Hail Columbia

To the idiots of the right and the idiots of the left who have been raising such a stink (both before and after) about Mahmud Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University in New York yesterday, may I offer up my favorite quote of the year originally directed at said Iranian president by Columbia President Lee Bollinger:

"You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.”

The New York Times has extensive coverage of the brouhaha here, but suffice it to say I'm with those who believe that free speech was served yesterday not least because Ahmadinejad proved himself to be a first class buffoon.

Ahmadinejad suggested at Columbia that Iran doesn't have homosexuals. To prove it, here's the Revolutionary Guard looking very butch and not at all poofy

Dear Diary...

Had lunch Monday (along with about 80 others) with Milton Bearden, the former CIA chap who was head of station in Islamabad, Pakistan and who delivered the war-changing Stinger missiles to the Afghan Muj during their war against the Soviets. He later served as Eastern Europe honcho during the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. It can be said that he did his bit to hasten the demise of the ol' Evil Empire, but yesterday his comments over the caesar salad were mostly directed as to why the current lot running US foreign policy were about as much use as tits on a nun (I paraphrase). Most interesting, all told.

Its fascinating to me, who wanders past the transom when one stays moored to a spot long enough.

A Distinct Tonsorial Theme is Emerging

From the BBC:

Iran ban on 'Western' hairstyles

Fortunately for many Iranian men, the aggressive mullet has been deemed to have originated in ancient Persia:

Billy Ray Cyrus the Great

My Role in The Present Crisis

With Iranian President Ahmadinejad announcing this morning that the captured Royal Navy personnel will soon be freed, I think it is time for me to reveal the part I played in winning their liberty.

The eagle eyed among you may have noticed a diminution in the quality of recent posts. This is because it wasn't me posting, but rather a cunning doppelganger by the name of Hiram Tanktop. Mr. Tanktop's sterling work allowed me to slip away unnoticed to Tehran, where I have been rampaging through the halls of the Iranian Foreign and Security Ministries in my union jack underdrawers (no air conditioning, alas), screaming "Release the British Seamen!"

Obviously, my plain British spunk was too much for them.

I was shocked to see that the Iranian's had taken our lads' uniforms and dressed them in these boilersuits.

How Very Predictable

Melanie Philips, minus wig and glasses
While looking for the latest on the 15 British sailors and marines hanging on in Tehran's Hijab Hilton I accidentally stepped in a big pile of Melanie Phillips' column from the insufferable Daily Mail of March 28th. The very fact that Phillips' spews on behalf of the Hate Mail and is the author of a laughable book called Londonistan should discount her as an authoritative source on matters Middle Eastern, but I have to admit I had only rarely read her filth and was in the mood for a bit of rough, so I took the plunge. Here's some of the choicer cuts:

"Admiral Lord Nelson must be revolving in his grave. While on patrol in the Shatt-al-Arab waterway between Iran and Iraq, 15 Royal Marines and sailors were seized by Iran on a trumped up charge that they had entered Iranian waters.....

We have consistently shown we are not prepared to defend ourselves. In 2004, the British servicemen who were kidnapped by Iran were spirited to Tehran and paraded blindfold on television, which broadcast their apprehensive apologies for a ‘big mistake’. It was an act of war against us. We let them get away with it....

Third, we should announce that we are seeking a UN resolution condemning the kidnap of our Marines and enabling us to use ‘all necessary means’ to get them back. And we should back this up with some significant moves by a couple of frigates. In short, we need to rattle some sabres through a far more muscular and indeed coercive diplomacy...." (the rest of this crap is here, if you must)

How nice of Ms. Phillips, a woman of late middle age and as far as I can tell no military reserve obligations, to offer up the lives of young British servicemen and women in pursuit of some vague notion of national outrage (outrage missing, it appears, from Britain's High Streets). We don't want to lose you but we think you ought to go, and all that. Perhaps in an effort to drum up troops for her proposed diversionary effort she'd like to stand outside some of Britain's rougher housing estates handing out white feathers to those of military age not in uniform. Wikipedia notes she has two children: if they are of age, can we presume they are doing their bit for the Union Jack, defending British honour against johnny foreigner and reminding him whose empire it is anyway?

