Showing posts with label Ali Larijani. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ali Larijani. Show all posts

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Beaucoup Tough Talk In Saudi Arabia--And Iran

The Houthi insurgency in Yemen is taking on more aspects of a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. There are strong hints from the Kingdom that the Iranians-Are-Behind-It-All school of thought is gaining both traction and momentum.

In addition to that growing consensus there are expressions of fear concerning the intentions of the Iranian government to "politicize" the Haj perhaps to the extent of fulminating another armed attack on the Grand Mosque along the lines of the embarrassing shoot-out at the Kaaba years ago. The Iranians are doing nothing to reduce the fears and anger in the Kingdom. To the contrary the men of the mullahs are pouring hot rhetoric on the flames.

The verbal attack on the Kingdom has been led by Ali Larjani, the current Speaker of the Majlis and former nuclear negotiator. Larjani is a very hard hard-liner as his his brother the recently appointed capo d'tutti capi of the Islamic Republic's judiciary. Both are strongly affiliated with and supported by the Supreme Leader, Khamenei. It is worth noting that Speaker Larjani is both slicker and smoother than president Ahemdinejad and is often seen as a necessary counterweight to the overly populist Orator-In-Chief.

With a measure of duplicity noteworthy even among the mendacious Tehran regime, Ali Larjani observed to a audience of visiting Sunni clerics--that's right, Sunni--that the Saudi Arabian air and artillery attacks on the Houthi (and any civilians unfortunate enough to be down range) were a clear violation of the Islamic stricture against Muslims waging war on Muslims. He concluded that the Saudi "massacre should cause all Muslims to feel outrage."

Fer sure, dude. You are kind of selective in what sort of Muslim-kills-Muslim episode is worthy of generating outrage in Muslim hearts and minds.

Not to be outdone in the rhetorical offensive, Ahmedinejad, while in Turkey called for dialog and restraint in the conflict. With a (presumably) straight face the Orator-in-Chief stated that Iranian policy "is only to strengthen the unity, brotherhood and cooperation among all nations."

The word, "all" must be defined in the mind of Ahmedinejad in a very strange and narrow manner. Certainly his view of "unity, brotherhood and cooperation" does not extend to the US, Israel, most, if not all, of Western Europe or Arab Muslim states which have the temerity to push back against the mullahs' attempts to export the Revolution.

Iranian ideas of cooperation are very narrowly construed if recent reports from unnamed diplomatic sources to the effect that the Iranians have completely rejected the UN backed nuclear materials plan are correct. The time for any sort of cooperation (and unity and brotherhood) on the nuclear contretemps other than a US and EU capitulation is apparently no longer short but totally exhausted.

The Iranians are quite willing to extend the benefits of "unity, brotherhood and cooperation" to non-state actors such as Hezbollah as the recent Francop Affair demonstrates. This is what has the Saudis riled.

There is a palpable fear in the Kingdom that Tehran intends to transform the Houthi from an annoying but minor insurgency to a full bore Hezbollah clone. This apprehension is far from groundless. The government of Yemen is quite reminiscent of the government of Lebanon in the days before Hezbollah, in effect, took it over.

The cloning of Hezbollah in Yemen would provide a powerful advantage to the Iranians in their strategy of becoming the regional hegemonic power. At the very least the growth of Houthi into a permanent feature in the politico-military landscape of the Arabian Peninsula would divert the Saudis, force the Kingdom to focus on internal security, and, lessen the capacity and will of the House of Sand to buck up the smaller states of the Gulf.

The gamesmanship of the mullahs in Yemen should be of major interest to the US. It is self-evident that the US would find some important national and strategic interests compromised if the Houthi become a larger feature in Peninsular politics. The US has gone through several painful (and way back in the Fifties one non-painful) engagements with the Lebanese political arena.

This should be enough to teach even the Americans that one Lebanon, one Hezbollah, is one too many. The time for the use of leverage, support, and assistance in helping the Saudis chart a course of stability in Yemen is right now--not a few weeks or months hence.

In the process the basic reality of Yemen must be understood. Yemen has no history of a national or even a well defined geographical identity. The current government is both corrupt (what else is new?) and inefficient (ditto.) The tribal congeries which constitutes the human terrain of Yemen is badly fractured as it has been most of the past century and more. The probability of a government generally conceded to be legitimate is next to zero.

