A Shi'i-Sunni problem?

Is the current violence in Iraq a Shi'i-Sunni problem? A divisiveness that is hundreds of years old on which a lid was put by Saddam's iron-hand?

A very complicated question.

For a fine analysis and response, turn to Haroon Moghul, of Eteraz fame.



.

Has the Countdown Begun, Part I

A fine piece of analysis on the possibilities and consequences of attacking Iran

**
Has The Countdown Begun?
B. Raman

An Israeli air strike on Natanz and Isfahan is very likely soonerthan later. Things have started moving in that direction. Theaccumulation of US forces in the region is meant to deter anyIranian retaliation. ...

The US and Israel—acting separately and in tandem—have startedstepping up psychological pressure on Iran . This PSYWAR campaign isdirected at countering Iran's exploitation of the difficulties faced by the US in Iraq in order to advance its own agenda and to preventany US intervention in Iran and to convey a message to the Iranian public that Iran will pay a heavy price if President MahmoudAhmadinejad continues to defy the international community over its concerns regarding the real purpose of its acquiring an uraniumenrichment capability.

This PSYWAR campaign has so far taken the following forms:

* The recent US detention and questioning of two Iranian diplomats posted in Iraq on their role in assisting the Shiaextremist groups.

* The stepped-up US rhetoric on the devious game being played by the Iranian intelligence in Iraq by assisting the illegal Shia militias as well as pro-Al Qaeda Sunni extremist elements.

* The well-publicised authorisation by President George Bush of covert action against Iranians posing a threat to American lives and interests in Iraq.

* The beginning of an operation mounted by MOSSAD, the Israeliexternal intelligence agency, to eliminate senior Iranian nuclearscientists. The Sunday Times of London reported on February 4,2007 , as follows: "A prize-winning Iranian nuclear scientist has died in mysterious circumstances, according to Radio Farda, whichis funded by the US State Department and broadcasts to Iran. Anintelligence source suggested that Ardeshire Hassanpour, 44, anuclear physicist, had been assassinated by Mossad, the Israeli security service.

Hassanpour worked at a plant in Isfahan where uranium hexafluoride gas is produced. The gas is needed to enrichuranium in another plant at Natanz which has become the focus of concerns that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons.

According to Radio Farda, Iranian reports of Hassanpour's death emerged on January 21 after a delay of six days, giving the cause as "gaspoisoning". The Iranian reports did not say how or where Hassanpourwas poisoned, but his death was said to have been announced at a conference on nuclear safety.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to announce next Sunday — the 28th anniversary of theIslamic revolution — that 3,000 centrifuges have been installed atNatanz, enabling Iran to move closer to industrial scale uranium enrichment. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency say that hundreds of technicians and labourers have been "workingfeverishly" to assemble equipment at the plant."

* Stepping up of broadcasts and telecasts to Iran by radio stations and TV channels funded by the US and run by Iranian exiles.

* The movement of additional US naval ships, including anotheraircraft-carrier, to the Gulf and the designation by Bush of asenior naval officer (Admiral William Fallon) to head the US Central Command, which is responsible for operations in West Asia.In the past, a US Army officer had headed the Central Command.

Has the Countdown Begun, Part II

The US had seen in North Korea what happens if it avoids action inresponse to pressure from other countries co-operating with the US. North Korea has carried out a nuclear test and is now insisting thatany agreement it signs with the US and other powers would be as a nuclear power and not as a non-nuclear power.It is reportedly prepared to discuss a freezing of its military nuclear capability at its present level, but not its winding-up.

The US and Israel— Israel even more than the US—are determined toprevent a similar scenario in Iran. The price of inaction will beprohibitively high for Israel, endangering its future.

The US Congressional opinion—now dominated by the Democrats—is strongly opposed to Bush's Iraq policy. Its views on his Iranpolicy are much more nuanced. The likely opinion of the Jewishvoters in the US on the Iraq policy at the time of next year's Presidential elections would not be that important for the Presidential aspirants, but it would be in the case of Iran'snuclear designs. One could see evidence of it in the recent statements of Senator Hillary Clinton. She is not in favour of direct US military intervention in Iran, but at the same time shedoes not want to rule out the military option, should the worstcomes to the worst.

After a visit to the US in February last year, I had reported that there were three groups there—one group was totally opposed to any intervention in Iran. A second group urged intervention by the USbefore it became too late. The third group favoured intervention byIsrael with a US wink, without Washington getting directly involved. The third group seems to have won the debate.

Action to stop the acquisition of a military nuclear capability byIran is vital for Israel's security and very survival. The repeated anti-Israel and anti-Jewish statements of President Ahmadinejad make it all the more important for Israel to disrupt, if not destroy,Iran's nuclear plans. For Israel, the question is not whether Iran has the intention to acquire a military nuclear capability.

The question is should Iran be allowed to have an infrastructure capable of being used for military nuclear purposes even if it doesnot have the intention at present to use it for military purposes.Once it is allowed to have the infrastructure, any time—clandestinely and at short notice—it would be able to acquire a military nuclear capability and confront Israel with a nuclearfait accompli.

