Iran Super Thread- Merged

[a_majoor]

Internal instability spreads:

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/12/21/iranian-chaos/

Iranian Chaos: Spontaneous Revolt Against the Regime
Posted By Michael Ledeen On December 21, 2010 @ 5:50 pm In Uncategorized | 27 Comments

The port of Bandar Abbas [1] is one of Iran’s major shipping hubs, as well as a big naval base in the Straits of Hormuz, and the site of a big refinery.  It is now in chaos.  Thousands of trucks, many of them loaded with imported foodstuffs, commercial goods of all description, and even oil products, have blocked the city’s roads, effectively ending all movement in and around the port.  The drivers simply shut down their rigs, took the coils out of the engines, and walked away.  On the water, there’s a similar shutdown of the hundreds of small boats and ferries that usually carry thousands of people each day to the nearby islands as well as to Dubai.  They have clogged the harbor, and nothing is moving.

This is the result of the Iranian regime’s cancellation of energy subsidies, proudly announced by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday.  One of the subsidies was on diesel fuel, which has now become eight or nine times as expensive as it used to be, and the drivers can’t survive the cost, nor can the ferry companies.  So they went on strike.

It is hard to get details and there are of course many rumors.  It seems certain that the regime dispatched some ten thousand Revolutionary Guards to “establish order,” but it’s the wrong remedy.  Even the toughest of them can’t convince a truck to start itself, or a ferry to get out of the way.  The Deputy Minister of Transportation arrived late this afternoon and met with the leaders of the drivers and ferry pilots, offering to let them raise their prices, although not nearly enough to compensate for the blow of the canceled subsidies.  Government officials were overheard arguing with the Guards, who seemed sympathetic to the workers.  Not a good sign for the regime.

As of Tuesday night, nobody had a clear picture of what was likely to happen on Wednesday.  There has been very little press coverage so far (although the Washington Post‘s man in Tehran wrote about strikes in several cities [2]), but all day Tuesday Bandar Abbas was full of Iranian journalists, and there will probably be more reporting in the morning.  If the Wapo is right, the regime may be facing a national challenge from workers, and there doesn’t seem to be a good solution for Supreme Leader Khamenei and his henchmen.  If they back off the cancellation of the subsidies, this will encourage all sorts of people to challenge the regime.  If they try to wheel and deal, offering economic goodies to the transport workers to get them back to work, they will have shown serious weakness, and, again, others will challenge them.  Apparently the government reps in Bandar Abbas threatened severe consequences (ranging from arrests to contract cancellations) if things had not returned to normal by midday Wednesday.  We’ll see.  So far as I can tell, this is not the first stage of a rebellion organized by the Green Movement.  It seems to be a spontaneous protest from people who see that their regime is dragging them into ruin.  But spontaneous protests sometimes gather momentum, and there is hardly an Iranian without deep grievances against the regime.

What we already see is confirmation of what I have been saying for some years:  the Iranian people do not like their regime, and they are prepared to confront it.  The chaos in Bandar Abbas is a self-inflicted wound masterminded by the fanatical buffoons who rule the Islamic Republic.  Sooner or later, this sort of thing will spread, and the hollowness of the regime will be exposed to everyone.

Maybe even the feckless Western leaders will see it and support the Iranian people.

Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/12/21/iranian-chaos/

URLs in this post:

[1] Bandar Abbas: http://www.iranchamber.com/cities/bandar_abbas/bandar_abbas.php
[2] strikes in several cities: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122102522.html

 

[sean m]

Does anyone watch FrontLine on PBS, it really is a good show, This is from a couple years ago yet it still is relevant since it refers to Iran's role on the middle east after the  Hussein regime. In it it states how the Iranians under the reformist government prior to  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad emergence attempted to create dialogue and offered to promises to not involve itself if the Americans returned the favor and did not meddle in their affairs. This government lead by Mohammad Khatami was attempting to create social change in the country. In the documentary, it seems that what is stated is that the Americans neglected to look at it because some radical elements in Iran were hiding Islamic radicals from Afghanistan.

