Appointments of Bolton and Pompeo bring us closer to war
Armed conflict between the US and Iran is becoming more probable by the day as super-hawks replace hawks in the Trump administration. The new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, has called for the US to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 and advocated immediate regime change in Tehran. The new Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has said the agreement, which Trump may withdraw from on 12 May, is “a disaster”. Trump has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he will not accept a deal with “cosmetic changes” as advocated by European states according to Israeli reporters. If this is so, then the deal is effectively dead.
The escalating US-Iran confrontation is causing menacing ripples that could soon become waves across the Middle East. The price of crude oil is up because of fears of disruption of supply from the Gulf. In Iran, the value of the rial is at its lowest ever, having fallen by a quarter in the last six months. In Iraq, the Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi admits that his greatest fear is a confrontation between the US and Iran fought out in Iraq.
A dangerous aspect of the super-hawk approach to Iran is similar to that of the Bush administration in the run up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In both cases, those calling for use of armed force had or have lethally little knowledge of what they were getting into. Pompeo had a simple solution to the Iranian problem when he was still a Congressman, telling reporters that it would take “under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity.”
Optimists, though these have become fewer on the ground in Washington in the last few weeks, are dismissive of such bellicose rhetoric. But whatever Trump and his lieutenants think they are doing, their words have consequences. Governments have to take threats seriously and devise counter-measures to meet them in case the worst comes to the worst. In the wake of the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, American neo-conservatives boastfully proclaimed that it would be “Baghdad today, Tehran and Damascus tomorrow.” These slogans were enough to ensure that the Syrian and Iranian governments did everything in their power to make sure that the US could not stay in Iraq.
Armed conflict between the US and Iran is becoming more probable by the day as super-hawks replace hawks in the Trump administration. The new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, has called for the US to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 and advocated immediate regime change in Tehran. The new Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has said the agreement, which Trump may withdraw from on 12 May, is “a disaster”. Trump has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he will not accept a deal with “cosmetic changes” as advocated by European states according to Israeli reporters. If this is so, then the deal is effectively dead.
The escalating US-Iran confrontation is causing menacing ripples that could soon become waves across the Middle East. The price of crude oil is up because of fears of disruption of supply from the Gulf. In Iran, the value of the rial is at its lowest ever, having fallen by a quarter in the last six months. In Iraq, the Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi admits that his greatest fear is a confrontation between the US and Iran fought out in Iraq.
A dangerous aspect of the super-hawk approach to Iran is similar to that of the Bush administration in the run up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In both cases, those calling for use of armed force had or have lethally little knowledge of what they were getting into. Pompeo had a simple solution to the Iranian problem when he was still a Congressman, telling reporters that it would take “under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity.”
Optimists, though these have become fewer on the ground in Washington in the last few weeks, are dismissive of such bellicose rhetoric. But whatever Trump and his lieutenants think they are doing, their words have consequences. Governments have to take threats seriously and devise counter-measures to meet them in case the worst comes to the worst. In the wake of the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, American neo-conservatives boastfully proclaimed that it would be “Baghdad today, Tehran and Damascus tomorrow.” These slogans were enough to ensure that the Syrian and Iranian governments did everything in their power to make sure that the US could not stay in Iraq.
Looking back, the invasion of Iraq marked the turning point for the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon powers – the US and the UK – on the world stage. The fraudulent justification for the war and the failure of those who launched it to get their way against relatively puny opponents turned a conflict which was meant to be a show of strength into a demonstration of weakness. Foreign intervention in Libya and Syria in 2011 produced similar calamities.
If we are on the edge of a fresh crisis in the Middle East centring on Iran, then the US is in a much weaker position than it was pre-Trump. Domestically divided and short of allies, it can no longer control the rules of the game as it once did. Over the last year there are two examples of this: in May, Trump visited Saudi Arabia giving unequivocal backing to its rulers and blaming the troubles of the region on Iran. But it turned out that the prime target of Saudi Arabia and UAE was not Iran but tiny Qatar. All Trump had achieved was to break the previously united front of Gulf monarchies against Iran.
