.png)
Mehdi Mohammadi, an Iranian
SME, has posted an article in today’s issue of Iran Review. The author generally present viewpoints close to those
of the Iranian leadership. His argument, as delusional as it might seem, is the
most articulate posting of Iranian perspective on the current situation in
Syria. Following are the highlights. To read the entire article, in English,
please click here.
Map Credit: Maps of Iran (green) and Syria (red) and the region. IranReview.org
- The ongoing unrest in Syria is not popular in nature. People are either spectators or victims… The Syrian unrest is basically non-indigenous and has its roots out of the Syrian borders… And the Syrian government has maintained its political, military and security integrity.
- The Syrian opposition groups attempted in vain for a few months to get themselves a base along the Syrian border with its neighbors that would be copycat of Benghazi in Libya. (But) they are not able to face the Syrian army outside Damascus. The body of the existing evidence shows that during past days most locations in Syria were relatively calm, with the Syrian army (having) a remarkable upper hand.
- The Syrian government will think of various security scenarios to take revenge of various parties that have been involved in the Syrian unrest… Its anti-American and anti-Israeli motivations will become hundreds of times stronger. This will certainly further strengthen the overall power of the anti-Israeli resistance axis in the region which will be of vital importance to Iran.
- Despite what may seem on the surface, the strategic equation of the region as a result of the ongoing developments in Syria has by no means changed to the detriment of Iran. On the contrary, the outlook of future insecurity in Israel is clearly on the horizon and has made Western countries greatly concerned as of now.
I think "delusional" is too strong a characterization. Opposing views might consider certain of his observations as being innacurate.
ReplyDeleteBut let's take a look at your highlighted observations:
"The ongoing unrest in Syria is not popular in nature." If by this the author is claiming that a majority of ordinary Syrians do not support the rebels, there is available open sourced evidence that does suggest this.
"The Syrian unrest is basically non-indigenous and has its roots out of the Syrian borders." If by this, the author is referring to the armed Salafi groups which have taken arms from the onset of the conflict, this observation has also been made by former MI6 officer Crooke. Crooke's analyses on Syria, vy the way, have been demonstrated to be remarkably accurate.
"And the Syrian government has maintained its political, military and security integrity."
There's no question that up this point in time, the Syrian and military and security forces have remained remarkably intact and effective. Politically, Assad continues to maintain varying levels of support.
"The Syrian opposition groups attempted in vain for a few months to get themselves a base along the Syrian border with its neighbors that would be copycat of Benghazi in Libya. (But) they are not able to face the Syrian army outside Damascus."
These observations are actually indirectly confirmed by the rebels recent tactics of armed fighting groups forcing actions in "headline getting" areas at points in the capitol and border checkpoints, before being swept aside before superior Syrian Army firepower. Also, the use of suicide bombings also demonstrates the inherent inferiority of firepower and men to that of the Syrian military.
"The Syrian government will think of various security scenarios to take revenge of various parties that have been involved in the Syrian unrest"
If this is a reference to domestic "parties", this observation is of course obvious.
"Despite what may seem on the surface, the strategic equation of the region as a result of the ongoing developments in Syria has by no means changed to the detriment of Iran."
Actually, it can be argues that now more than ever, Syria is dependent on its ally Iran--not the other way around.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteOne might disagree with the goals of the movement in Syria, but calling the movement not popular in nature and basically non-indigenous is an insult to the Syrian people, so many of them have lost their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Reminds me of the pro-Shah propaganda during the Islamic Revolution, calling the participants foreign agents, or at best inspired by BBC broadcasts.
My reference to delusional characteristics of some of the claims by Mr. Mohammadi is based on his argument that the Syrian people do not constitute the force behind the uprising and the movement has no public support (Mr. Mohammadi should well remember the accusations against the Iranian movement). Also, if you read the body of the article, you’ll see that he argues strongly that the movement has no support outside Damascus. He make the argument on a day the rebels are close to controlling the largest city and the commercial center of Syria, far from Damascus!