Of course, Ms. Phillips makes no mention as to why Britain's name is mud in Iran, and has been long before any of the Ayatollahs were born. For those of you interested in the subject,this book is a decent place to start; if you want to get a grip on the Anglo-Iranian thing in the context of American policy, this one is rather good. But for Phillips that would of course mean reading things that don't cleave to her pre-existing world view. Of course seizing the sailors was a dumb move (didn't the Iranians understand that Royal Navy tars on shore for more than 20 minutes without access to cheap lager become unmanageable?) but acting as if the Iranians had given the Queen a dirty sanchez is even dumber.

Oh and Phillips, take your horrible mitts off Nelson, thank you very much. We Norfolk types don't care for his misappropriation by idiots. To suggest that Horatio would have chased pell mell after the Iranians betrays a breathtaking ignorance of the great man's methods. Bold and decisive he may have been, but he was also a meticulous planner who never fought a battle half-cocked or on terms of another's choosing.


Notwithstanding the above, I may have to start reading Phillips' column on a regular basis, if only to read her inevitable insistence that the British Government reactivate the Bengal Lancers to pursue the killers of cricket coach Bob Woolmer lest Britain's national honour wither on the vine.

History Friday on a Wednesday: "Civis Romanus Sum"

I was going to subtitle this rare "History Friday on a Wednesday" post "Gunboat Diplomacy", but the excellent Flying Rodent beat me to it. Pop over there and read his stuff, there's a bunch of loves, as he's rather splendid.

Anyway, to my post. With 15 British merry Matelots and bolshy Booties under lock and key somewhere in deepest, darkest Iran, HMS Cornwall and her flotilla bobbing about sheepishly in the Shatt al Arab, and Tony Blair mumbling about how this sort of thing is just not on, one's thoughts wander back to the 1850s and the days of Prime Minister "Leg Over" Palmerston. Most specifically, the Pacifico Incident and the birth of gunboat diplomacy.

To quote (in it's entirety) the entry on the Pacifico Incident from The History of Great Britain:

"The decade of the Great Exhibition begins with an event which suggests a new British attitude to foreign policy. This is the approach later characterized as gunboat diplomacy, in which military force is used to impose the nation's will on another country.

Known as the Don Pacifico incident, the event concerns a Portuguese Jew of that name trading in Athens. When an anti-Semitic crowd burns his house, in 1847, he sues the Greek government for damages - with little result, until he appeals to Britain for help on the grounds that he is a British citizen (as a result of being born in Gibraltar).

The Liberal foreign secretary, Palmerston, provokes fierce controversy by the vigour of his response. He sends a naval squadron into the Aegean in 1850 to seize Greek ships to the value of Don Pacifico's claim. Censured in the house of lords, Palmerston wins a majority for his action in the commons where he argues that 'a British citizen, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him against injustice and wrong'.

Four years later the watchful eye and strong arm of England are in the care of a Conservative prime minister, Lord Aberdeen. He too sends warships to the Aegean to back up diplomacy, this time in support of Turkey.

A joint British and French fleet steams through the Dardanelles in 1854 as a gesture of warning to Russia. The result in this case is full-scale war in the Crimea. A few years later Britain and France again act together in distant waters. They use two minor incidents which would normally be the stuff of diplomacy (in the British case the offence of some Chinese officials in 1856 in boarding a British merchant ship and lowering the red ensign) as a pretext for launching a renewal of the Opium Wars.

The steam-assisted warship has made it possible, as never before, for a strong nation to police the entire world in its own interest. And to an unprecedented degree ordinary members of the public now feel closely in touch with events."

