UN not USA

Self-baptised Yankee liberators should stay away from the Georgian-Russian conflict


UN not USA
by Jahanshah Rashidian

Stalin designed Georgia current borders. Stalin, himself an Ossetian, combined Abkhaziya and half of Ossetia with Georgia and consciously dividing the people of Ossetia into two parts.

To solve this ethnic problem, Georgia decided to unite the two separated parts of South and North Ossetia, but region was never part of post-Soviet Georgia.

As long as Georgia was a part of the Soviet Union, all ethnic conflicts within the Soviet zone of "interests", were not international issues. Yet, the issue emerged à la une after the dissolution of the USSR, when first in 1995 the two regions -- Abkhazia and South Ossetia -- became involved in conflicts with local separatists supported by Moscow. The issue ended in a de facto independence of South Ossetia from Georgia.

Yet, with a pro-US president in office, Georgia launched an assault earlier this month with artillery and rocket attacks on the separatists. Russia immediately reacted and showed the sharp claws of a polar bear. A much larger Russian army quickly crushed the Georgian assault. It is believed that the United States knew or even encouraged the Georgian attack. With the support of the US, Georgia hoped to annex the region.

If this conflict is to be resolved,  only an international institution like the UN must intervene, not the US or NATO.

The US should now stay away from a new regional conflict, which is thousands of kilometers away from Washington.  Because of its bad reputation in Iraq, stirring up internal problems in other countries, and its hunger for national resources of other countries, the Bush Administration does not have any lesson to teach to this part of the world with a totally different history and socio-economic background. Furthermore, there is nothing like "weapons of mass destruction" in this area.

In actuality, it is time to solve international problems through firm and reliable UN resolutions, rather than the bogus actions of world super-powers. It is obvious that the US, being the only power today with hegemonic desires, could generate further tension. The world is not going to sit and watch those self-baptised Yankee liberators in the Bush Administration try to impose their long outdated principles of "democracy" and "freedom".

The world has not forgotten that in 1961 the US and USSR came to the brink of nuclear war when the USSR was determined to set up atomic missiles in the US' backyard in Cuba. The Soviet move was in retaliation against US basing nuclear missiles in Turkey. Now we have the US -- via NATO -- again trying to further its military alliance in the Caucasuses.

It is not unreasonable to expect that Russia, rather than allowing events to continue down that road again, would act swiftly in self defence -- probably in the same way the US would react. I wonder what the Russians would do if a similar thing happened in their backyard. While they are still a major powerful and have the legacy of once being the strongest military superpower, they would say and do almost anything and get away with it.

There is no evidence that Russia intends to occupy Georgia, overthrow its government and install a puppet government. The Western media has not been reporting properly and honestly about the issue, rather they are exaggerating the conflict just like during the Cold War. Georgia is not Poland of 1939-40, divided by a German-Soviet pact, nor have we the same monsters like Hitler and Stalin in the East and West.

There is a much stronger ground for Germany and France, with their relatively better tradition of democracy and a lesser ambition of hegemony, to act as intermediaries to help bring about a ceasefire and reduce tensions until both sides with the help of the UN can achieve the best resolution. Despite failure to form a united stance on how to respond to Russia's military action in South Ossetia, Germany and France, because of their close relations with Russia, can play an important role to impede further escalation of violence.


Recently by Jahanshah RashidianCommentsDate
Journée Internationale des Femmes
Mar 08, 2010
Stop Indian Gasoline for Mullahs’ Repressive Machinery
Feb 04, 2010
Iran Fails United Opposition
Jan 20, 2010
more from Jahanshah Rashidian

Anonym7, KavehV and Jaleho

by Shadooneh (not verified) on

Thank you all very much of taking the time to respond to my request for feedback about how the Gorgestan "affair" will affect Iran-US-Russia relationship in the short term. I am afraid we have not seen the end of this yet and the plot is getting thicker every day. As we say in Farsi, this daastaan dameh deraaz darad.
Good luck to all of you.

Jahanshah Rashidian

Mitra jan

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

Thank you for another comment. Russian limited interference is now a, God given, excuse for the US to weaponing some ex-Soviet members or satellites. This another perspective of a new and unnecessary Cold War.