The Yemen swamp is one where Uncle Sam cannot and should not tread directly. The Saudis, while far from overly competent, possess the necessary fundamentals of understanding, leverage, the willingness to safely if not discretely use force and something very real at stake--its own national security.

In any event the very best that can be hoped for in Yemen is the blockage of the Iranian ambition: the prevention of another Hezbollah arising in a very critical small corner of the world. The way in which the Saudis and whatever passes for a government in Yemen deal with the Houthi and the Iranians over the next few weeks will determine whether Yemen becomes (A) one more Lebanon complete with an Iranian puppet or (B) another Somalia or (C) stumbles on as it has for the past several years, doing a drunkard's walk along the cliff with a single misstep plunging it into the Gulch of Failed States.

All the Geek can offer by way of encouragement to either the House of Sand or the Nice Young Man From Chicago is a cheery, "Lots of luck, dudes."


Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Iranians Are SO Boring

Here they come again! The bravos of bluster out of Tehran. Frothing threats and flailing with words, the talking heads of the mullahocracy are out to scare us--again.

(For the whole deal you can take a look at, http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0806254400112829.htm or the Fars News Agency (assuming you want to keep with the Iranian perspective at http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8704050745 or from the folks at CNN there is, http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/25/iran.nuclear/)

The most recent blather is fired by Majlis Speaker (and former nuclear negotiator) Ali Larijani. His salvo of dire predictions included an echo of International Atomic Energy Authority chief Mohammed AlBaredi's warning that a military strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities would ignite a "ball of fire."

The hardline opponent of the current Orator-in-Chief went on with a dire warning. "There is little chance for interaction. You have reached the final minutes of your defeated game."

Oh, really?

There are problems galore in the US, in the West, but they ain't nothing compared to what you and your fellows in Tehran are facing. (In case these have eluded your keen eye, Speaker Larijani, they include hyper-inflation, negative growth, capital flight and an ever escalating unemployment rate.)

None of these difficulties will be solved by the new round of enhanced sanctions imposed by the European Union. Perhaps you know that Mr Larijani. Or, perhaps, like your political foe, Ahmendinejad, you think the Hidden Imam or the upcoming Mahdi will pull your collective nuts out of the fire of your making.

Consider this fine piece of thinking--
Larijani also criticized big powers for sending a package of proposals to Iran on one hand and imposing new financial restrictions against the country, on the other.
"If you are willing to hold talks with Iran over the proposed package then why you have adopted a confrontational approach before the package was studied."
Well, duh, maybe because the Iranian response to the P5+1 proposals reeked of taqiyya to say nothing of the fine old game of stall, stall, stall. Keep 'em talking while we keep our centrifuges spinning.

Speaker, it is simple. Even an ideologue such as yourself ought to be able to get a grip on this reality: If you don't grab at the carrot, you're going to get a bash from the stick.

The Speaker offered the Iranian version of carrot-and-stick. After nearly breaking his arm patting his back for the Iranian proposal to have wide ranging (that is to say completely unfocused) discussions on a lengthy list of issues, Larijani grabbed the stick. Waved it,

"Do not add to the cost you should pay with making wrong assessments." Or so IRNA quoted the Speaker. A few moments later, Larijani clarified his meaning. "You know that your wrong strategies in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan have borne not fruit, but hatred. The little chance for interaction with Iran requires rational and constructive signs."

Let's examine that statement for a second. The mullahocracy, as Larijani damn well knows, supported the US led take-down of Taliban. The mullahocracy, again as Larijana must personally remember, reacted to the US invasion of Iraq with an outreached hand proposing talks, cooperation and other goodies. He also must know from personal experience that the mullahs ordered a (temporary perhaps) stand-down of the nuclear weapons program as noted by the National Intelligence Estimate released late last year.

That leaves Lebanon. Considering that the primary mixers and troublemakers in that long unsettled country are Iran's good buddy, Syria, and client, Hezbollah, the question of success or failure, love or hatred can't be answered in the US or the EU but only in Tehran.

The US and Western view of Iran's nuclear ambitions has been "rational and constructive." The combinations of sanctions and offered inducements have been "rational and constructive."

The problem does not rest with the West, with the US, with the EU, or even with Israel. The problem comes with Iran. With Iran's actions. With Iran's rhetoric. With Iran's policies.

None of these are both "rational and constructive." All are, in the words of an early giant of the Cold War, George Kennan, "primitive and unconstructive."