Here is the documentary
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

It really is to bad that  certain important figures on both sides of the fence are creating unnecessary problems it seems, Both people in the West and those in other nations who have democratic ideology of course share alot in common with the majority of Iranian people.  Hopefully in the near future there will be more talks of working together instead of against each other.  Yet in this regard the Iranian government is to blame for the stirring up unnecessary trouble in order to exert their influence. Certain Western nation are also to blame if what is said is true about them supporting efforts to actively  undermine the Iranian government and it's projects.

 

[a_majoor]

Certain Western nation are also to blame if what is said is true about them supporting efforts to actively  undermine the Iranian government and it's projects.

Considering the Iranian government's projects include destabilizing large areas of the Middle east in order to exert their own influence, equiping, training and supporting terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas and openly calling for genocide against the people of Israel, actively undermining their government and projects seems to be the right and prudent thing to do...

 

[sean m]

Your right that they have done a lot of wrong, with things you have listed. But don't you think that especially with the situation involving the Taliban and Al Qaeda that both Iran and the west need to stop pointing fingers at each other for various offenses and focus on the more volatile situation which is causing chaos in the region. Even if the Iranian government feels that having more powerful proxy organizations (hezbollah) running broken down countries. it is to bad they don't realize or are to selfish to think about the longterm effect. For example with Afghanistan, if the West pulls out and the Islamists regain power, it seems logical to think that the last thing the Iranians would want would be a radical sunni terrorist state right in their back yard, who seem to have a tendency to go back on their word. Both the West and Iran share the same enemy in Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the long run. Yet Iran seems to need the West to recognize some of thier less radical needs and wants, such as not supporting resistance movements in Iran. Al Qaeda and the Taliban, if done correctly, could possibly become a unifier between Iran and the West. This possibly could lead to more freedoms towards the people of Iran and the gradual movement towards democracy. 

Considering the Iranian government's projects include destabilizing large areas of the Middle east in order to exert their own influence, equiping, training and supporting terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas and openly calling for genocide against the people of Israel, actively undermining their government and projects seems to be the right and prudent thing to do...

 

[CougarKing]

JERUSALEM – Israel's foreign minister claimed Wednesday that Iran is about to send two warships through the Suez Canal for the first time in years, calling it a "provocation," but he offered no evidence. The Egyptian authority that runs the canal denied it.
Egyptian authority that runs the canal denied it.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said the ships would cross later Wednesday, en route to Syria. He did not say how he knew it.

"This is a provocation that proves that Iranian audacity and insolence are increasing," he said in a statement.

Ahmed el-Manakhli, head of Egypt's canal operations room, denied the claim, saying warships must get permission 48 hours before crossing, and "so far, we have not been notified."

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in an e-mailed statement that "Israel is closely following the movements of the Iranian ships and has updated friendly states on the issue. Israel will continue to follow the ships movements."

Security officials said they have known of Iranian ship movements for some time and expect them to arrive at the canal Thursday. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

In Washington, the Pentagon declined to comment.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley confirmed the presence of the ships in the area of the canal but would not say whether that was considered provocative.

"There are two ships in the Red Sea," he said, "What their intention is, what their destination is, I can't say."

Meanwhile, the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Enterprise was transiting the Red Sea on Wednesday, after passing through the Suez Canal on its way to the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet area to support combat operations in Afghanistan and other duties in the region, two officials in Washington said.

Israel considers Iran an existential threat because of its nuclear program, missile development, support for militants and threats to destroy Israel.
While Israel has pressed for international sanctions to stop Iran's nuclear program, it has not taken the possibility of a military strike off the table.

Lieberman spoke to American Jewish leaders, but reporters were excluded. Later, his office released a statement with the charge about the Iranian ships crossing the Suez Canal on their way to Syria, a longtime ally.

"The international community must understand that Israel cannot ignore these provocations forever," he said, according to the statement. "We expect the international community to act with haste and determination against the Iranian provocations that are intended to destabilize the situation in the region."