Ironic that the current leadership in Iran repeats same accusations against the Syrian movement not unlike what the Shah’s government did. They even go as far as calling Assad’s late brother-in-law who led the brutal attacks on the opposition a “martyr.”
One might also disagree, in fact oppose, foreign intervention in Syria. But to have moral standing to do so, one needs to also oppose 40 years of oppressions by the Assad family and clan and Bashar’s barbarian behavior in suppressing the current movement. Without doing so, one becomes a defendant of one of the most reactionary dictatorships in the region today.
And arguing that the Syrian, and the possibility of Assad losing power, is not detrimental to Iran’s foreign policy is beyond delusional.
Of course the last sentence should read: And arguing that the Syrian crisis, and the possibility of Assad losing power, is not detrimental to Iran’s foreign policy is beyond delusional.
ReplyDeleteNader, I hadn't the time to read the author's piece when composing the above comment; only responding to your highlights.
ReplyDeleteI do not profess to offer observations based on "insults" to other's peoples, only that based on evidence.
As a response to the author's piece, I offer the works of former Bush administration, former CIA officials Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett in their take on Mohammadi's piece:
http://www.raceforiran.com/the-islamic-republic-of-iran-and-the-struggle-for-syria
Should you elect to dispute their readings of the piece, I would be happy to debate your opposing views. My only condition is that you cite supporting actual evidence in doing so, and not subjective emotion.
Opposing the Assad dictatorial regime is not a subjective emotion, is based on 40 years of history. I would be of course interested to see a view on the contrary. Now that I have my homework, I need to read the piece by Leveretts and get back to you. But as not a so bright student, it might take some time for me to do so!
ReplyDeleteMr Uskowi
ReplyDeleteMr Uskowi,you know as well as I that the BBC broadcasting corporation was broadcasting Khomeini's venomous foghorn in its entirety.
The Shah excepted the so called revolution of the people and handed the country into the caring hands of Bakhtiar. But the BBC still kept up its anti Iranian propaganda.
You cannot possibly compare the present evil and dastardly anti Iranian entity with the past one.There where mistakes made by the Shah. One of them was to force the country (society) to modernize which of course offended the backward clergy and their sheepish followers.Unfortunately the left joined this charlatans movement and decided for Iran to commit suicide.
There are people out there that still continue their unjustified dislike of the Pahlavi Dynasty.Cursing Reza Shah for overthrowing democracy in Iran which was like Holland then under the benevolent Qajars (joke).
But please don't be one of them Mr Uskowi because all you do is feed the fanatical zombies that support the Islamic zealots in Tehran.
Iran is in its blackest period in history.This is no game it's very serious and we should be sitting around together and consider Iran's future.Do we want valih-e-fagih and the backward clergy with their goons to dictate to the Iranian people until their coming of sahab zaman or not.If not lets do something about it instead of nit picking the past.
Note:Syrian regime is on its way out.I don't like the Islamist that are trying to overthrow Assad but I support their cause because it will give a bloodied nose to the Islamic regime and that suits the Iranian people well to see this theocracy belittled.
@8:13 AM,
ReplyDeleteIn this post I was not comparing Shah’s government with the current regime, I was comparing it to Assad’s. I believe one would be hard pressed to oppose Assad for his dictatorship but at the same time absolve the Shah’s of the same.
Mr Uskowi, while it remains very normal and reasonable for most observers (who by definition have limited information, although through not always a fault of their own) to respond from "good intentioned" position, you however bring a depth of perspective that invites rather than forces further consideration... more than ever this is required in the present discussion re regime and interpretation by Western principals. i.e. if it becomes generally accepted that the Iranian people are no longer capable of affecting required change soon enough (cooperate and unify en mass), external intervention will arrive. Mr Uskowi, what is your estimation of the percentage of Iranian population that genuinely supports regime ? Many of those now supporting Assad in Syrian, as those who supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq, would tell you privately... " we hate him, but what choice do we have? "
ReplyDelete- Whether others supported regime change in Iran before, of what ever happened before... is then, and while reasonable for many posters to cite the past as justification for their present thoughts, I applaud you for focusing on the present moment, as in the final analysis, talking about the Shah or the 1970's -80's mostly plays to moral relativism - and debate about hypocrisy and not about the future of the Iranian people.