Israel is determined not to allow this scenario to develop. Twoelements of Iran's existing infrastructure are key in this regard— the uranium hexafluoride plant at Isfahan and the uraniumenrichment plant at Natanz. Raiding and destroying or seriouslydamaging them would be a more complex operation than the Israeli raid on the French-aided Osirak reactor in Iraq in the early 1980s. Osirak had not yet been commissioned. The French engineers collaborated with Israel by keeping away from the reactor site atthe time of the raid.

Natanz and Isfahan are facilities, which have already been completed and are already in the production mode. There is a greater risk of heavy human casualties and possible environmental damage than therewas in Osirak. Iran is a strong military power, with an ability to retaliate against Israel. Iraq of Saddam Hussein was not in the early 1980s. Moreover, it had got involved in a military confrontation with Iran. Israel did not have to pay a price for theOsirak raid. There is a risk that it may have to if it raids Isfahan and Natanz.

Israelis have a reputation of not allowing fears of likelyconsequences deter any action by them which they consider necessaryfor their security and survival. An Israeli air strike on Natanz and Isfahan is very likely sooner than later. Things have started moving in that direction. The accumulation of US forces in the region is meant to deter any Iranian retaliation. Israel hopes Iran will notbe unwise enough to retaliate. If it does, Israel is prepared forit. Israel is confident of its ability to take on Iran—even if Teheran instigates the Hezbollah to step up attacks on Israel fromthe Lebanon.

It would be suicidal for Iran to think that the painful experienceof the US in Iraq and of Israel in the Lebanon in July last year has weakened their will to resort to military action, if theyconsider it necessary in their national interests. It has not.


B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt.of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai.

Shia's and Sunnis on NPR

The Partisans of Ali

A History of Shia Faith and Politics.

I haven't listened to all the parts. But I can vouch that NPR (National Public Radio) is usually interesting

Click here for a background and the 5-part series:

More on this, to come.

From Dhaka and Tehran

So I tend to like most things Persian - Kiarostami, miniature paintings, khoresht, the excessive use of nuts and saffron in "polow" - and almost all of whatever I have been exposed to - of Persian architecture, arts and literature. I also love how Farsi sounds.

I was once shooting the shit with a Professor of Islamic History and he pointed to me, how political Islam has had an uneasy relationship with both Iranian and Bengali society. Perhaps.

I suppose the presence of long secular cultures, very productive in the arts and literature, true for both Bengal and Persia, might create problems for certain kinds of Islamisms. Of course, the history of political Islam in any Muslim country is nothing if its not inconsistent and checkered. So it's hard to generalize.

Another interesting analogy between Bangladeshi and Persian societies is the central role Dhaka and Tehran University have played in defining their states' religio-political cultures.


Dhaka University, founded soon after the first Partition of Bengal, to uplift the Muslim masses of East Bengal, went from strength to strength and played a pivotal role in nationalist politics leading up to 1947. After 1947, the university changed character dramatically, as many Hindu Bengalis vacated faculty positions and were replaced by an expanding Bengali Muslim intelligentsia. An intelligentsia that was increasingly secular in the way it imagined a raison d'etre for East Pakistan, and if not that, at least culturally very proudly Bengali. In 1952, the University became a central hub of demonstrations against the Pakistani State. Again, in the '60s, throwing their weight behind an increasingly outspoken Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the University students and faculty came under the radar of the Pakistani State. Little wonder then that many of the Pak Army's worst atrocities were carried out on the campus during Operation Search Light.



Tehran University was founded roughly sixty years before Dhaka University. The University was formed by integrating various independent faculties and schools. Initially, heavily influenced by French curricula, after WWII, it tried to Americanize its system more. Tehran University also became a battleground on which various religious and political skirmishes were fought by those struggling for state power. Of course the students have been more than pawns in these great games - they have played a central role in them.

In 1979, when the world watched a revolution as momentous as the French or Russian, a lot of impetus to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's anti-Reza Shah rhetoric came after mass-atrocities on the TU campus. The campus fell under the control of anti-state guerrillas who made weapons and Molotov cocktails . Of course, the agitation had deeper roots. The leftist, liberal Tehran University elements also witnessed the 2,500 year-old celebration of the Persian Empire as Reza Shah threw a party to end all parties. Pro-American, anti-leftist, anti-Islamist, Reza Shah alienated many, and as draughts raged in Baluchistan and Sistan, he had two hundred chefs flown in from Paris, served a ton of caviar and spent between $50 to a $100 million dollars for lots of corporate guests, both Western and Iranian. Students of Tehran University weren't very impressed.

Of course, the students of both Dhaka and Tehran University continue to be politically active. Although politically conscientious voices are fast disappearing on the DU campus, as Shibir cadres are increasingly ensconcing themselves there. Still DU remains a hot-bed of anti-state politics. As does TU, witnessed by the violent protests against against the closing of the reform-minded newspaper, Salam, and more recently against Mr. Ahmadenijad.


Academically, both universities are formidable with a former alumnus/a in each case, bagging a Noble Peace Prize recently: Shirin Ebadi in 2003 and Muhammad Yunus in 2006.