Shadooneh / what now

by Jaleho on

Here's an article about Turkey that gives in details what I was trying to tell you in contrast to the Turkish article you provided. Although Iran-Turkey failed to sign the gas deal in that trip, the mere trip to Istanbul was asuccess to beextended later.



Here's some parts:

"The ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government not only
opened the Blue Mosque to Ahmadinejad but accommodated his refusal to
pay respects at the mausoleum of Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern,
secular Turkey -- a major violation of protocol for an official visit.

In 1996, when Iran's president, Hashemi
Rafsanjani, refused to go to Ataturk's mausoleum, snubbing Turkey's
identity as a secular pro-Western state, it led to a public outcry and
sharp criticism of Iran. Relations soured......


Meanwhile, since the AKP assumed power in Turkey in 2002, bilateral
visits with Iran have boomed; Ahmadinejad's trip crowns dozens of
visits by high-level officials. Trade has boomed as well, increasing
from $1.2 billion in 2002 to $8 billion today. And even though the two
countries didn't formalize the deal last week, plans are still going
forward for a $3.5-billion Turkish investment in Iranian gas fields --
this at a time when the West is adopting financial sanctions against
Iran to cripple Tehran's ability to make a nuclear bomb. If there were
any doubts about a Turkish-Iranian rapprochement, they were laid to
rest last week: During Ahmadinejad's visit, the two countries agreed to
make 2009 an "Iran-Turkey year of culture" -- marked by regular
cultural and political programs and exchanges -- to bring the two
countries closer."


Another awsome article by

by Mitra from khuzistan (not verified) on

Another awsome article by Mr. Rashidian
For the first time I did not mind the Russian's interference, either!

Jahanshah Rashidian

Dear Ebi

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

Thanks for your informative comment.



ebi amirhosseini

Dear Mr Rashidian

by ebi amirhosseini on

thanks for another well written article.

just a note:

Ossitian language is one of the 7 Iranian languages.Although we(Iranians) cannot understand it anymore.For more info one can check:

Ossitian language,by Prof.Mohsen Abolghaasemi.

"The Ossetic language belongs to the Indo-European language family. It belongs to the Iranian branch of that language family. Ossetic is divided into two main dialect groups: Ironian (os. - Ирон) in North and South Ossetia and Digorian (os. - Дыгурон) of North Ossetia. There are some subdialects in those two: like Tualian, Alagirian, Ksanian, etc. Ironian dialect is the most widely spoken.

Ossetic is classified as Northeastern Iranian, the only other surviving member of the subgroup being Yaghnobi, spoken more than 2,000 km to the east in Tajikistan. Both are remnants of the Scytho-Sarmatian dialect group which was once spoken across Central Asia. Ossetic has substantial genetic similarities with Pashto,[citation needed] another Eastern Iranian language"

Please excuse my intrusion.

best wishes


yet another surprise! (to Q)

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Q says: "Another surprize was Fred's last comment ...."

Q, I am so surprised that you have have underestimated the warmonger ...., the man can not even tolerate the most tolerant and one of the most moderate people of this site (see his personal attacks down below).


Too real to be “Orwellian”

by Fred on

“Another surprize was Fred's last comment claiming he does not approve of 'demonization' in calling people 'depraved'. I welcome it whole heartedly and anticipate it being followed by him in the future. For one thing, he could continue by holding his desire to call people with Orwellian bogyman accustions like "Islamist", "IRI agent" and "lefty", at least for those who are not.”

Not to look a gift horse in the mouth would be the first reaction for it is not everyday occurrence to receive a roundabout, sort of, kind of, not totally negative remark from certain quarters.  Alas the reality overcomes momentary exuberance.


 Not to say the least about the bang-up job the Islamist republic has been doing with demonizing its opponents.-as someone who on more than one occasion been demonized to the point of being asked to first go beat, maim, kill children and in at least one occasion been threaten with death (In that instance the threatening comment was removed by this site’s admin), I am intimately aware of the price of demonization.


The Islamist/Anti-Semites and their likeminded lefty allies would be wholly mistaken to either deliberately or unwittingly confuse the issue. Trying to not stoop to the guttural lever of the ideological nemesis does not necessitate not calling them with the appropriate moniker.  There is nothing “Orwellian” about calling Islamism a murderous political mechanism. Islamism has as much to do with one’s faith in the divine as the ideologies of Nazism, fascism, communisms had in the divinity. So, thanks but no thanks.  


