IRAN : WASHINGTON’S FAILED WARNING
© IRAN-RESIST.ORG – October 27, 2010 | On Saturday 23 of October, the New York Times reported that the mullahs have regularly given bags filled with cash to Omar Daoudzai, Karzai’s chief cabinet, in order to purchase his loyalty and promote Iranian interests in Afghanistan. The day after, the Afghan president gathered the press in order to specify that the Americans were aware of this and that this was not a secret at all which could not have been ignored by the New York Times which constitutes a kind of American Pravda. As revenge, the average American who used to ignore this knows from now on that the mullahs who help Taliban dispose as well of high-ranked friends who can give them information which would be susceptible to be beneficial to Afghan Islamist fighters. Who could take advantage of such news ? Anybody who would like to pressurize the mullahs. The involvement of the New York Times implies of course that Washington is behind such leaf. The reason lays in the failure of Washington’s latest effort to force the mullahs to reconcile with it and become its regional allies.
One week ago (Saturday 16 October), right after the mullahs’ new refusal to resume dialogue, the oil company Total which is partially controlled by Americans announced that it would suspend its trade relations with Iran. The press didn’t tell about the modalities of such suspension and the mullahs who usually comment the slightest threat of contract breach didn’t even mention the matter in their press. Such double discretion was due to the fact that for years, Iran hasn’t extracted its oil directly but it has sold exploitation rights to foreign companies (such as Total) which in return have to restitute 1/3 of their production in order to cover Iranian domestic needs. As Total was the last very big oil company to maintain an activity in Iran, the suspension deprived Iran from the major part of the oil which is necessary to produce currently 25% of its carburant needs : gasoline but above all the kerosene it needs to make its thermal power plants able to produce electricity.
With such suspension, Washington actually inflicted a discreet and powerful sanction to the mullahs. It faced them with a medium-term power cut and black-out whenever their carburant reserve gets empty (3 to 6 months)and whenever they exhaust their variable reserve of 16 million barrels which may grant them an additional reprieve of 3 to 5 months (depending on the success of the plan of forced reduction of electricity use). Washington which needs to start dialogue with this regime in order to press-gang the Islamists of the region against China, Russia and other international oil powers, seemed to have found a mean to makes the mullahs take a softer line.
But for the mullahs, the dialogue and the appeasement which Washington offers represent some steps toward reconciliation and consequently a mean for the Americans to come back to Iran with their pawns in order to grab the power from inside with a color revolution that would make them dispose of an Islamic republic to their liking. That’s why despite risks of fatal riots that would happen further to any power cut, the mullahs didn’t take a softer line. In the past, in this kind of situation, they used various provocations that would force Washington to renounce to dialogue. Such provocations became difficult to resort to because the regime lost the support of its basic militiamen and its behavior has caused the definitive break between the Bazaar and the power. In the absence of any possibility of provocation, Tehran solely ignored its adversary because it assesses that the latter feels too urgent need of an Islamic ally to apply sanctions to the very end, especially the latest one, all the more that it remains secret and then easy to cancel. Such point of view is based on the fact that Washington has always allowed its closest partners to get round its own sanctions in order to avoid the collapse of the regime each time the latter has reached the depths of despair.
Tehran’s feeble answer ordered Washington to show that it could go further but the American State needed however to avoid any warning that would imply more sanctions against a regime which is in a very bad way. At the precise time when Washington needed to shake the mullahs, the New York Times revealed a serious secret of the American administration about the mullahs’ machinations in Afghanistan in order to give the illusion that Washington had just changed its global policy toward Tehran. This appeared as a good trick because Tehran denied the facts and shortly after it admitted it was right when much servile Karzai closed the trap by confessing the facts.
If Tehran believed Afghan bluff, it’s because such sample of precursory signs of American change of mind wasn’t the sole thing that happened : the day before, Wiki-leaks website gave saucy information about the mullahs’ machinations in Iraq based on confidential military reports whose origin can’t be justified. As if it would be by chance, Washington didn’t make any investigation to find the officers who are guilty of such useful leak.
The warning worked punctually because after such doublet Tehran stated that it was ready to resume dialogue. However in fine the absence of any official position of the American administration which made do with berating its servant Karzai, Tehran was urged to change its position and express again some nonchalant refusal.
This is a thing we often hear about in French media but this is complete nonsense because the Islamist trend which was born in Iranian clergy and under the impulse of Navvab Safavi, the group Fadayian-é Eslam (devotees of Islam), didn’t introduced itself as Shiite but as as supporter of some reunifying of Shiite and Sunni, in other words of the Islamic Unity (وحدت اسلامی) which was professed at the same time by the Muslim Brotherhood. Besides Navvab travelled to Egypt at the invitation of Seyed Ghotb, the right hand man of Al Banna, in order to finalize a common strategy that would be aimed at Islamic Unity (وحدت اسلامی) which Navvab named as well Islamic Awakening, a necessity to fight the enemies of Islam, i.e. the servants of the West.
Right after the execution of Navvab because of numerous assassinations he ordered so to purify the country from its impious elements, the torch was passed on to Khomeini who maintained some links with the Muslim Brotherhood that served as intermediariy for the financing of his activities. Such relation on behalf of Islam unity between the mullahs and the Muslim Brotherhood is expressed nowadays via the financing by the mullahs’ regime of the Hamas which is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim brotherhood. It is highlighted as well by the support of Tariq Ramadan to the mullahs, it reached such extent that many believed that he is Shiite while according to the ideology of Islamic unity (وحدت اسلامی), we can’t resort to this way of thinking.
In the much precise context of this ideology of Islamic Unity, when they would criticize Wahhabi, the mullahs didn’t attack “Sunni” people but bad Muslims allied with enemies. It was the same situation regarding “Taliban” who have always been an American creation. As revenge, Tehran has always helped its own Afghan Islamists such as Commander Massud and even Al Qaeda which remains an emanation of the Muslim Brotherhood. Tehran used to finance various terrorist operations of Al Qaeda. Nowadays Tehran helps “Taliban” because they left the American bosom.
We are facing a context which has nothing to do with the rudimentary theory of war among Sunni and Shiite which would rather be exposed in a “Que sais-je” destined to 10 to 12 year-old children. Unfortunately, France sticks with this theory because it remains one of the main oil partners of the mullahs and it doesn’t want to pay attention to such considerations in order to not call compromise a trade relation which is at its advantage thanks to cheap exploitation rights.
In parallel, in a context of common strategy for Islamic unity, the mullahs’ bags of cash don’t constitute an act of resistance against Sunni Taliban (who are besides supported by the mullahs) but it is pure corruption which is aimed at obtaining useful information so to lay ambush. France ignores deliberately such fact because it doesn’t want to link the mullahs to the death of its soldiers in Afghanistan considering that the latest event of this kind involved one of the mullahs’ friends. This is a pity for French soldiers and for millions of Iranians who remains de facto the victims of much protected mullahs. We don’t fail in our duty and we would like to ask France to give up this line because it dishonours it and it doesn’t bring any advantage anymore because this regime is heading to its end and it will collapse with it.