Not that I'm advocating for a minute that anything like that would work in this case (after all, the presence of our gunboats provoked their gunboats to attack our gunboats, etc, etc ad nauseam). But it must have been fun in the high Victorian era, and not just because of the outrageous facial hair.

Another Slam Dunk?

From today's New York Times:

Bush Declares Iran's Arms Role in Iraq Is Certain

It does seem a little odd however that Iran- while no doubt supportive of the Shia extremists blamed by Bush for the death of around 170 US troops- would be named as the prime cause of violence while the external supporters of Sunni insurgents who killed most of the remaining 2,800 dead Americans get a pass.

I wonder why no fingers are being pointed at Sunni states terrified of Iranian- and by extension, Shia- power like Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It has been credibly alleged by various intelligence agencies that Saudi Arabia has been arming and training Sunni extremists so that they have to fight the Shia in Iraq, not at home (and more credibly than any allegation leveled at Iran). That sounds like a familiar justification, doesn't it? The Saudis also recently made overtly bellicose noises at the time of the Baker Hamilton Report about intervening in Iraq should the Americans withdraw. I wonder why we aren't pointing fingers across Iraq's southern border rather than it's eastern one?

I dare say Iran is meddling in Iraq. It is in their interests to do so, as anything that keeps the Americans flustered and in reactive mode keeps the Americans out of Tehran. But as for the very specific charges made by the President against them, I'm not so sure. How would such easily traceable, amateur tactics be in their interest?

I'm going to hear Bush out in the vain hope that he's learned his lessons and is playing with a straight bat this time, but foremost in my mind when assessing his arguments will be the following:

1) With the Shia in control of the most important arms of government- including the ministries responsible for the police and army- why do they need home-made IEDs when they have access to government munitions dumps? Many of the unofficial militias and death squads seem to have no problems getting their hands on the latest uniforms for disguises and they are always armed to the teeth.

2) Did anyone reference Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's (himself a Kurd) recent visit to Tehran where offical promises of defense supplies were made to him by the Iranians? An event so un-cloak and dagger that it was reported in a profile of the man in the New Yorker? Are legitimately supplied weapons- some Iranian, some old Iraqi, some even American- being syphoned off by the insurgents? And if so, are we going to declare war on ourselves for losing track of weapons and money that found their way into the hands of the various insurgencies?

3) The number of references to Iranian-Al Qadea links that are ideologically unlikely to exist. First hint: when the adminstration flacks start referring to "Al Qadea leaders under house arrest" in Iran while deemphasizing the key word, "arrest".

4) The dispositions of the various Iraqi Shia groups, from the more mainstream Iraq-for-the-(Shia)-Arabs-not-Iranians followers of Ayatollah Al Sistani, through the more gangsterish Mahdi Army of Sadr, to the explicitly pro-Iranian Badr Brigades found mostly in the south. Who feels imune from the security crackdown? Who is reacting the most boldly? Whose actions most closely mirror official Iranian pronouncements?

5) Do members of Bush's administration appear to be speaking from a script? Sycronized references to "smoking guns" etc should be a real tip off that they are full of it. Again.

UPDATE: Alexander Cockburn in a similar vein, with more on the alleged Iranian weapons technology, here.

Selective Outrage and Utter Hypocrisy

This is apparently the gravest insult imaginable in the universe and the entire fabric of a religion is threatened by these ink lines on paper......
If an angry and hysterical mob wants to run about burning flags, hitting people, and waving their fists there is very little anyone can do about it, least of all try to apply reason to the situation. It is not just an islamic phenomenon as the recent race riots in Australia demonstrate; anarchic mobs running amok are incredibly popular across the globe. Perhaps its genetic; do chimps riot?

However, it is depressingly familiar to see cynical displays of outrage by the governments of these countries who understand all too well that whipped up hysteria and incandecent anger directed at an external outrage deflects attentions from shortcomings at home.

As for the claim that Islam does not mock or slander other religions, would the various state sponsors of one of the world's most offensive lies care to explain the central place held by the blood libel against judaism in many text books and television schedules throughout the muslim world?

