Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Iran Speaker Hails Relations with North Korea

Iran’s Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani said Iran and North Korea are both revolutionary and independent nations trying to resist the world's "greedy" powers, Iranian news agencies reported today.

Larijani hailed staunch bilateral ties between Iran and North Korea and thanked North Korea for its "contributions" to Iran [ISNA, 21 July].

Larijani made the comments during a meeting with his North Korean counterpart on the sidelines of an Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) conference in Geneva today. The North Korean parliament speaker invited Larijani to visit Pyongyang.

North Korea has become a close ally of Iran in a world with increasingly fewer allies for the country.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Which allies of Iran have actually defected?

The Russians have always been less than reliable, and they continue to provide mixed signals to both sides.

Actually, if a balance sheet were to be drawn, it could be argued that the Tehran Declaration, with Brazil and Turkey at Iran's side, put's Iran on a more positive side of the ledger than it was previously.

In any event, trading partners should not be misinterpreted as allies.

Anonymous said...

Although the Norks have outlived their usefulness for the Chinese as "proliferators" (to Pak, Iran, etc.) and a strategic asset against the Japs, they are still tolerated because an "embarrasing" but stable regime is still preferred over a humanitarian, political and military (the NK "nukes") nightmare following its collapse (regime change)... or, a more prosaic alternative, they represent China's "revolutionary conscience" cashed in after Mao's death.

Same can be said about Iran as a strategic asset, possible regime change victim or NAM anachronism.

Luckily for Iran, regime change (by sanctions or Shock & awe) would also result in an oil price shock (a No-no for China and India), a US domination of Iranian, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan oil & gas (a No-no for Russia) and the next "domino" in the US "democratization" project for the muslim Middle East (a No-no for the Arab pimpdoms... Iraq was the first domino of course, but there was a little glitch with the remaining pieces).

WMDeception

Nader Uskowi said...

Anon 4:07,

I am curious whom you see as Iran's major allies. It would be great if you care naming them for us.

Anonymous said...

There are no permanent alliances in international relations, only temporary mutual interests, mostly economic or geo-political. The two Euro-centric world wars should be a good reminder of the ebb and flow of "friendships" and juggling alliances. This is more true in the new free for all multi-polar world.

Iran like all medium sized rising powers should manipulate all possible alliances to its benefit. The US hostility to Iran is mostly based on Iran's commanding geo-strategic position, independent stance and mega-natural resources OIL. Iran under the pan-Islamic IRI ideology also poses a challenge to the Zionist entity and its regional hegemony agenda.

Iran is big enough to stand on its own feet. If Cuba and North Korea can do it, I am certain that with resolve and national will Iran will find its own way under the sun.

Nader Uskowi said...

But surely we can talk of current alliances, albeit non-permanent. It’s indeed hard to list major allies of Iran. The Iranian diplomacy has been a failure. This is not to argue that there not competent Iranian diplomats, they sure are. But the priority of the country’s current leadership is appealing to the masses, being in Tehran or on Arab streets. The problem is such strategy does not translate into allies.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Uskowi if you look at Iran's neighbourhood there is not one nation capable of forming long term alliances with. Russia, China and India have their own agenda, Pakistan is a failed state under US occupation, Turkey is having an identity crises as the step-child of Europe and looking east in daze and reluctance, considering its sorry history with the Arabs during the Ottoman era.

The Arabs to the South are not even worth considering given their history of back stabbing each other and secondly, all Arab states are mere western controlled pimpdoms. Shia/Sunni divide (some fanned by western/Zionist interests) and their historical inferiority complex towards rich Persian civilization is another factor to consider.

The Arab street may be pro-Iran but the puppet rulers dance to the master's tune.

So this sorry state of realpolitik leaves Iran with rather limited choices for forming even luke-warm alliances. Post-1979 revolution, the Iran-Iraq war and unrelenting hostility from the US and its Arab vassals did not leave the Islamic Republic much choice, short of total capitulation, even that would not have worked.

Moving back to the "western" fold, demands pre-requisite conditions of giving-up Iranian sovereignty and moving back to the pre-1979 quasi-colonial status, somewhat like a glorified occupied Iraq. I believe there is not much the mullahs could have done better. I do however, agree that in the early Khomeni years, Iran's foreign and defence policies were very poorly handled, particularly the unnecessary continuation of the war and IRI internal politics wasted a lot of lives as well and opportunities for global integration. The collapse of the USSR and many unforeseen global changes have to be factored in as well.

