Iran in the crosshairs (again). Ditto for Latin America.

While I think you are correct that things are not settling down in Iran, this is not necessarily a bad sign. I would suggest that it would have been problematic if things had gone back to “normal.”

After Rafsanjani and the Gucci groupie thing became clear, as did the actors – it can be expected that there would be a shake up. According to some informed sources – in touch with some of the inner dynamics – Expect some of the major “older guard” players to be sidelined.

These players, such as Rafsanjani, Mousavi etc. and there are others – are now considered out of touch, and while they played an important role in the initial phases of the Islamic Revolution – they now have the option of being chucked out, or go quietly.

Ahmadinejad also represents really a “third way” — he is not a reformist, obviously, nor is he a traditional conservative or “principalist.” The twice elected President of Iran is really a populist in the true sense of the word – his movement/power is rooted in the vast majority of the people of Iran (I would say possibly as high as 80+% – if one includes those Musavi supporters who respect the outcome of the vote).

This vast majority are the product of the Islamic Revolution – and 30 years later, are ready to take on the leadership of the country. Much of the older guard, have become more and more conservative – and in a sense become stagnant. The newer and younger guard are not only highly motivated – but also highly educated in Islamic Revolutionary principals – and their time has come.

Such a transition of power is bound to be problematic, but it is also necessary, and inevitable if the revolution is to continue its course- and not become one full of status quoism.

The challenge is how Ayatullah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad going to navigate these waters – but I am confident that they have the ability to make the right decisions. This of-course does not mean that there no potential for mistakes — but then that is always present.

@anonymous: thanks for an interesting comment. I hope that you are correct, but a move such as the sacking of the head of intelligence is something which I always considered to be a major sign of trouble, possibly even more than the quasi overt tensions between the President and the Supreme Leader.

Any head of an intelligence service has enormous power in any country. Since such a person has almost complete control over what information comes to the rulers, since he often also has some internal power (including firepower), and since his agency/ministry does, by necessity, keep its methods and means secret, being the commander of such a structure is truly a key position.

When such a person is sacked, you can expect that a good chunk of his agency is going to be angry. That is a lot of smart, well educated, and influential people are going to think about their future, their careers and their interests in the unfolding events.

In some countries, the head of intelligence is more of a political position, and the real power is in the hands of his deputies. If that is the case in Iran, then this might not be as bad as it looks to me. Franlky, I do not know what the case is.

As for a possible US-Israeli attack on Iran, and its consequences, a wrote an article about that a long time ago. Still, most of it is basically still valid. Check it out here:

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2007/07/irans-asymmetrical-response-options.html

Bottom line: while a real war against Iran cannot be won by the Empire, there is no way Iran can seriously threaten “the destruction of anglo-saxon civilization.” Only Russia has the means to do that, and the Russians will never risk a war with the Empire over Iran.

The most formidable threat Iran can use to deter an Imperial attack on it’s territory is the very real capability of Iran to turn Iraq and Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle-East into a bloody mess for CENTCOM.

Please check out my article and tell me what you think, ok?

Cheers,

VS

@Curt: sure. And Morales too. And Ortega. And, of course, Chavez and Castro. In fact, all of Latin American is very much in the crosshairs.

But, of course, “l’homme a abattre” (the guy to be destroyed) is Chavez. What he did since he came to power is not only re-distribute oil revenue or create an alternative to the IMF/WB, but he set an example for the rest of the continent.

Morales is #2 on the hitlist. Think, some indjun like him actually gave real power to the indigenous majority! Can you think of anything more offensive to the Empire than democracy?

Which brings me to a rather shocking conclusion, which you are welcome to disagree with.

But do Colombian drug cartels not have an objective community of interests with the Empire?

After all, who could be a bigger threat to their (economic) power – an Imperial puppet or a popular leader like, say, Chavez?

Drug cartels are nothing more than an inevitable manifestation of capitalism, are they not?

Whom do you think the CIA hates/fears more – Chavez or the cartels?

:-)

@Curt: Chavez and Morales have cajones of diamond! Lula was a bit too neutralized IMHO

You betcha! The thing is a lot of the fake Left in Latin American is also very corrupt. So the Empire can always pressure them either by threats or by bribes (usually a combination of both). The real “dangerous” ones (at least from the Imperial point of view) are those who really believe in what they are doing. Guys like Chavez and Morales are as “bad” as it gets.

We are living at a time where *clearly* the so-called “Left” has to clean house. It’s hard to peg a figure, of course, but a good chunck of the so-called “Left” is either total bullshit left (Kirchner, Blair) or “caviar left” (the dummies who bought the Mousavi crap).

What the world needs is a real, in-your-face, kind of left which sees its roots in Guevara rather than Cohn-Bendit. I don’t mean that in an ideological sense – a lot of what Guevara wrote is utter nonsense – but in terms of idealism and willingness to really fight to the end. A lot of that kind of Left was killed in the 1970s.

