gibson novel, but they are also the place in the region where a lot of different people from all over the world are sharing ideas. The region's middle class is largely made up of Westerners and Asians from democratic nations imported en masse to work in the administrative, public relations/marketing, banking, business, engineering and education sectors.
Those transplants are influencing the culture of the region. Unlike the working class immigrants from places like India and Pakistan, the middle class Westerners are very well compensated and mingle freely with the locals. Entire generations of middle and upper class locals, along with visiting businessmen from across the region and world, are mingling in the same clubs, workplaces, universities, gated communities and apartment complexes, sharing ideas. Al Jazeera is very much a product of this atmosphere.
The monarchies want to at least appear moderate - even if the recent protests show how thin that veneer is - because their populations want them to appear that way. Those small nations have become the region's Mediterranean, a region that remained extremely fond of totalitarians and religious maniacs long after the flowing of the Renaissance.
This is a little jargonistic, and I apologize for that, but: Qatar is what we in the international affairs sphere refer to as "a baller." :P
But yeah, they've been positioning themselves for awhile now as a benign intermediary for Arabs and Western powers. You see it in moves like allowing the Taliban to open an embassy in Qatar and in being the primary funder for the Libyan rebels.
I would agree with Phillishere: the Gulf monarchies will probably wind up being the prime movers in the 21st century toward Middle Eastern progress on things like economic liberalization (they're the biggest/wealthiest economies in the region, largely based on global trade and financial markets), combating fundamentalist Islamism (which ties into economic liberalization; Sadik al-Azm calls their moderate faith "good-for-business Islam"), and ironically enough in democratization efforts (King Abdullah already compromised in forming lower majlis councils at the state and municipal levels, and late last year gave women the vote).
It's why I wanna try to make a study abroad in Dubai happen. :P
Hamad bin Khalifa is unusual, and I'm not sure how he came to view the establishment of powerful regional news network that advocates for democracy and free press as the best way to establish a legacy instead of just building the world's tallest building that's also 50% gold.
That's why I excepted Saudi Arabia from that description. They're showing slow signs of moderating, but they are a religious theocracy who are as responsible for anyone for keeping the Muslim world unstable. Lots of Saudi money has gone to bad causes over the years. Westerners in Saudi are also segregated from the general society in ways that they aren't in the other Gulf states, so you don't exactly have a flourishing exchange of ideas and attitudes.
I'm taking this with a massive grain of salt. The Russians have a bad habit of starting false rumours about impending events in the Middle East.
I considered Turkey, but they don't (to my knowledge) have many programs for Arabic language there; the scholarship will only give me $5,000 if it's a general academic program, but $8,000 if it's a State Dept. "critical need" language, of which Arabic is obviously one.
Right now I'm leaning towards Jordan or Oman. Jordan because it's right smack in the middle of the Arab world, has loads of history and culture, and there're a lot of solid study abroad programs there; Oman because I have Pakistani relatives there who are apparently close to the royal family, and who are accordingly pretty wealthy, so unexpected expenses and just general comfort shouldn't be an issue (even though I doubt they would be otherwise).
Again, this all assumes I even get accepted to the scholarship, though I feel like I have as good a shot as anyone -- the program is specifically intended for people pursuing "nontraditional" study abroad programs, highlights critical needs languages, and is targeted directly at me (Pell Grant recipient who attended a community college).
I'm excited! :P
If they let me (and it looks like they will), Cairo would be my first choice. I should look into whether al-Azhar has a study abroad program...
The American University wouldn't be a bad choice.
I'm going entirely on campus location.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag
Remind me why they are our allies, again?