In another major misjudgement by the US this January, the supposedly moderate Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, announced that the US would be keeping its forces in Syria after the defeat of Isis and intended to get rid of President Bashar al-Assad and roll-back Iranian influence. This ambition was largely fantasy, but the Russian and Turkish reaction was real. Four days after Tillerson’s arrogant declaration, the Turkish army poured into northern Syria with Russian permission and within two months had eliminate the enclave of Afrin, inhabited by Kurds who are the only US ally in Syria. The Kurds are now rather desperately hoping that they will not be left in the lurch by the US in the event of a Turkish military assault on the main Kurdish-held territory in north east Syria.
I was in the Kurdish-held zone in Syria earlier this month and wondered what the US will do if the Turks did decide to advance further. The north Syrian plain east of the Euphrates is dead flat with little cover while the main Kurdish cities are right on the Turkish border and highly vulnerable. The US only has 2,000 troops there and their effectiveness depends on their ability to call in devastating airstrikes by the US air force. This is a powerful option, but would the US really use it in defence of the Kurds against NATO ally Turkey?
What Trump claims was President Obama’s weakness of will and poor negotiating skills was in reality an astute ability to match US means to US interests and avoid being sucked into unwinnable wars. This was never really understood by the Washington foreign policy establishment which is stuck in the pre-2003 era when US strength was at its height in the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Still less is it grasped by super-hawks like Bolton and Pompeo with no idea of the political and military minefields into which they are about to stumble.
The US establishment and US allies may be aghast at Trump withdrawing from the nuclear deal, but it looks more than likely he is going to do it. Sanctions on Iran may be re-imposed, but these are never quite the winning card that those imposing them imagine, whatever the suffering inflicted on the general population. Sanctions unilaterally imposed by the Trump may damage Iran, but they will also isolate the US.
Whatever the outcome of a confrontation between the US and Iran, it is not going to “Make America Great Again”. The northern corridor of the Middle East south of Turkey and north of Saudi Arabia has always been the graveyard of US interventionism: this was true of Lebanon in the 1980s when the US embassy and 242 US Marines were blown up, Iraq between 2003 and 2011 and Syria from 2011 to the present day. The US has commonly blamed Iran for these frustrations, an explanation that has some validity but the real reason is that the US has been fighting a sect rather than a single state. All these countries where the US has failed either have a Shia majority, as in the case of Iran and Iraq, a plurality as in Lebanon or are a ruling minority as in Syria. As the most powerful Shia state, Iran has an immense advantage when it comes to fighting its enemies in such a sympathetic religious terrain.
The new line-up in Washington is being described as “a war cabinet” and it may turn out to be just that. But looking at ignorant, arrogant men like Bolton and Pompeo, it is difficult to avoid the feeling that it will all end in disaster.
Re: Council of Pakistani Scholars: Time to eradicate Houthis, ‘cut off Iranian hands’
format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_
I don't care about a handful of shia over there, the yemeni gov't could have taken care of them easily. Saudi regime is shedding blood of sunni muslims by the thousands, on behalf of their western master. No amount of their terrorism in yemen can be justified. You and the paki ulama need a perspective check. Here's a start:
And how learned are you? These Ulema have studied deen for years, it is not a complicated or difficult thing to determine that the Houthis are devils that should be wiped out, they are worse than Banu Qurayza and they have made Yemen in Kheybar and will as a result share the same fate.
يا قافلة الخير "The Persian aggression against Iraq was a result of the arrogant, racialist and evil attitudes of the ruling clique in Iran."
-Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid at-Tikriti - العراق جمجمة العرب ورمح الله في الأرض
Re: Council of Pakistani Scholars: Time to eradicate Houthis, ‘cut off Iranian hands’
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
And how learned are you? These Ulema have studied deen for years, it is not a complicated or difficult thing to determine that the Houthis are devils that should be wiped out, they are worse than Banu Qurayza and they have made Yemen in Kheybar and will as a result share the same fate.
it's not the houthis that are wiping the sunni muslims out in yemen. it's the so called sunni muslims of arabia. what use is your knowledge if you can't even see the blood of Muslims being spilled by those claiming to be protectors of the holy cities.
Re: Council of Pakistani Scholars: Time to eradicate Houthis, ‘cut off Iranian hands’
format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_
it's not the houthis that are wiping the sunni muslims out in yemen. it's the so called sunni muslims of arabia. what use is your knowledge if you can't even see the blood of Muslims being spilled by those claiming to be protectors of the holy cities.
The Houthis fire missiles at the holy cities when weapons are prohibited there and pilgrims are fulfilling a pillar of Islam. The Houthis if not stopped today will be the "Guardians" of Hejaz they are strong and skilled in warfare the Houthis can never be allowed to succeed, they are the allies of Assad, Iran, and HezbulLAT
- - - Updated - - -
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
There is a silly Sunni vs Shiite war going on because of Saudis and Iran. America influences the Saudi and the Saudi influence sunni groups whereas Russia influences Iran and Iran influences the Shiite groups. The result is the blood shed of muslims. Saudi arabia was free from terror once but they invited it to their country themselves.
For you to act like or to think that this is some new conflict or a secular conflict or a conflict fought at the hands of others, you are very incorrect. This is a battle of Haqq vs Batil of Iman vs disbelief. The Rawafids are children of Jaheem they are not brothers they are not Muslims they are not anything but fuel of the fire and the servants of Shaytan on this earth their groups are called The Party of God, but no they are the Party of Hell, the Party of Satan, those are the realities to their names.
These animals have subjugated Iraq they are slaughtering Syria while the entire world looks on even justifying it and Yemen is next on their hit list.
This is more than America VS Russia and KSA VS Iran.
You should be ashamed of your ignorance.
يا قافلة الخير "The Persian aggression against Iraq was a result of the arrogant, racialist and evil attitudes of the ruling clique in Iran."
-Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid at-Tikriti - العراق جمجمة العرب ورمح الله في الأرض
Re: Council of Pakistani Scholars: Time to eradicate Houthis, ‘cut off Iranian hands’
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
The Houthis fire missiles at the holy cities when weapons are prohibited there and pilgrims are fulfilling a pillar of Islam. The Houthis if not stopped today will be the "Guardians" of Hejaz they are strong and skilled in warfare the Houthis can never be allowed to succeed, they are the allies of Assad, Iran, and HezbulLAT
- - - Updated - - -
For you to act like or to think that this is some new conflict or a secular conflict or a conflict fought at the hands of others, you are very incorrect. This is a battle of Haqq vs Batil of Iman vs disbelief. The Rawafids are children of Jaheem they are not brothers they are not Muslims they are not anything but fuel of the fire and the servants of Shaytan on this earth their groups are called The Party of God, but no they are the Party of Hell, the Party of Satan, those are the realities to their names.
These animals have subjugated Iraq they are slaughtering Syria while the entire world looks on even justifying it and Yemen is next on their hit list.
This is more than America VS Russia and KSA VS Iran.
You should be ashamed of your ignorance.
How many people in Saudi Arab have been killed by Houthis...?
And
How many people in yaman have been killed so far...?
Re: Council of Pakistani Scholars: Time to eradicate Houthis, ‘cut off Iranian hands’
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
For you to act like or to think that this is some new conflict or a secular conflict or a conflict fought at the hands of others, you are very incorrect. This is a battle of Haqq vs Batil of Iman vs disbelief. The Rawafids are children of Jaheem they are not brothers they are not Muslims they are not anything but fuel of the fire and the servants of Shaytan on this earth their groups are called The Party of God, but no they are the Party of Hell, the Party of Satan, those are the realities to their names.