Ideologically, it’s Chavez with his “Bolivarian Socialism” which is worth keeping an eye on. That kind of 21 century re-formulation of “socialist” (or, better, “social”) ideas could prove a viable basis for the resistance against the Empire alongside Shia Islam (the other, biggest, viable ideological force wiling and *capable* of resistance). For the time, that’s all there is out there, I think.

Cheers!!

VS

Internal disagreement is not a problem. If it were then countries like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia would be tremendous global powers as there is no noticeable conflict within their regimes and their publics seem to acquiesce in silence.

Iran’s divisions are more likely a source of strength in a complex nation with no single source of power.

That does not mean all is well. The events have clearly been interpreted in the west as a weakness of the government. An opportunity to overthrow the theocracy and replace it with a Mubarak like government.

And once these sharks smell blood…

But I don’t think an actual attack is in the offing, at least not now. Rather an article in Haaretz today reads “U.S. briefs Israel on new Iran sanctions.” This upcoming set seems much more severe. The argument being that Iran’s economic isolation is turnng the public against the government and therefore more of the same will cause an uprising or at least a situation where the Iranian public would be passive in the face of an attack.

From the U.S./Israeli perspective, no country can become strong enough to challenge the U.S. in the Persian Gulf and no Muslim country should ever be permitted to be stronger than Israel.

An unsanctioned Iran participating in the global economy would be in a position to do both.

@Lysander & Anonymous#4:

I hope you guys are correct, but if is hard for me to see the replacement of a chief of intelligence as a relatively benign expression of pluralism.

The idea that he might have been given the boot for not having been able to warn the government about external forces hijacking the elections is a fascinating one.

In fact, my very first two pieces dealing with the elections in Iran asked the question of how in the world such an SOB like Mousavi was ever allowed to run, and I concluded that this was a major intelligence failure.

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2009/06/musings-on-yesterdays-elections-in-iran.html

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-was-mousavi-allowed-to-run.html

I fully agree that heads must roll (in a figurative sense, of course). In fact, I would most want to see that corrupt shark Rafsanjani be charged with conspiracy to overthrow the legitimate government.

I tend to think though that the main reason Mousavi was allowed to run is that Rafsanjani was simply too powerful and that Khamenei simply did not have the political weight to simply ban Mousavi. So they had to let him run to show his real face. But if that is the case, then why give the boot to the intelligence chief?

Dunno.

I cannot, at this point, come up with a comprehensive explanation of what is going on. All I see is signs and indicators which point out to two things:

a) internal conflicts within the top levels of government

b) a fake US offer to “negotiate” with Iran as a prelude to a military agression which will be then justified by crap like “we tried all we could to sove this question peacefully”.

This combination is what has me most worried.

VS

@Mar: agreed. I did not mean to say that all Shias are capable of resistance, but that the most formidable centers of resistance today, Hezbollah and Iran, are Shia at the very core of their essence and that this is not a coincidence. There is, I believe, a special Shia ethos which produces formidable resisters. Of course, not all Shia are fully educated and immersed into this ethos, but those who are often prove to be the most formidable resisters.

I think that the mere fact that the Shia minority in the Middle-East is capable of, literally, fighting on two fronts – against the USralien Empire and against the Wahabis – is an amazing demonstration of the vitality and power of the Shia culture.

It makes sence now why the IC was fired, reading the charges against the rioters it is very plain to see the the intelligence was a massive failure. I think that there are 2 different streams of agitation
1) Rafasjani and his bazzari mafia
2) CIA, MKO and other pro Shah supporters.

Read the charges here

I enjoyed the article http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2007/07/irans-asymmetrical-response-options.html which was straight forward.

Many elements of what you wrote would come to pass… but the ending will belong to Iran.

Cheers.

@anonymous#6: I enjoyed the article

Thanks! The article is clearly dated by now. For example, the political situation in Pakistan and Iraq has changed quite dramatically, but the basic military elements are still mostly valid, I think.

In Iraq and Pakistan, the Empire is doing better than at the time of the writing, while in Afghanistan the situation is basically as bad as it was then. One could claim that the “success” of the imperial military operation in the Swat area will positively (from the US point of view) affect the situation in Afghanistan, but I don’t believe that. The Soviets had plenty of such “successes” and it really resulted only in short term lulls.

The imperial war on Iran must be, by now, the most announced and expected war ever. Heck, I remember sending all my contacts an “imminent war” flash warning at least TWICE(!) over the past 4-5 years and this war has still not materialized. Nonetheless, I still think that it will happen, although the call has to be made in Israel of whether the “Gucci Revolution” in Iran makes an overt attack more or less desirable. The argument can go either way.

I also have a sense that things are changing in Iran, as a consequence of the same Gucci Revolution. The key will be the position of Rafsanjani and his supporters. So far, it appears that the government is going after the riffraff who rioted in the streets, but not after the heavyweights who gave the orders. If that is so, that is yet another sign of weakness.

Frankly, I am still confused about what is really going on in Iran and that makes it hard for me to evaluate the likelihood of an attack in the short-mid term.

Kind regards,

VS

Of course there will be more wars how else will they save the economy and distract the serfs.