At this late stage, I believe there is not too many options left but to rely of Iran's own capabilities and diplomatic dexterity. US and its EU surrogates are not about to break-out in a circle hug for Iran. The limited diplomatic choices are China (totally commercial and opportunist), Russia (duplicitous, unreliable and passively hostile), India (too feeble, unstable and under US control),Turkey (somewhat of a historical rival and suffering bi-polar disorder) and the totally weak and fractured Arabs. The limited number of friends or non-hostile nations include Brazil, Venezuela, Syria, North Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and tiny Armenia. Unfortunately, this is also a reflection of the current global chaos and a world in transition from a fading pax-America to an Asia centric multi-polar order. That is why it is best for Iran to declare itself a nuclear state and guarantee its security. The US/Zionist plan is the Balkanization of Iran and continue to put the squeeze on. CENTCOM has even been pushing maps of a truncated Iran minus Baluchistan, Kurdistan and even some parts of Azerbaijan. The neo-con agenda of endless wars for "full spectrum dominance" is yet to run its full course. Historically, declining empires facing economic collapse and geo-strategic over-stretch are victims of their own hubris and the US is no exception. The eagle has indeed crashed but still trashing its wounded wings.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Uskowi if you look at Iran's neighbourhood there is not one nation capable of forming long term alliances with. Russia, China and India have their own agenda, Pakistan is a failed state under US occupation, Turkey is having an identity crises as the step-child of Europe and looking east in daze and reluctance, considering its sorry history with the Arabs during the Ottoman era.

The Arabs to the South are not even worth considering given their history of back stabbing each other and secondly, all Arab states are mere western controlled pimpdoms. Shia/Sunni divide (some fanned by western/Zionist interests) and their historical inferiority complex towards rich Persian civilization is another factor to consider.

The Arab street may be pro-Iran but the puppet rulers dance to the master's tune.

So this sorry state of realpolitik leaves Iran with rather limited choices for forming even luke-warm alliances. Post-1979 revolution, the Iran-Iraq war and unrelenting hostility from the US and its Arab vassals did not leave the Islamic Republic much choice, short of total capitulation, even that would not have worked.

Moving back to the "western" fold, demands pre-requisite conditions of giving-up Iranian sovereignty and moving back to the pre-1979 quasi-colonial status, somewhat like a glorified occupied Iraq. I believe there is not much the mullahs could have done better. I do however, agree that in the early Khomeni years, Iran's foreign and defence policies were very poorly handled, particularly the unnecessary continuation of the war and IRI internal politics wasted a lot of lives as well and opportunities for global integration. The collapse of the USSR and many unforeseen global changes have to be factored in as well.

At this late stage, I believe there is not too many options left but to rely of Iran's own capabilities and diplomatic dexterity. US and its EU surrogates are not about to break-out in a circle hug for Iran. The limited diplomatic choices are China (totally commercial and opportunist), Russia (duplicitous, unreliable and passively hostile), India (too feeble, unstable and under US control),Turkey (somewhat of a historical rival and suffering bi-polar disorder) and the totally weak and fractured Arabs. The limited number of friends or non-hostile nations include Brazil, Venezuela, Syria, North Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and tiny Armenia. Unfortunately, this is also a reflection of the current global chaos and a world in transition from a fading pax-America to an Asia centric multi-polar order. That is why it is best for Iran to declare itself a nuclear state and guarantee its security. The US/Zionist plan is the Balkanization of Iran and continue to put the squeeze on. CENTCOM has even been pushing maps of a truncated Iran minus Baluchistan, Kurdistan and even some parts of Azerbaijan. The neo-con agenda of endless wars for "full spectrum dominance" is yet to run its full course. Historically, declining empires facing economic collapse and geo-strategic over-stretch are victims of their own hubris and the US is no exception. The eagle has indeed crashed but still trashing its wounded wings.

Anonymous said...

I totally agree with Anon.(July 21, 2010 11:58 PM), except...
Going nuclear or NOT going nuclear, that's the question!

On this one I tend to disagree, because there's also this concept of Minimal nuclear Deterrence: how many nukes will be enough and against which specific enemy ?... or will some kind of Doomsday device (contaminating all ME oil in the process) do the trick ?

It's a very hard choice indeed, because there's absolutely no doubt that Iran is way there on top of the US obliteration list.

WMDeception

Nader Uskowi said...

Anon 11:58

Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful comments. I, however, disagree with your extremely pessimistic view of the global state of the affairs. Such outlook can force us to believe that Iran is the only righteous nation left in the world, that needs to defend itself and its righteousness by any means, and at any cost, albeit the nuclear route.

Of course these are hard times for all actors in the international arena, and not the least for the developing nations. Iran is not alone in this, many other developing countries feel the world is turning against them and they are being marginalized. But this is not the time to give up. Countries like Iran need to reevaluate their global outlook.