...but this sort of thing apparently makes for a good book cover. From The Matzah of Zion written by Syrian Defense Minister Mustapha Tlass in 1983. Now in its 8th printing it remains a bestseller throughout the Arab world.
(And lest any conservative types out there take heart from my opinions on this, I'd like to emphasize that not least because of things like this, this, this, and him I think fundamentalist christians are c**ts too. To my mind fundamentalists of any stripe are unpleasant coves.)

History Friday on a Wednesday

Just one more. And it is totally relevant, so lay off with the egghead, boffin business:
On This Day, Feb 1: 1979: Exiled Ayatollah Khomeini returns to Iran

The Ayatollah - a title meaning Gift of God - emerged from his chartered plane looking tired and tearful to meet the 1,500 religious and political leaders allowed to meet him in the terminal building....He was openly belligerent towards the current government of Prime Minister Shahpur Bakhtiar.

"These people are trying to bring back the regime of the late Shah or another regime. I will strike with my fists at the mouths of this government. From now on it is I who will name the government," he claimed.

Dr Bakhtair responded by saying: "Don't worry about this kind of speech. That is Khomeini. He is free to speak but he is not free to act."

Ooops, Dr. Bakhtair. Misjudged that one, didn't we?
"You like me! You really like me!"

Ayatollah Assahollah

"You know where you are? You're in the jungle baby, and you're gonna daaiieeee!"*
With all this heightened fuss and bother for the past few months over Iran's atomic energy/nuclear weapons program I thought I'd better get up to speed on the latest public info out there, and so just before Christmas I strolled down to the Reading Corner here in Rockland and picked up a copy of The Persian Puzzle by Kenneth M. Pollack.

Pollack, a former CIA and NSC staffer, has written a pretty good book; a bit orientalist perhaps and less than well received by Iranian scholars but nonetheless thought provoking (and besides, since when should any book be taken as gospel? Not even the gospels should be taken as gospel). The point he raises that I have often overlooked in my amateur mental rambles through Persia concerns the tradition of matyrdom in Shia Islam that dates to its very establishment with the killing of Husayn (grandson-in-law of Mohammed, and son of Ali, from which the name Shia- Shi'at Ali, meaning "party of Ali"- comes from). To whit:

"Martydom and the story of Husayn dominate Sh'i theology...throughout his brief time in power Mossadeq (1950s prime minister forced out by supporters of the Shah with CIA/MI6 support) himself doubtless found it easy to assume that role... This tendency would be resurrected to an even greater extent during Ayatollah Khomeini's reign, when Iran almost seemed to be seeking its own destruction by taking on the whole world and hewing to causes that had long been lost."

And now of course the late Ayatollah's man Mahmoud Ahmadinejad holds the presidency of Iran, with the blessing of the powerful clerical autocracy, and he's johnny-on-the-spot when it comes to decisions about their nuclear program. Will this deep seated aspect of Shia belief influence this very devout man?

(*This man is actually sunni but shia clerics don't do action photos often).

Farsi Fission Freakout

WEASEL UNIVERSITY ONLINE: THE PERSIAN PROBLEM, OR JUST WHERE ARE THOSE IRANIAN MISSILES GOING TO BE POINTED?
Sit down class. Question one: why are the Iranians allegedly chasing a nuclear bomb? No Bush the Younger, not because they are 'evildoers'- you haven't been paying attention at all these past four years, have you? Well, for all of you who want to know more about the subject but don't have the time to wade through acres of paper or megabytes of websites, Professor Wisdom W. Weasel is here with his own highly speculative and mildly researched Q&A on the Iranian nuclear program. Read on at your own peril.

Q. Why is your map funny colors?
A. Because good maps that show the specific part of the world we are talking about are hard to pinch off the net.