Lieberman is known for his extreme pronouncements. Israel has been distributing dire predictions about the destabilization of the Middle East in the wake of the toppling of the regime of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, warning that Islamic militants could take over. Most experts play down that prospect.

The prices of benchmark Brent and WTI crude climbed after the report on the Iranian warships. Iran's action added to tension in the region and "absolutely moved markets," according to PFGBest oil analyst Phil Flynn. He said traders are worried that spreading unrest in the Middle East will disrupt oil production and shipments.

"The face of the Middle East is changing in pretty dramatic fashion in a very short period of time," he said. "The risk to supply is going up."

Earlier Wednesday, Israeli President Shimon Peres said Iranian lawmakers are shaming their people by calling for anti-government protesters to be tried and executed.

Calling Iran the source of "the greatest political and moral corruption" in the Middle East, Peres said the Iranian people will stop their own government, referring to the tens of thousands of protesters who took to the streets of Tehran on Monday. Iranian security forces used force to disperse the demonstrations. Two people were killed, and dozens injured.

"What the present Iranian leadership does is a shame on Iranian history, the Iranian culture and the pain of their own people," Peres told a group of American Jewish leaders in Jerusalem.

In Iran's parliament Tuesday, more than 200 legislators released a statement demanding capital punishment for protest leaders. Video showed lawmakers pumping their fists and shouting for death to opposition figures.

___

Associated Press writers Josh Lederman in Jerusalem and Pauline Jelinek and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.



AP news link

 

[57Chevy]

With the UN Chief Deeply Troubled by Bahrain Violence here (reply 223)
Iranian and other Muslim countries' leaders should spend a little time becoming better aquainted with the principals of Islamic law regarding violence against their own people.
                                      ___________________________________________

Iran guards vow to hold fire
Senior officers in Iran's Revolutionary Guards have written to their commanding officer demanding assurances that they will not be required to open fire on anti-government demonstrators.

After the violent clashes during anti-government protests in nearby countries, the officers argue that it is against the principles of Islamic law to use violence against their own people.

In a suggestion of a split within the Islamic Republic's ruling hierarchy over its handling of protests, the letter has been circulated widely throughout the ranks of the Revolutionary Guards, the body responsible for defending the religious system. The letter, a copy of which has been seen by The Daily Telegraph, is addressed to Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the guards' commanding officer. It calls on him to issue guidance to both the guards and the Basij paramilitary militia to use restraint when handling protests.

It goes on to state unequivocally: "We promise our people that we will not shoot nor beat our brothers who are seeking to express legitimate protest against the policies and conduct of their leader."

The Iranian government has called on its supporters to take to the streets on Friday to demonstrate their "hatred" for the opposition Green Movement.

                                (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)

 

[CougarKing]

An update to the story mentioned earlier at this other post:

Iran navy vessels drop request to pass Suez Canal
AP

By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Hamza Hendawi, Associated Press – 7 mins ago

CAIRO – Two Iranian naval vessels withdrew a request Thursday to transit the Suez Canal after Israel expressed concerns over the plans, a senior canal official said.

The official said no reason was given for the decision to withdraw the application. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said it was not known if the vessels intended to transit the waterway at a later date.

Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki said, however, that no request was made to Egyptian authorities.

The Suez Canal official identified the two vessels as the Alvand, a frigate, and the Kharq, a supply ship, and said they were en route to Syria. He said they were now in an area near Saudi Arabia's Red Sea port of Jiddah.

Alvand Class

Spokesmen for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Foreign Ministry refused to comment.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Wednesday that Iran was about to send two naval vessels through the Suez Canal for the first time in years, calling it a "provocation."

Israel considers Iran an existential threat because of its disputed nuclear program, ballistic missile development, support for militants in the region and its threats to destroy Israel. While Israel has pressed for international sanctions to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, it has not taken the possibility of a military strike off the table.

Egypt's official MENA news agency quoted Ahmed al-Manakhly, a senior Suez Canal official, as denying that the waterway's management had received any requests by Iranian navy ships to transit the canal.