Mark ,
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you ,I can hardly characterize the analysis delusional .
the view in Tehran is more or less as expressed in Mr Mohammadi's Piece today in Tehran's Asseman Magazine an interview with Iran's former ambassador to Syria Ali Akbar Mohtashami was published which more or less is inline with the above Op-Ed.
one interesting part of the interview reads:
Maraashie:In Syria the Muslim Brother hood is more aligned with al-Qaida ,Mr Imen al-zawahiri is a sunni fundumentalist .in general syrian Muslim Brotherhood is extremely radical and they are strict followers of salafi movement.
Asseman:then there would be no chance for democracy in Syria after Assad?
Mohtashami:you think any thing is going to happen in syria?
Asseman:this is our Question what is going to happen in Syria.
Mohtashami:I don't think any thing will happen to the syrian Regime.
Asseman:you mean Bashar will Go and his regime will remain in power?
Mohtashami:Bashar will not go that easy.
Asseman:Why?
Mohtashami: because the opposition is not coherent all of them the seculars the MB's ulamma they have grave differences in opinions they are not coherent .among the opposition the most powerfull and coherent are the MB's and the American's are afraid of them the most.
Mr Uskowi
ReplyDeleteI very much doubt the Shah's government went out of their way to wipe twenty thousand people off the face of the earth like the Syrian dictator did in 1982.
I very much doubt the Shah's government gassed five thousand Kurdish men women and children like Saddam did.
Compared to these regimes the Iranian people were lucky to have a government which although a dictatorship but never the less a benevolent dictatorship at that given time in history. Soviet Union,Turkey,Iraq,Afghanistan,Saudi Arabia,all were much worse dictatorships than in Iran.
Lets not compare Iran to Holland or Denmark but to those countries instead.
Now Iran is worse than those countries mentioned.
All the best.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteThe Leveretts piece is basically a presentation of Mohammadi’s arguments, something I also tried to do in this post. I had said that Mohammadi’s arguments were the most articulate on the issue coming out of Iran, hence the urge to introduce that article to our readers.
My problem with Mohammadi’s argument is his total denial that a popular movement against Assad dictatorship exists in Syria. He blames everyone for the Syrian crisis, rightly and wrongly, but Mr. Assad.
Leveretts do not directly address this issue in their piece. Their main argument, aside from presenting Mohammadi’s arguments favorably, is the need to include Alawis and other supporters of Assad’s government in the political process to end the crisis. I agree. (But isn’t it ironic that Assad never provided the same consideration for his opponents throughout these years, but I guess that’s OK!) Leveretts also want Iran to be included in the international community’s attempts to end the crisis. I also agree. The Iranians need to be much more realistic, and start the process of recognizing the legitimacy of the main opposition players, as confused as that picture is becoming, if they really want to play an effective role here. (Within the opposing forces, there are certainly opportunists and terrorist elements; the art of politics is to isolate them.)
Let’s go back to a real issue at hand. Anti-Western forces, like the Islamic Republic, and some on the Left, are opposed to any U.S. or Western intervention in Syria (as was the case with Libya). In their opposition to the West, they tend to downplay the root of the problem: the existence of four decades of dictatorship in the country and a popular movement against it. So much so, they corner themselves to the position of supporting Assad’s regime because they consider its opposition to the West as the key. Their focus is international politics. If Syrian people suffer in the process, so be it. Assad needs to be supported. Any movement against him needs to be opposed, and characterized as terrorism. It is such ideologically-based argument that runs into danger of denying the realities on the ground. That’s my cautionary note.