Q. So why this map then?
A. Well, if you look in the bottom left-center, you'll find Iran. Look left and there's Iraq. Further left but off the map is nuclear armed Israel. To the right is Afghanistan and to the north the former central asian republics of the old Soviet Union. Further to the right of the map are three nuclear armed powers; Pakistan, India, and China. To the north is nuclear armed Russia, but you have to get through Chechnya and a couple of other unstable crazy towns to get there. Oh, and not shown on the map but stradling northern Iran, Iraq, and Turkey are the largest ethnic group in the world without a dedicated country, the Kurds.

Q. So what?
A. Well, the key to understanding Iran's desire to become a nuclear power can be found in the geo-political situation it finds itself in. Hence the map.

Q. Gigga-wha?
A. No, geo-politics. What makes Iran unique?

Q. Now you are asking me questions?
A. Yes.

Q. The wine 'Chardonnay' is named after its former king?
A. Nice guess, but wrong spelling of 'shah'. No, Iran is the only majority shia muslim country in the world governed by members of that sect. Iraq is majority shia, but should they ever finish writing a constitution in that poor, benightened country the shia will most likely have been pressured into playing nice with their kurdish and sunni compatriots resulting in a tripartate government structure about as stable as the one enshrined in the Lebanese constitution (but that's another Q&A).

Q. Big whupp.
A. Sarcasm does not suit you. Iran has a justifiable degree of paranoia about being surrounded by sunni dominated countries, given that no less an authority than the wahabbi sect of sunni Islam that predominates in our 'ally' Saudi Arabia, the Pakistani military intelligence arm, and Al Qadea condemns shi'ites as apostates. Between the 16th and the mid 18th century England faced similar challenges and fears as the most prominent Protestant nation adrift on a sea of militant and armed Catholicism, so the world has seen this kind of thing before.

Q. So the Iranians want nukes to protect themselves from the sunnis?
A. In part, but that would be too easy and explanation.

Q. -Groan-
A. Iran is on the periphery of the upcoming superpower tug-of-war of the 21st Century-

Q. The USA and China?
A. Actually, China and India. Now bitter economic rivals, with ideological differences in spades, India and China have already had a couple of shooting run-ins up around their shared border (back in the 60s or 70s China siezed control of a chunk of disputed territory from India; a sub-continental Alsace-Lorraine a la France's beef with Germany from 1870 to 1918). Both seek to be the voice of Asia in this new century and have aspirations to punch in their weight class in international institutions. China's concerns about India run deep- to the extent of maintaining a strategic relationship with India's blood enemy Pakistan (Pakistani arms shipments into their 'strategic depth' neighbor Afghanistan during the war with the Soviets ran along the 'Sino-Pak' highway over Chinese laid asphalt. The Pakistani military supported the Afghan muj for religious, ethnic, and security reasons; the Soviets were arming India, the muj trained Kashmiri militants to bleed India, and a stable, fundamentalist Afghanistan ruled by Pakistan's Pashtun kin gave Islamabad room to retreat and still fight if attacked by Indian conventional forces. This is why Pakistan backed the horrifically stabilizing Taleaban). India and China are nuclear powers, as is China's potential ally Pakistan.

Q. So Iran wants nukes in order to join the aspirant superpower dance?
A. Well, maybe. But more likely its in order to force its eastern neighbors to think about Iran when carving up the map and before they decide to throw their weight around like European powers in the late 19th century. For some reason the mullahs believe that Iran, its oil, and its quirky version of islam will be at risk should China and India start jockeying for position, or should Pakistan's current government be replaced by sunni extremists, or should the Taleaban continue their rebirth.

