- 28 December 2009
-
- 5 Comments
-
-
-
- Events in Iran, US-Iran War
NYT is at it again
28 December 2009 Posted By Patrick Disney
Apparently because the backlash against Alan Kuperman’s op-ed last week wasn’t harsh enough, the NYT has doubled down with this piece, by Selig Harrison, about US support for ethnic separatist groups in Iran.
The biggest threat to the ruling ayatollahs and generals in multi-ethnic Iran does not come from the embattled democratic opposition movement struggling to reform the Islamic Republic. It comes from increasingly aggressive separatist groups in Kurdish, Baluch, Azeri and Arab ethnic minority regions that collectively make up some 44 percent of Persian-dominated Iran’s population.
This echoes an assertion that Rep. Jane Harman’s made at this year’s AIPAC conference, in which she said it would be a good idea to “separate” Iran’s population along ethnic lines so that stirred up ethnic divisions would weaken the central government.
Now, bizarrely, Harrison says the US should give material support (beyond what it already may covertly provide) to PJAK, Jundullah, Arabs in Khuzestan, and anybody else who might accept it. But he overlooks the complex relationship Washington has with these groups already. For example, Washington has condemned Jundullah terrorist attacks as a gesture to Iran, while at the same time reportedly funneled covert funds to the group and others like it.
Interestingly, Harrison has firsthand knowledge of some of these activities, including US support for
limited covert action carried out by proxy, in the case of the Baluch, through Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate or, I.S.I., and in the case of the Kurds by the C.I.A. in cooperation with Israel’s Mossad. My knowledge of the I.S.I.’s role is based on first-hand Pakistani sources, including Baluch leaders.
There is no mention of Jundullah by name in the article, but that group has been one of the most active and high-profile ethnic separatist groups in all of Iran, repeatedly claiming responsibility for attacks on IRGC forces and Iranian border guards.
Compared to the massive protests in the streets of Tehran and Qum, the uncoordinated harassment of the regime by ethnic insurgents may seem like a sideshow. But if the ethnic insurgents could unite and if the democratic opposition could forge a united front with the minorities, the prospects for reforming or toppling the Islamic Republic, now dismal, would brighten.
Perhaps Harrison was constrained by a tight word limit, or perhaps his supporting evidence would have diverted too much attention from the overall conclusion of his piece; but one would be hard pressed to find a more unlikely scenario than that presented by these two gigantic “if’s.” Ethnic insurgents, as he calls them, are not renowned for their ability to play well with others (see, Iraq, former Yugoslavia, Sudan, Nigeria, et al). And pinning ones hopes on the notion that the Green Movement might team up with some of the more reviled ethnic terrorist groups in Iran is not wise either.
The Green Movement, in its current form, is still not “revolutionary” or “counter-revolutionary.” Its strategy still rests on being “more Catholic than the Pope”–or in this case “more Shiite than the Ayatollah.” There’s just no way that the Green Movement will allow itself to be aligned with terrorist separatists without some extreme radicalizing catalyst.
5 Responses to “NYT is at it again”
This is quite literally one of the worst ideas I have ever heard regarding how to deal with Iran. I have heard many bad ideas. More than often they are a result of a lack of knowledge about Iran.
Harrison’s article along with Rep. Harman assertion, on the other hand, are so incredibly absurd, that I believe they can not be a result of ignorance. Rather they seem to be trying to make things worse for all Iranians, by creating instability and civil strife inside of Iran, in hope that this will be better for Israel. This piece amounts to nothing less than advising the US to create the most horrific and dangerous situation for the Iranian people. A situation with suicide bombings, terrorist attacks and an excuse for the Iranian government to extend its brutality to level we can not even currently imagine. No amount of ignorance excuses this article.
As much as I disagree with Kuperman’s op-ed, I can understand why NYT published it. It was great to see the backlash against his op-ed. On the other hand, there is no reason to even publish this garbage by Harrison. NYT should be ashamed.
I agree with just about everything I-A says in his comment.
Such advocacy amounts to nothing less than war. It’s a page taken directly from Saddam’s failed war of aggression against Iran in 1980. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now.
I agree with both of you, but it would work for someone: the American ally in the middle east.
but it would work for someone: the American ally in the middle east.
Why works for other in ME not Iran?
I think there is some biased thought here.
Iran history showed there were ethnics struggles, so as what happen In Iraq if you take the central power every thing fallen a part and inside Iran.
Since the IRGC through the Quds Force is threatening to expand its interference in Iraq and Afghanistan the Harrison article, with all its errors, is just a reminder to them what it might implicate.
The problem with Iran is that no single group is in full command of the policies of the country and that the IRGC and other corrupt groups are benefiting financially from the present situation.
However, it seems that the various factions in Iran fighting for control finally (when realizing that sanctions might be implemented) have agreed to a procedure for the nuclear exchange. Expect more problems in other areas due to the domestic fight for power.