Re: What now?

by KavehV (not verified) on

The situation on the ground is still fluid and Russian intentions are not very clear. It seems that Russia, in their old brute force tradition, has drawn a red line on the ground against western influence. On the other hand they would have a great deal to lose by conducting cold war style military occupations, as opposed to the old Soviet times. In the old days, they did not care about economic/political integration into western societies, but now they do claim desire for global integration.

It may also be that their vision of global integration in a multi-polar world with political and economical spheres of influence is somewhat different from ours, and it seems that this boundary in Caucasus is being defined now. We will have to wait and see if their forces will leave Georgia in the next couple of days and under what conditions. After all (in their mind), what are they going to gain by leaving Georgia so soon, without forcing a regime change or some how acquiring some measure of control that would prevent further western influence after they leave. If cold war history is any guide, they will stay in Georgia in some manner over the long haul (and I hope to be proven wrong). For now, the BTC pipeline is a valuable western hostage in Moscow's possession.

As for the Islamists republic, a fairly isolated regime in 2008, they stand (more or less) alone with regard to their nuclear issue. But, I suspect Moscow will probably gain some leverage with respect to Caspian basin resource sharing. The big bear is one more step closer to overwhelm their Islamic ally. This goes to show how the late Shah was so much better in his strategic thinking by allying himself with far away Washington against an overwhelming brutish neighbor to the north.

Although, in my view, the threat of military attack against IRI's nuclear sites has been very low so far, IRI could try to re-invoke 1921 treaty with Moscow and request military help in extreme situation, subject to Moscow's unlikely approval.

So, my question from the community: does anybody know the status of the 1921 Iran-Soviet treaty? Last I heard, it was nullified in 1979-80 by Ibrahim Yazdi, but I never saw any proof of it in the media.


Congratulations Rashidian,

by Q on

I think you have written well, and coincidently finally found something that nearly everyone agrees with, even if some admit this only grudgingly.

Another surprize was Fred's last comment claiming he does not approve of 'demonization' in calling people 'depraved'. I welcome it whole heartedly and anticipate it being followed by him in the future. For one thing, he could continue by holding his desire to call people with Orwellian bogyman accustions like "Islamist", "IRI agent" and "lefty", at least for those who are not.

Things like this can help us get past the school yard mentality and just discuss the important subjects at hand.


Dear Mammad: My sinceret

by standby (not verified) on

Dear Mammad: My sinceret apologies. I stand corrected.


I agree with Mammad (to standby and Mammad)

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Standby, what you said about Mammad is indeed wrong. In fact Mammad expressed his disagreement with me sometime ago with respect to "economic development first", as I somewhat support that theory.
BTW, Mammad, thanks for tolerating these unfunded attacks (I am not referring to standby's misunderstanding) and continuing to enlighten us.



by Mammad on

I have never subscribed to the theory that you say I have. Without political liberation there cannot be a lasting economic development. Who is going to reveal all corruptions if there is no free press? Who is going to shout in the parliament, demanding the dismissal of criminal government officials, if the elections are not free? Who is going to challenge the dictator - even if the dictator has every good intention for his country - if there is no freedom?

So, no, I do not believe in "economic development first" theory, although the present ruling criminal gang in Iran is not even capable of that. I do not know why you think I do. All I have said is that, changing the system should be done within Iran by Iranians without outside interference.




by Fred on

Thank you for the kind word, but I am afraid I cannot subscribe to the "depraved” part of your comment. If anything, I’ve learned the folly of demonization from the Islamist republic and where the muddling of the line and distinction between the person and that person’s viewpoints leads to.


AmirAshkan Pishroo

Very good article, Standby

by AmirAshkan Pishroo on

When I say we should do reform and we cannot make revolution, I am not, of course, laying foundations for the Iranian regime, nor I am apologizing for it. I am speaking from Social-Democracy's side of the argument, trying to serve as under-laborer to great thinkers of this movement from Karl Kautsky to Issiah Berlin by clearing away some of the political confusions that I find also in your article.

Otherwise, I agree with many points you brought up in your impressive article.


America should nuke Russia

by American Redneck (not verified) on

America must invade the Islamic Republic and destroy the mullahs and their supporters.