On Wednesday, U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley confirmed the presence of the two Iranian ships in the area of the canal but would not say whether that was considered provocative.

"There are two ships in the Red Sea," he said, "What their intention is, what their destination is, I can't say."

Vessels intending to transit the canal, which links the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, must give the waterway's authority at least 24-hour notice before entering the canal.

Only ships that don't meet safety requirements are banned from using the canal.

In the case of naval vessels, clearance from the Egyptian defense and foreign ministries is required in advance, but is rarely withheld.

link

 

[CougarKing]

The above post says the request was dropped. Now this update says it still stands:

BBC link

Iran has asked Egypt for permission to send two warships through the Suez Canal, officials have confirmed, after a day of conflicting reports.

Egypt's defence ministry said it was considering the request, hours after reports quoted canal officials as denying any request had been made.

The move has been condemned by Israel's foreign minister as a provocation.

It is believed to be the first time since the 1979 revolution that Iran has requested passage through the canal.

There have been conflicting reports throughout the day as to whether the request had been turned down, withdrawn, or had even been made.

But a naval official confirmed to Iran's state-run Press TV that talks were continuing with Cairo.

And Egyptian defence ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki told the Associated Press that the request was being considered.

Canal officials deal with regular shipping requests, but naval requests are decided by the defence ministry.

Analysts say the ministry rarely turns down a request.

 

[CougarKing]

It looks like they've just entered the Suez Canal...

link


ISMAILIA, Egypt (Reuters) - Two Iranian ships entered the Suez Canal on Tuesday and were heading toward the Mediterranean, a canal official said.

"They entered the canal at 5:45 a.m.," the official told Reuters. No other details were immediately available.

Israel had said it takes a "grave view" of the passage of the ships -- the first Iranian naval vessels to go through the canal since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution.

(...)

 

 

[willellis]

Not really a threat to anyone at the time, but interesting time for some posturing from the Iranian government.

 

[Journeyman]

Two Iranian ships entered the Suez Canal on Tuesday.....

Not really a threat to anyone at the time, but interesting time for some posturing from the Iranian government.

OVERSIMPLIFIED RESPONSE FOLLOWS

Try and picture life from the perspective of someone whose load-station is planning Israeli security.

They've been invaded unilaterally several times. The surrounding propaganda is to wipe Israel off the map. Of the three largest Arab neighbours (Egypt, Jordan, and Syria - to save you from Wiki), Jordan and Egypt have lived peacefully for over a decade. Only Syria, (oh and Iran, but they're not bordering), is making threatening noises.

Gee, Egypt has just lost its leader and Jordan is facing massive internal unrest. Iran -- remember, that previously threatening country -- chooses this time to send its first warships ever through the Suez Canal.


I'm not going to put you on the spot, willellis, to define the difference between risk and threat....but in even Toronto Star-simplistic terms...this was an antagonistic move.

And if you were an Israeli defence planner, I suspect you'd see Iranian ballistic missiles to the east and Iranian missile boats now cruising to the west as a threat....or at least, an interesting planning problem.\\


Edit: typo. Yes, it's true.

 

[willellis]

I have no idea why you would put me on the spot. What was so confusing about my post? This is not a threat to anyone right now. I don't believe that I stated that there is no cause for concern regarding the actions of Iran. In fact I hinted toward the exact opposite. If it was too subtle, I will try to be more blunt in the future.

Oh yea, the Iranians travelled through the Cannel in 79' for the Islamic Revolution.

 

[Journeyman]

What was so confusing about my post? This is not a threat to anyone right now. I don't believe that I stated that there is no cause for concern regarding the actions of Iran. In fact I hinted toward the exact opposite. If it was too subtle, I will try to be more blunt in the future.

Well obviously, I was the one being too subtle.

A large portion of military thinking (as well as International Relations theory for you non-military academics), involves seeing the world, particularly security concerns, from the perspective of others.

I'm just guessing that two Iranian military vessels making an unprecedented Suez Canal transit at this time is interpretted differently if ones perspective is that of any number of Middle Eastern security concerns.... or an apparently more limited view of an Esquimalt OS.