For Iran, it’s high time to jump start a non-oil-based economy with a plan for development projects financed by oil revenues with additional capital raised in global markets. A strong and diverse economy is the key for Iran to be a serious player. Nuclear capability in itself does not create that power (look at Pakistan). Doing this, however requires courage and end to sloganeering by the government and radically changing its foreign policy to create favorable conditions for investments and development project. In the process, we can find allies as well.

Anonymous said...

BTW, just a thought:
if the "imposed war" wouldn't have been so bloody (for Iran) and costly (for Iraq), Saddam wouldn't have invaded Kuwait when they tried to get him to pay back their loans, he wouldn't have been weakened in 1990 and finally given the coup the grace by the Yanks in 2003, who in their hubris were then bloodied themselves with huge costs, ultimately contributing to the global financial meltdown, which...

So, what if "the unnecessary continuation of the war" was halted back then ?

WMDeception

Anonymous said...

Uskowi,

Sorry, but you sound like the pre- Reagan/Thatcher "left" who were totally ignorant about what they were up against... and were virtually eradicated (beginning in your "developing nations"). Only the muslim opposition was temporarly spared because they were needed as anti-atheist/-marxist cannon fodder.

WMDECEPTION

Anonymous said...

Nuclear capability in itself does not create that power (look at Pakistan). having nuclear capability requires multi discipline science and associated Ph.D. students to go along with it. America, Britain, France etc leap frogged in their "new science" industry because of their nuclear requirement and university courses. The new jobs which Iran is quite capable of excelling is in nuclear, diesel engine, medical and arms field. Please share your know how with the rest of the developing world Iran!

Anonymous said...

@ WM DECEPTION

You have raised some valid and interesting points regarding Khomeni/Rafsanjani faction's decision to prolong the war after Iraq had been expelled from nearly all Iranian territory by end of June 1982 following the highly successful Beit-ol-Moghadass offensives and the liberation of Khorramshahr.

It was not a coincidence that Saddam was subjected to an assassination attempt by the Iranian linked Al-Dawa Shia party near Dujail (North Baghdad) in 1982resulting in the execution of many Al-Dawa members and Shia clergy.

By June 1982 Iran had the upper hand in the war and had Saddam on the backfoot, the Iraqi Shia in the military were luke-warm about continuing the war and were surrendering to the Iranians in large numbers.

The US was so concerned about the imminent fall of their protege Saddam that they dispatched Donald Rumsfeld to bolster the shaky Iraqi regime and promises of "agriculatural grants" a euphemism for helicopters, arms and chemical weapons.

As you are well aware, writing a revionist view of history is quite easy, but I tend to agree with you that the Muslim nations were indeed used as cannon fodder by the west in their "cold" war against the USSR and communist bloc, particularly the Jihadi "freedom fighters" In Afghanistan. They were feted by Reagan and celebrated darlings of the western media. They are same awful Wahabbi "Taliban terrorists" of today. They sure seem to have lost their lustre in western eyes.

In any case, Saddam was a psycopath as well as a realpolitik sociopath who failed to understand the "game of nations" and the expedibility of their surrogates and ultimately paid with his life.

From a military point of view, by July 1982, Iran had only suffered about 60,000 casualties and the war had moved to Iraqi soil. Infact, the Iranian military held the initiative and occupied a strategic pocket near Hajj Omran and Mandali sector along with a few hundred square kilometers on the Basra/Baghdad axis. Continuing the war was both a military and diplomatic folly as it just gave the US an excuse to arm Saddam and consolidate his support as Iraq was portrayed as defending "Arab lands" against "fanatical Persians".

The decision by Khomeni was also instigated by the brutal in-fighting amongst the IRI factions following the MKO terror campaigns leading to the deaths of many leading revolutionaries including Ayatollah Behesti, PM Javad Bahonar and President Mohammad Ali Rajai.

Rafsanjani faction used the continuation of the war as a means to securing its hold on power at the expense of thousands of young Iranian lives. The revolutionary left led by Francophone Bani Sadr was decimated along with any centrist opposition.

Anyway, if Iran had stopped the war in July 1982, it is more than likely that Saddam would have been executed by either the Shia or by a military coup. It was the continuation of this senseless war that propped him up with western and Arab support. The bleeding of Iraq and Iran suited all the players at the time. However, they underestimated Saddam's insane predilections and the subsequent invasion of Kuwait to recoup his "war losses".

The rest is history as they say.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Saddam just wasn't insane enough.
What if he hadn't stopped in Kuwait but had kept on marching into Saudi-Arabia... imagine the panic in Washington.

PS: coup DE grace, pardon my french!

Weapon of Mass Deception