Dear Shadooneh / what now?

by Jaleho on

I have given my feedback of the situation in my recent blog right when the crisis started:


my answer to Zion and the title of my blog, summarizes my feeling on the situation:

"What I am saying is this Zion: It maybe true that US could
spend $50,000 to overthrow Mossadegh and bring out its puppet Shah in
Iran fifty years ago, or spend about $50 million in Ukraine or Georgia
to bring other US puppets in power in recent times....but it requires
100 times more than those paltry amounts to keep those scums in power!!

So, regarding your particular question, I respectfully disagree with the two articles you provided. That is,  I don't think at all that US set up Saakashvili on this. Some dumb Israelis (like the Georgian-Israeli minister)might have hoped that  A FIRE would drag US into this, and hope for a much bigger event in the area which would position US agaisnt Iran there too. But frankly, it looks like arrogance and greed blinded the idiot of Georgia, thinking that he can have the big American boss help him annex S. Ossetia and Abkhazi while everyone was busy with Olympics!

BUT, unlike your articles imply, I don't think anyone in the US has such appetite OR POWER TO ENFORCE IT these days. They know their weakness and at the present the American side can only BARK, not BITE. Exactly the same position US and Israelis have been in the past five years regarding Iran. Except that it is much tougher to act against Russia and Iran combined. Which will bring us to the second point of your article: will Iran get hurt in all of this? NOT AN IOTA in my opinion!

If anything, US will be in a weaker position to force Russia go AGAINST Iran. US can muster those anti-Iran attitudes from China, Russia or India only if it has something bigger to offer them, not when it has to bark against them!

Little by little every one is noticing that US-Israeli power is much less than advertised and frankly, anyone who can kick the big guy, would do so. It is still not economically advantageous for China to endanger its huge economic ties with the US. But, countries like Russia, or Iran or even Turkey SLOWLY will notice that economic ties with EU and Asia and lots of emerging markets are good enough substitue for US and they don't have to be blind lackeys. Hell, some Arabs are now talking less timid to the US of A!

And Turkey, was scared to sign the energy deal in this trip as US has asked them NOT to,  but was brave enough to have Ahmadinejad in Istanbul, (as oppesed to Ankara) and they reviewd all the energy deals TO BE SIGNED later. I am sure even Turkey was hoping to take advantage of the present US weakness and would have signed the deal if it could get the bargain it was hoping for gas price from Iran! The double sided Turkish haggle didn't work, that's all!


Dear Amirashkan Pishroo

by standby (not verified) on

what a coincidence. I just posted a comprehensive analysis of the aplogists' bogus prescription for Iran. Read the comments too.


AmirAshkan Pishroo

democratization of Iran

by AmirAshkan Pishroo on

"A secular and democratic Iran is inevitable, extremists such as yourself only postpone that," very well said by Anonym7.

Only socio-political reforms can lead to the democratization of Iran. This amounts to giving up the idea that revolutionary overthrown of the state is feasible project.

The problem is that the Iranian Revolution of 1979 made revolutionary strategy the rule rather than the exception among Iranian intellectuals.

Revolutions are not made, they only come, and are rare in modern history. commitment to fanciful projects eventually lead to mental degeneration, one way or the other.


This article should be read

by standby (not verified) on

This article should be read by those who think liberalizing economy of a country will bring liberty and freedom. The likes of mammad and abarmard.

Who Really Won the Cold War



by Mammad on

Thank you for supporting my political deconstruction. I am happy to be of service, so that you and others can beat up on me, emptying your venom, feeling better. What a dumb man is good for, other than being beaten up?

Regarding my scientific scholarship: You simply are not qualified. You are not my peer. Mine are dumb people like myself, not the sophisticated, educated, enlightened people like you. I often wonder, given the trash that we are, why do you even bother yourself with us mortals, insignificants, dumbs, backwards?



Israel sold weapons to Georgia? I thought they were civilized?

by Mehdi on

So you are telling me Israel is providing tools for killing and they are NOT civilized? What a revelation!


Re: What now?

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

shadooneh says: "Will Russia lower its support for Iran in the nuclear arena and let the US/Israel attack Iran as a way to assuage the US?"

Shadooneh, your question assumes Russia has been supporting Iran in the nuclear arena. That is a questionable assumption. Additionally even if your assumption is correct I have not seen any evidence that Russia would do anything to stop the potential attack.
I have read many arguments against war by U.S officials such as, U.S can't afford a third front, interruption of oil supply, impact on Iraqi progress ... etc but I haven't seen anyone expressing worries about the Russian reaction.
..... on a related note I am sure that we both agree that Russians will not hesitate to sell Iran even if they are supporting it now.