 

[willellis]

Ok, I will try to break it down nice and simple one last time, just for you. I agree that there is cause for concern. I agree that the Israeli government would be right to be at a state of high alert. I won't even get into the ships themselves. The sail is not unprecedented. Again, it was done in 1979.

Also, I have no clue why rank or posting have to do with this.

 

[Journeyman]

Not really a threat to anyone at the time.

Ok, I will try to break it down nice and simple one last time, just for you. I agree that there is cause for concern.

So which is it?


And that is my point.

Think before you post. If you're out of your lane (not "line" as per your PM), then don't post. If you're posting simply to earn MilPoints to play Afghan Ops (again, as per your PM), you are going to get slagged -- it's not personal, but some of us think, and care, about what is in these threads.

 

[willellis]

The ships are not a threat, but there is a cause for concern as to why they are there. To break it down, the ships themselves pose no immediate threat. The Israeli navy could easily dispose of them. Any attack initiated by them ( the ships ) would result in their own demise. Therefore it would not be in the best interest of the Iranian government to utilize them for a strike against Israel or their interests. Having said that, this is only my view on the current situation. Sorry that I did not elaborate and justify my previous posts.  I hope now that you can see how the current events can be both.

Now, as far as you comments regarding my reasons for posting, I was wondering if you could read my pm again. You are clearly confused. Again, I thought that I broke it down pretty well, but apparently not. 

Furthermore, don't try to use things like rank, element, or posting as an attempted attack on someones credibility. It's unprofessional and really, just in poor taste. They have no bearing in ones ability to contribute to a open forum. 

 

[George Wallace]

Ok, I will try to break it down nice and simple one last time, just for you. I agree that there is cause for concern. I agree that the Israeli government would be right to be at a state of high alert. I won't even get into the ships themselves. The sail is not unprecedented. Again, it was done in 1979.

2011 - 1979 = 32 years.

If we follow your logic in this following post, then your really bouncing around a lot.  You can't have it both ways.  Make up you mind.  Is what happened in the past relevant or not?

I believe that times have changed since then. I know that Panama was only 30 years ago, but even still, I feel that this is not something that will benefit the US if they were to go through with it.

 

[willellis]

There's no bouncing around. One fact does not correlate to the other. The first quote I simply provided information that a sail had been made in 1979. The second was speaking about the invasion of a foreign country, that happened 22 years ago. Time is all relative to what your are speaking about, in this case two different things.

Hope that helps.

 

[Journeyman]

The current, unique circumstances make this transit unprecedented, not "no Persian vessel has ever seen the Mediterranean."

Therefore it would not be in the best interest of the Iranian government to utilize them [the ships] for a strike against Israel or their interests.

Having established how you believe Israel should perceive the situation, you are now speaking on Iranian interests? You are saying it's inconceivable that Ahmadinejad would wish to orchestrate an Israeli strike against these ships -- pre-emptive or otherwise -- for any reason?

Given the regional turmoil, is it remotely possible that these assorted Arab countries might then disarm their local dissidents to strike back against Israel, the long-hated Little-Satan? The unifying crisis of an external threat has a long history in international relations. So Iran brings death and destruction to Israel...at the cost of merely two ships (they'd still have about 300 left, by the way).

This is merely one possible scenario....and a reason why some put effort into differentiating between a risk and a threat.

Furthermore, don't try to use things like rank, element, or posting as an attempted attack on someones credibility.

Oh, it wasn't remotely an attack. I was simply pointing out the differing world-view and perspective between A) you, a sailor, safe in western Canada, and B) the likely thoughts of someone in the Israeli Defence Ministry, surrounded by hostile neighbours. "Credibility of the witness" is common in legal parlance. Online, people have only your words to determine your credibility -- influencing whether those people believe you hold informed opinions or "hey, this is just my view of the situation."

To break it down for you, it's always your call on how you are perceived.

 

[aesop081]

The ships are not a threat,

To be a threat, something has to have both intent and capability.

Iran has intent......the ships constitute capability.


.....threat.