These animals have subjugated Iraq they are slaughtering Syria while the entire world looks on even justifying it and Yemen is next on their hit list.
This is more than America VS Russia and KSA VS Iran.
You should be ashamed of your ignorance.
I am just ashamed of you being a Muslim. Shia is a wrong path but the Shiites are Muslim as long as they dont contradict with the basics of Islam. Lets say they are not Muslim. This kind of attitude cannot be of a Muslim. Islam is the religion of rahmah. You just take side in this silly imperialistically motivated war and blind yourself to the reality. If the sunnis were innocent like angels in this conflict I would agree with you taking side against the Shiites but we are not. Each side is equally blinded and equally criminal
Re: Council of Pakistani Scholars: Time to eradicate Houthis, ‘cut off Iranian hands’
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
And how learned are you? These Ulema have studied deen for years
Knowledge does not have any value if it is not combined with taqwa - fearing Allah more than fearing the king.
And unfortunately all the sincere brave scholars of Arabia are in the prisons of the tyrant royal kingdom.
And [there is a share for] those who came after them, saying, "Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith and put not in our hearts [any] resentment toward those who have believed. Our Lord, indeed You are Kind and Merciful." (Surat al-Hashr, 10)
Re: Council of Pakistani Scholars: Time to eradicate Houthis, ‘cut off Iranian hands’
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
And what are they going to do after invading Iran? Maybe erect a secular perso-nationalist regime that does not make any difference for us as Muslims.
***
It is futile to expect anything good from regimes like UAE, Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia. They themselves are committing crimes in their own countries and following unislamic, authoritarian, corrupt and treacherous politics; Saudi-Arabia and UAE are exploiting poor labor workers, oppressing Muslim scholars and allying with disbelievers against Muslims. Pakistan transgresses in suppressing alleged Islamists and does not refrain from deliberately bombing Pashtun villages in 'reprisal', not even from destroying masjids and madrasah. The case of Lal Masjid is enough to give a hint about Pakistan's mentality I suppose.
In this case we should not expect that such regimes will make any effort to spare civilian lives, be they Sunni or Shiite. I am not sure whether it is necessary to state here that most Shiite people in Yemen do not support the Houthis either, and that their blood is sacred and haram too...
Aside from all the characteristics and behavior of those regimes, it should suffice for us to be aware that they are in no way motivated by the religion in their actions. These are all egoistic, state-nationalist people who are solely concerned about their own political interest. Even if they seemed to act according to our visions and expectations, it would just be an intersection of actions, but not of motives! These regimes will continue to play the vassal state for imperial powers and thereby preserve the prosperity granted to them via imperial powers. So we should not lay any hope in them.
Asalamu Alaikum
Whilst I don't agree with Pakistan's actions in FATA, to call it a war against Pashtuns is silly. Pashtuns make up a significant portion of the Pakistani government and military, they yield significant influence across the country.
If this was a war on Pashtuns, the Pakistani military would not have removed much of the local population before starting it's military campaigns, and would have depopulated KPK and FATA pretty quickly using its advanced military weaponry (it's not like the region serves much of a purpose for Pakistan, all the economic output comes from the Punjab and Sindh). It's not like anybody would oppose them either, the Pakistani military is almost worshipped in Pakistan and could easily weasel their way out being accused of genocide (like they did in 1971).
Re: Council of Pakistani Scholars: Time to eradicate Houthis, ‘cut off Iranian hands’
format_quote Originally Posted by Ibn Shahid
Asalamu Alaikum
Whilst I don't agree with Pakistan's actions in FATA, to call it a war against Pashtuns is silly. Pashtuns make up a significant portion of the Pakistani government and military, they yield significant influence across the country.