Dear Fred

by ...Anonymous (not verified) on

No my lefty Islamist essayist, you were as full of yourself back then as you are now. Others have read, analyzed and discussed the same stuff you’ve read but have not synthesized it to fit and validate an expired ideology as you do. The logical outcome of Sharaiati and Ale-Ahmad thoughts that you bill yourself as an authority on is what we know as the Islamist republic. Now your oxymoron religious nationalist group is desperately trying to market itself as a viable alternative. The problem is despite some nibbling from the Swedes and some others not many are biting, least the really important constituency, the people inside Iran. Gone are the days of Ershad being overcrowded with the clenched fisted youths, nowadays the small oxymoron party’s crowd are clenching their walkers and canes

Excellent deconstruction of a morally depraved and fanatic "scholar".Thanks.


What now?

by Shadooneh (not verified) on

I confess I'm more worried about the negative consequences of the events in Gorgestan for Iran since Russia drew a line in the sand to show she intends to stand up to the West to safeguard its backyard. I am wondering if Saakashvili's ill thought of actions in South Ossetia will give the US/Israel duo the excuse to attack Iran. As Jaleho points out this is all about gas and oil. The US tried very hard to set the paths for the BTC (Baku-Teflis-Jayan) oil pipeline and the, yet to be constructed, Nabucco gas pipeline, which follows the same path as the BTC line, through Gorgestan with the specific aim of avoiding the Russian soil and thus depriving the Russians of exerting any influence on the flow of both of those crucial energy resources to Europe - it goes without saying that Iran was ruled out as an alternate route due to the US pressure too. To make sure these lines are secure the US arranged for a "democratic" election in Gorgestan after the democratic opposition to the US vassal, who was to win, were beaten and silenced on camera right before the arranged election in Gorestan. The US followed up the support for its puppet by giving the regime massive military hardware and outsources training of the Gorgestan military to Israel. The Jewish state sold more that $200 worth of Israeli armaments and training that was provided by the general in charge of the IDF operations in Lebanon, who resigned after it suffered its latest defeat there. We all know how well THAT worked out for the hapless Gorgis and how they were left out to dry - I bet Elam of Azarbayjan is having second thoughts about the about the US/Israel support in case he needs them too. Here's what I am dying to known, and I hope some of you can shed some light on it. Will Russia lower its support for Iran in the nuclear arena and let the US/Israel attack Iran as a way to assuage the US? Here are two views about the subject one by an Iranian commentator and one by a Turkish one. I appreciate your feedback.



Dear PC: Did you know that

by ...Anonymous (not verified) on

Dear PC: Did you know that the Greeks were ruled by the Persian for 150 years???



secular regime in Iran (to Rashidian)

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Rashidian says: "Since I am for a replacement of the whole IRI with a democratic and secular regime in Iran, you criticise me and my ideals."

Mr. Rashidian, not only many non-Muslim Iranians such as myself but also many many Muslim Iranians want a secular and democratic Iran. You and some of your right wing allies including the war mongers, those who advocate sanctions against Iran, and the Muslim haters, are not the only ones who want a "secular and democratic Iran".
A secular and democratic Iran is inevitable, extremists such as yourself only postpone that, and that is why I have criticized you in the past, I have no issues with your desire for a secular Iran and in fact a secular world!


Regarding US pipeline policy in Caspian Basin

by Jaleho on

Most people already are well familiar with REAL reasons for Iraq invasion. But, there's still a cloud regarding US invasion of Afghanistan and its policy in the former soviet republics. The following is a good short review of Afghanistan part of it. It is a bit old and doesn't cover the later selling  of unocal, still a good review:



