Saturday, January 27, 2007

Hardliners On Both Ends of the Gulf

Nearly two years have passed since the election of Ahmadinejad to Iran’s presidency. His administration, whose coming to power was a blessing for both domestic and foreign radicals, has served half of its time. And it is still busy handing out promises, and threats. In the midst of it all, except for a handful of radicals in Tel Aviv and Washington, people have had enough of this administration.

There is an assertion in the above statement that must be carefully examined. Following the death of a number of the Islamic Republic’s founding fathers )people like Motahhari, Taleqani, َAhmad Montazeri, Beheshti, and Ahmad Khomeini( a radical group rose to prominence and worked to eliminate the remainder of the founding fathers. Mousavi Ardebili, Mir Hussein Mousavi, Mehdi Karoubi and Mousavi Tabrizi were the first targets. Then the movement went further and focused on Hashemi Rafsanjani, Gholamhussein Karbaschi, Abdullah Nouri, Saeed Hajjarian, Ataollah Mohajerani, Hassan Rowhani, Ali-akbar Velayati, Nateq-Nouri, Mahdavi Kanni, etc. This group had a plan and a goal.

If we shy away from using this group’s tactic of labeling every other group or faction that opposes it as a ‘mafia,’ we still have to say that this group is itself a mafia. It has become clear over the years that this group uses the method of “label and eliminate” to get rid of its opponents: it first labels whatever that gets in its way, and then uses that label to eliminate it.

Let us for the moment leave aside how the ninth government came to power. Let us just try to understand why an administration that came to power on some popular support is now under such heavy criticism that it has to actually confront the very same “people” that voted it into office!

The group’s political tactics have not been and are not complex. In fact, this group is essentially incapable of designing elaborate plans. In the field of foreign policy, it decided to create controversies whenever it could, so that the price of oil would go up and more money could be spent on the poor – to purchase popularity, so to speak. The tactic seems plausible on the surface. And it worked for a year. Mr. President talked of the need to remove Israel from the face of the planet, and there was a huge uproar. He denied the Holocaust, and more controversies emerged. Both times the price of oil went up and reached a peak. But this group did not know that the opposite side would use expertise and computer rooms to come up with a counterattack very soon. And the counterattack came all right: nowadays, no matter what Ahmadinejad says or does, there are no major controversies; the price of oil stays the same, and has even gone done.

The group’s whole plan, which seems “complex” to itself, can be summarized in one line: provoking the international community into making threats and using those threats as an excuse to create an abnormal and emergency situation, in which publications, labor unions, the student movement and non-governmental organizations can be suppressed.

What was it that enabled the American neo-cons to implement their lifelong dream of bringing 200-300,000 troops to the oil wells of the Middle East? The answer is clear: Bin Laden. The presence of “Bin Ladens” is essential for quenching the thirst of neo-cons for energy resources. The radicals on both sides live parasitically off one another.

These are not the times of the Iran-Iraq war, when people were still hot about the revolution and poured onto the battlefield to defeat a devil like Saddam. Today, most, if not all, people want to coexist peacefully with the international community, and know about these tactics very well. They ask, very clearly, what have you done to bring us to this point?