If this was a war on Pashtuns, the Pakistani military would not have removed much of the local population before starting it's military campaigns, and would have depopulated KPK and FATA pretty quickly using its advanced military weaponry (it's not like the region serves much of a purpose for Pakistan, all the economic output comes from the Punjab and Sindh). It's not like anybody would oppose them either, the Pakistani military is almost worshipped in Pakistan and could easily weasel their way out being accused of genocide (like they did in 1971).
I agree. It is not a war on Pasthuns. I just wanted to point out at their recklessness in bombing campaigns. Just like the Britons when they were fighting at the "North Western Frontier", the Pakistani government does not shy away from bombing civilian areas such as madrasahs, market places etc.
But through this campaigns they have obtained direct control over the tribal areas though, because there was no Pakistani Army in the FATA prior to the American occupation of Afghanistan. Regarding the objective of Pakistan in these operations, I adopted the view that Pakistan seeks to satisfy the USA, which threatened Pakistan with consequences if they do not support the American war in Afghanistan. So Pakistan acted as if they were supporting the Americans - by establishing military control in the FATA to exterminate "the safe haven for Al Qaeda and Taliban".
As for the region's importance, I have read that it is of strategic importance, though not economic, as it is a mountainous area that connects Afghanistan and Pakistan. And they may strive to block Indian influence in Afghanistan too, as the Pakthuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan are closely connected, and as you know the Afghani government is anti-Pakistan, thus pro-Indian.
Actually I don't mind about their objectives and ambitions, what concerns me is their brutality in bombings and torture (of political prisoners), which is not legitimated whatever they may seek to achieve through it.
And [there is a share for] those who came after them, saying, "Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith and put not in our hearts [any] resentment toward those who have believed. Our Lord, indeed You are Kind and Merciful." (Surat al-Hashr, 10)
Re: Council of Pakistani Scholars: Time to eradicate Houthis, ‘cut off Iranian hands’
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
I agree. It is not a war on Pasthuns. I just wanted to point out at their recklessness in bombing campaigns. Just like the Britons when they were fighting at the "North Western Frontier", the Pakistani government does not shy away from bombing civilian areas such as madrasahs, market places etc.
But through this campaigns they have obtained direct control over the tribal areas though, because there was no Pakistani Army in the FATA prior to the American occupation of Afghanistan. Regarding the objective of Pakistan in these operations, I adopted the view that Pakistan seeks to satisfy the USA, which threatened Pakistan with consequences if they do not support the American war in Afghanistan. So Pakistan acted as if they were supporting the Americans - by establishing military control in the FATA to exterminate "the safe haven for Al Qaeda and Taliban".
As for the region's importance, I have read that it is of strategic importance, though not economic, as it is a mountainous area that connects Afghanistan and Pakistan. And they may strive to block Indian influence in Afghanistan too, as the Pakthuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan are closely connected, and as you know the Afghani government is anti-Pakistan, thus pro-Indian.
Actually I don't mind about their objectives and ambitions, what concerns me is their brutality in bombings and torture (of political prisoners), which is not legitimated whatever they may seek to achieve through it.
They are US puppets. They have allowed the US to launch as many drone strikes in Pakistan as they like, and only started this war in the first place because Bush told them to. Pakistan isn't some weak country like Afghanistan or Somalia, they have nuclear weapons and could easily tell the US to sod off, if they did that the Afghan invasion might have never happened since the Americans wouldn't have been able to resupply troops adequately and sustain a ground war. Not to mention Pakistan wouldn't have been plagued with terrorism and financial losses because of this war, and a pro-Pakistani government would remain in charge of Afghanistan rather than the Abdul Hind Northern Alliance.
KPK and FATA don't hold much importance other than acting as a buffer between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which it could still act as if it got blown to pieces (the radiation might even make it a better buffer). The people of those areas are mostly uneducated, the powerful Pashtuns in Pakistan are almost entirely Pashtuns who have assimilated into other provinces, e.g Imran Khan or the late Ayub Khan. If Pakistan really wanted to, they could wipe all human life from the area. It's quite obviously not a war on Pashtuns, which is further cemented by the fact that many of the Pakistani militants they fight against aren't even Pashtun (Uzbeks and Tajiks used to swell their ranks, and the previous head of the TTP was a non-Pashtun). Also, as said before, if it were a war on Pashtuns then the Pakistani army wouldn't recruit so many of them or give them such senior positions in the military.