The Struggle for Oil 

         Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the U.S. government sought
political and military agreements with the new Central Asian
governments. The key here was the undeveloped oil and gas deposits in
the Caspian Sea region. U.S. national security policy shifted from the
Cold War against communism to protection of existing sources of oil and
diversification away from reliance on the Persian Gulf. In support of
this goal, the United States today  maintains 250,000 service men and
women overseas at 725 bases in 38 countries, in addition to five
aircraft carrier battle groups. This is outside their commitments to
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Central Asia has been a
key focus of U.S. policy. The goal has been to tie the oil and gas 
resources to the West and block Russian domination of the area. As
always, the U.S. government operates closely with U.S. oil
corporations. In 1993 Chevron ventured into Kazakstan. In 1994 a
consortium of oil corporations, including Amoco, BP, Unocal and
Pennzoil signed a joint venture with Azerbaijan. The American Petroleum
Institute supported this objective, calling the Caspian region “the
area of greatest resource potential outside of the Middle East.”
From the beginning, the U.S. government strongly supported the building
of an oil and gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and
Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. They refused to support a pipeline through
either Russia or Iran.
The American oil corporations also supported
this policy, preferring the major markets in India, China, Japan and
the west coast of the United States to the more competitive markets in
In 1993 the governments of Turkmenistan and
Pakistan negotiated the building of the pipelines. They were joined by
the Union Oil Corporation of California (Unocal), who hired Henry
Kissinger, Hamid Karzi and Zalmay Khalilzad as advisers. Amoco hired
Zbigniew Brzezinsky. Turkmenistan hired U.S. General Alexander Haig.
When the Central Asia Gas and Pipeline Consortium (CentGas) was created
in 1996, both Enron (Kenneth Lay) and Halliburton (Dick Cheney) were to
be involved with the development. Condoleezza Rice, then on the board
of directors of Chevron, supported the project.

The key
to the building of the pipelines was always the creation of a stable
government in Afghanistan. Even before they seized power, the U.S.
government supported the Taliban, concluding that it was the only
political force which could create a national government. The Clinton
Administration actively supported the pipeline agreement with
Turkmenistan. Khalilzad became the special link between Unocal, the
Taliban and the U.S. government. Unocal and the CentGas consortium were
quite willing to deal with any government which could control the

The pipeline plan received a setback in 1998
when terrorists with supposed links to bin Laden bombed two U.S.
embassies in Africa. Bill Clinton responded by launching Cruise
missiles on bin Laden’s bases in Afghanistan. The Taliban government
agreed to extradite bin Laden to Saudi Arabia for trial for terrorism,
provided evidence of his complicity was produced. None was produced.
But Unocal withdrew from the pipeline project, concluding that the
Taliban government was unstable and unreliable.

The Pipeline Must Go Ahead 

In 1999 the governments of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan
signed a new agreement to promote the pipelines. The following year
Unocal resumed talks with the Taliban government. Additional UN
Security Council sanctions were imposed on Afghanistan after the
bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000. The Taliban
government continued to agree to extradite bin Laden provided proof was
presented tying him to the terrorist acts. But still no evidence was
produced. The Taliban government hired Laila Helms, niece of Richard
Helms, former director of the CIA, as their negotiator in talks with
the U.S. government.
The new administration of George W.
Bush began talks with the Taliban government, which went from February
2 to August 6, 2001. Dick Cheney’s report on U.S. energy needs,
released in May 2001, called for major U.S. involvement in the
development of the Caspian Sea reserves. The allies for this project
were the Taliban and Pakistan governments, both of which were strongly

What could be done with the Taliban
government?  In June 2001 Chokila Iyer, the Indian Foreign Secretary,
reported that the United States and the Russian government were
planning a military attack on the Taliban through the borders of
Tajikstan and Uzbekistan. They were to back the warlords of the
Northern Alliance in an effort to overthrow the Taliban government. The
Indian government agreed to “facilitate” this action. The planned
attack on Afghanistan was widely discussed at the July 2001 meeting of
the G-8 countries in Geneva.
Shortly after in July the
United Nations hosted a meeting between the U.S., Russia and the six
countries that border Afghanistan in Berlin. The eight governments
agreed that what was needed was a new government of natural unity which
would be followed by international economic aid and the building of the
pipelines. Naif Naik, the Pakistani Foreign Minister, reported that at
the meeting the U.S. government threatened the Taliban that if they did
not agree to this proposal they would bring on “a military operation.”
Naik reported that U.S. officials told him that military action against
the Taliban government would begin by the middle of October 2001.        
Then came the events of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration
made new demands on the Taliban government. Once again, the Taliban
agreed to extradite bin Laden to another country for trial, but only if
some evidence was presented demonstrating that he had some ties to the
U.S. airline hijackings. An agreement was reached to extradite bin
Laden to Pakistan, but this was then rejected by President Pervez
Musharraf, now closely allied with the U.S. government. The White House
stated that “there would be no negotiations, no discussions with the
Taliban.” On October 7 US and UK bombers attacked Afghanistan and
increased their economic and military aid to the warlords of the
Northern Alliance.

The New Afghan Government

Under massive air attack from the US and UK forces, the Taliban
government was rapidly defeated. Hamid Karzai was chosen by the U.S.
government to head the new regime in Kabul. He had long been closely
linked to the U.S. government, as the CIA agent, based in Pakistan, who
channeled the $2 billion in U.S. aid to the mujahideen.....


Interesting thread not because

by Jaleho on

It says anything new which is correct (like the first half of the article about the status of Ossetia), or sheds any light to the REAL thing going in that region, like status of BTC pipeline, its extension, or US pipeline policy of central  and south east Asia in general.

The interesting thing is that the first correc part comes UNUSUALLY from our pro-Zionist Rashidian. He probably wouldn't make comments like this when US was trying to postpone a ceasefire in Lebanon to give Israel a whole month to clear out Hezbollah, when all UN members were rushing for a ceasefire! He probably didn't mind US emergency shipment of extra bombs and Israeli's massive use of cluster bombs which are still killing civilians in Lebanon. For those who are surprised, here's the reason:

Rashidian seems to be Europe based, not US based. Thus unlike typical American cowboys like Programmer Craig who is TOTALLY delusional about US power, Rashidian is more aware of the gradual power shifts in the world after the chaotic years of post-soviet disintegration. That is, although the author  would reflect the sucking up mentality of Germany towards Israel after all the bribes Germans have been forced to give, he is not a TYPICAL FOX brainwashed illiterate, the types of Programmer Craig who blesses themselves for being a macho American (albeit impotent these days) thirty times a day. Just clarifying for general reader :-)


As for Rashidian's second part of the article, it is naive to hope US would let UN do the job. US did not spend $TRILLIONS in central Asia just to leave it to UN. The main reason for US pouring money for "color revolution" is the same reason for its mayhem and invasion of Afghanistan. Control of world's energy distribution and that means control of the pipelines from Caspian basin. For that policy, US has used not only its military and financial prowess to dictate the pipeline routes, US has used its political arm, the UN to FORCE other nations abide by its desires. It has blocked illiogically the shortest and most efficient path through Iran. To avoid troubles in Nagorno-Karabakh it has avoided the better path through Armenistan. It has been preventing the most reasonable pipeline from Iran-Pakistan-India so harsh that it was willing to make a nuclear deal with India to torpedo that pipeline. and Now, you want US to leave the scene and let its TOOL take over?!!

Jahanshah Rashidian

Terminology of "leftist"

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

Dear Mr. Kashani: I appreciate your proposal, your emails are welcome.

Anonymous 7: Even if you pretentiously and rarely talk from "a democratic republic" and you are secular, still it is a reasonable honour for me when a IRI's apologist like you keeps cricisisng me.

You may know my position on USA, Iraq, ME, form of state, ...but your main factor of judgment over people like me is not because of these or other factors, but merely their position on the IRI. Since I am for a replacement of the whole IRI with a democratic and secular regime in Iran, you criticise me and my ideals. I must be cheating my own ideals if one day you will not criticise me. 

To All Readers: Now, let me talk to the new generation of Iranian people, to those who naively oppose the opposition to this regime and to those who do not exactly know the sad treachery of some "false" leftists.

A previous spectrum of Tudehist / Majoritist "leftists", at the beginning of the IRI, used to have Rubles in their packets and Big Brother's tips in their ears to erect the banner of anti-Amerianism in Iran and in this perspective they unconditionally supported the "anti-American" IRI. They were not anonymous or behind a fishy avatar! They were publicly and proudly collaborators of the "anti-imperialist" IRI to identify and arrest of thousands of Iranian dissidents which led to execution of many, including many real leftists.

Although, the spectrum was itself the belated victim of the same "anti-imperialist" regime, but still somehow mysteriously remains loyal to some factions of the same regime and defend the legitimacy of their "Imam" Khomeini's legacy. Therefore some people call them on this site "lefties,
leftists, Islamist leftists,..."It is all about an unconventional terminology.