Q. But isn't Iran an extremist supporter of terrorism? What do they have to fear from other islamic extremists?
A. Undoubtedly. But the weird thing is- and I never thought I'd have to say this kind of thing- a state sponsor of terrorism is a much less dangerous beast than an ideological franchise like Al Qadea. Along with spreading the islamic revolution laid out by Kohmeni (more akin actually to Stalin's 'Socialism in One Country' concept than the internationalism of Leon Trotsky), the mullahs have a country to run, an economy to grow, and a population to keep quiet. To the latter end, a nuclear program appeals to Iranian nationalism and deflects attention from internal woes onto external enemies, but the post-Shah Iran is a mature society lacking the white heat of revolution (their war with Iraq put paid to much of that). Like everywhere else, Iranians are more concerned with their economic well being than with continuously emulating the prophet's march on Mecca. With my suposition that their desire to aquire nuclear weapons is a form of insurance, I dont see them giving a suitcase nuke to their proxy Hizbollah to use on Israel or America- something tells me that Tehran would be vaporized in response. Non-state actors like bin Laden don't have those worries. Also, when you operate out of a cave paying for things from your own private fortune you can expend energy on multiple enemies- the USA, Europe, Israel, and those you consider deviants from your own religion. Now, bin Laden wouldn't worry about an Iranian nuclear strike, but the governments or tribal leaders who shelter him most certainly would.

Q. So you are suggesting that an nuclear armed Iran would make us safer from Al Qadea?
A. Not for a second. But the Iranian government believes it would make them safer from a multitude of threats, That they believe that doesn't make them right, but nobody said world leaders had a monopoly on clear headed rationalism.

Q. What about the threat to us or to Israel?
A. First, I refer you to the last but one answer. They could try to hit Israel, but won't for the same reason the Soviets never nuked us- MAD. Also, the Iranians lack a suitable delivery system to hit the USA, or even Europe. Like Iraq, the best they will be able to muster is a homegrown variant on the Scud, or some piece of shoddy North Korean or Chinese missile kit. Do you think a North Korean missile delivery technology is going to make it undetected through the espionage cordon around the penninsula? China could be a problem- they need access to oil and might be induced to trade. But should an Iranian missile be seen atop a Chinese delivery system in a parade or spy-photo be prepared for a distinct cooling of cooperation economically and over Taiwan, China's priority number one. As for weakening our interests and friends, the Iranians have pretty much had a free ride for their proxy terrorism since the eighties (in Lebanon, Kofar Towers, Hizbollah, hijackings, etc) and have calmed things down since the end of the first Iraq War. As for Iraq itself, the Iranians don't need nukes- they have a carefully built and deep running connection with significant elements of the shia majority that means they can conduct policy subtly and through third parties in order to try and look out for their interests.

Q. So why are we freaked out?
A. Because any new country getting nukes is a serious issue. Things go wrong; coups happen. And limiting nukes is generally considered to be a good idea. Besides (and can you really claim to be surprised?) Iran appears to be talking out of both sides of its mouth claiming to negotiate to the outside world while telling Iranians it was only playing for time; suggesting that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei issued anti-nuclear weapons fatwas and loudly protesting their innocence while not really offering any convincing reasons as to why they need nuclear power.

Q. So what can we do? Are we going to go to war with Iran?
A. Part one of your question- there is a real case for the USA to step back and to pressure China into using its economic leverage and assumed regional clout (given their increasing economic relationship with Iran and their energy resources; relationships the USA chose to forgo through sanctions. Additionally, the Chinese aren't seen as responsible for maintaining the repressive regime of the Shah for decades. Imagine the British asking George Washington to not to build warships in the aftermath of the American Revolution while calling him an evil arsehole and you can imagine how well received American overtures are in Terhan. Notice they called America alone the "Great Satan", not western culture in general). Indeed, this week's The Economist suggests the very same thing, with the added bonus that a nuclear negotiator China could probably squeeze North Korea. As for part two, it all depends on what those maniacs in the Bush Administration had for breakfast.

Q. Is that it then?
A. I guess- you are the one asking the questions. Are you done?

Yeah, Sportscenter is on.

Professor Wisdom W. Weasel welcomes further questions and peer review (especially by his esteemed colleague Brooklyn Jim). That is if you read this far, you ADHD sport obsessed, insular bastards. Elk nipples! Just checking to see if you made it to the bottom