Pashtuns coukd help keep Pakistani and Afghan relations from going completely south, as you rightfully said. However, up until now that strategy hasn't really worked.
Re: Council of Pakistani Scholars: Time to eradicate Houthis, ‘cut off Iranian hands’
Salaam
this is related
Iranian official calls MBS 'delusional' after prince warns of war
Foreign Ministry spokesman slams Mohammed bin Salman after Saudi heir warned war with Tehran was just 10-15 years away.
Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman has lashed out at Saudi Arabia's crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, after the 32-year-old heir to the throne warned war with Tehran could be just 10 to 15 years away.
Bahram Qassemi warned bin Salman - known in as MBS - "not to dice with death" and called on veteran Saudi officials to teach the "delusional novice" of the fate former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein endured after he challenged the "Iranian nation's resolve".
"This delusional novice, who is still too big for his boots, either does not know what war is, or has not studied history, or unfortunately has not talked to a venerable person," Qassemi was quoted by Iranian media as saying.
Reciting a verse from a 13th-century poem, Qassemi added: "The ant seeking to grapple with an eagle is hastening to perish."
He then asked Persian linguists in the Saudi royal family to translate the verse accuately for the crown prince.
Qassemi's comments came after bin Salman said that Saudi Arabia could engage in a military confrontation against Iran if tougher international sanctions were not imposed against the Islamic Republic.
"We must achieve this in order to avoid a military conflict, if we fail to do this, we will probably have a war with Iran in 10-15 years," bin Salman told The Wall Street Journal.
Saudi Arabia has expressed alarm at what it views as creeping Iranian influence in the region and has stepped up its efforts to contain what it considers Iran's expansion through proxy conflicts and direct military engagement in Yemen.
The kingdom has been a staunch critic of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which it says will alleviate Iran's economic woes and allow it to prop up affiliates like Hezbollah.
Saudi authorities have repeatedly commended US President Donald Trump's tough stance on the landmark agreement.
Re: Council of Pakistani Scholars: Time to eradicate Houthis, ‘cut off Iranian hands’
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
I am just ashamed of you being a Muslim. Shia is a wrong path but the Shiites are Muslim as long as they dont contradict with the basics of Islam. Lets say they are not Muslim. This kind of attitude cannot be of a Muslim. Islam is the religion of rahmah. You just take side in this silly imperialistically motivated war and blind yourself to the reality. If the sunnis were innocent like angels in this conflict I would agree with you taking side against the Shiites but we are not. Each side is equally blinded and equally criminal
People like you will be the first to accept the Dajjal
- - - Updated - - -
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.
Knowledge does not have any value if it is not combined with taqwa - fearing Allah more than fearing the king.
And unfortunately all the sincere brave scholars of Arabia are in the prisons of the tyrant royal kingdom.
And these scholars imprisoned would agree, that the Houthis are deserving of harsh punishments.
يا قافلة الخير "The Persian aggression against Iraq was a result of the arrogant, racialist and evil attitudes of the ruling clique in Iran."
-Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid at-Tikriti - العراق جمجمة العرب ورمح الله في الأرض
Re: Council of Pakistani Scholars: Time to eradicate Houthis, ‘cut off Iranian hands’
format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian
Why?
You're attitude on the Shias you're condemnation of Ahlus Sunnah for carrying out the Sunnah.
يا قافلة الخير "The Persian aggression against Iraq was a result of the arrogant, racialist and evil attitudes of the ruling clique in Iran."
-Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid at-Tikriti - العراق جمجمة العرب ورمح الله في الأرض
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
-
Yahya. liked this post
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks