Dr. Farrokh

What I have to humbly say is only a personal view - so please take it as such. There are two issues here:

(1) A concerted effort by Petroleum interests, Israeli intelligence, MI6, many in the neo-con administration, EU, etc. to implode Iran and to transform it into mini-states. This is a reality that goes back to 1937 (actually even earlier) - the toppling of the Shah was/is a part of that process.


(2) Ahmadinejad: In my opinion he has done incredible damage to Iran's geopolitical security with his provocative views and his unqualified support of pan-Islamists, Palestine, Hamas, etc. As we speak, many of Iran's historical heritage treasures are being destroyed under his watch (Bolaghi, Tagh-eBostan, etc.). Mr. Ahmadinejad is a dangerous fanatic and does believe in the formula of "Islam before Iran". At a crucial time when Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power is at stake, he has done much to provide the geopolitical enemies of Iran the pretext they need to promote their long-standing agendae.

(3) The Media: Why does the Media fail to differentiate the words "Iran", "Iranians" from Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic? We are always clear that the terms "Nazi" and "German" are to be differentiated - ergo: very few Germans are nazis. However the media has conveyed the impression that "Iranian" automatically means "Islamic fanatic" and/or "terrorist". Iranians do not yet comprehend that the issue is not just the Islamic Republic or even the current president - but Iran itself. I recall as a child when my father was in the diplomatic corps in Germany in the 1970s, how much the European media clamored for "human rights violations" in Iran and how "Iran's growing military was a threat to the region".

We need to separate 2 issues clearly:

(a) the damaging role of Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic in failing to put Iran first and willing to sacrifice Iran in the name of pan-Islamism (and esp. Palestine)

(b) the reality that the US-UK-EU & petroleum are working to disintegrate Iran. Yugoslavia was only a first step towards the realization of petroleum corridors that are about to straddle from the Caucasus and Central Asia to Europe. Yugoslavia was in the way. Here is a reference you may find of interest...

William Engdahl has provided a detailed analysis of Petroleum geopolitics and its ambitions in the Caucasus. Engdahl also argues that the civil war and partitioning of Yugoslavia is part of the larger scheme to secure the Caspian pipeline into Europe
“…The Yugoslav model had to be dismantled…Yugoslavia also lay on a critical path to the potential oil riches of Central Asia …the National Endowment for Democracy…began…handing out generous doses of dollars in every corner of Yugoslavia, financing opposition groups…journalists…trade union opposition…and human rights NGOs…(p.240)…using groups such as the Soros Foundation…financial support was channeled into often extreme nationalist or former fascist organizations that would guarantee dismemberment of Yugoslavia (p.241)…” [William, Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press, p.240-241, 2004]
Sean Gervasi’s little known article entitled “Germany, U.S. and the Yugoslav Crisis” reported that Yugoslavia was:
“…the target of a covert policy waged by the west and its allies, primarily Germany, the United States, Britain, Turkey and Saudi Arabia…to divide Yugoslavia into its ethnic components…a process of national fragmentation and fratricidal war…Germany…demanded that the Bush administration adopt the German policy of working for the “dissociation”, that is, the dismantling, of Yugoslavia.” [Sean Gervasi, Germany, U.S., and the Yugoslav Crisis: The civil war as lethal shadow play, Covert Action Quarterly, Volume 43, p.41,43]
Why? Because, a strong, large and united state in the Balkans (Yugoslavia) was viewed as a potential obstacle to the coming oil pipelines of the Caspian Sea, just as Iran is today. From the non-Iranian geopolitical view, it is irrelevant whether Iran is a democracy or a theocracy: the issue is what kind of Iran is good for petroleum business.
Engdahl cites two additional reasons for western sponsorship of Yugoslavia’s partitioning:
[a] she was a highly successful multiethnic state which had blended elements of both socialism and capitalism into its economy. The present mini-state successors of Yugoslavia are shadows of their former economic selves. Poverty and economic instability are the legacies of the Yugoslav tragedy (see child-beggar in Prishtiwie, Kosovo – below photo by Gervasi].

Pan-Turk seperatist such as Mr. Chehreganli and Mr. Obali (and their supporters in Baku) have promised Iranian Azerbaijanis that if they separate from their ancestral nation (Iran), they will be rewarded with a booming western style economy, which they proudly dub as “The Kuwait of the Caspian”. The reality is far different. The photo of the dejected Bosnian child aptly summarizes what awaits the people of Iran and the region should pan-Kurd, pan-Turk, pan-Arab, etc. activists manage to realize their aims in realizing a fratricidal war in Iran, the Caucasus and the (so-called) Middle East.
[b] Engdahl also cites the need to have “…a commanding and clearly permanent military presence in the strategic Balkans within reach of the Caspian Sea” [Engdahl, 2004, p.244]
The Caspian Sea?
The objectives of the seperatist operations in Azerbaijan (e.g. SANAM) and Iranian Kurdistan (,e.g. PEJAK, Komala) are designed to promote western (mainly Anglo-American) geopolitical and Petroleum interests. Mr. Chereganli’s SANAM movement openly acknowledges the role of western and Turkish support (in the name of “Human Rights”) for their cause:
“…Since 2002 the foreign representations of SANAM has been opening. At present, 24 representations -Bureau of the United States of America, Europe, Turkey and also the Azerbaijani Republic have been functioning…is known by the European Union, European Parliament, …UNO …”
[See SANAM website – http://www.arshiv.gamoh.info/en/index.php]


Undated Photo - Chehreganli with Mr. Mohsun in Turkey
For a introduction to Mr. Chehreganli's views, please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudali_Chehregani#_note-7
Two specific objectives will be achieved by the “re-unification” of the historically bogus “north” and “south” Azerbaijan:
[a] A potentially powerful Iranian state is removed from the international arena. The logic is that with Iran dismembered, the profit margin would increase as there would no longer be any need to economically and politically accommodate a large and potentially powerful state. Many western geopolitical interests are determined to gain access to the Iranian portion of the Caspian by either dismantling or reducing the present state of Iran.
Such a multi-ethnically unified state (like former Yugoslavia in the Balkans) would set limitations on foreign business operations on its sovereign territory. The destruction of a large and powerful state leads to smaller states which are more easily bought under the political and economic control of the aforementioned geopolitical interests.
[b] The Petroleum consortiums will have much easier geographical access to the Caspian region, making the process of Petroleum transportation far less costly than the present Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. With Iranian Azerbaijan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan detached from western Iran, the “Iranian oil market”, especially in Khuzestan will be opened to multinational interests.
The key question to be asked is this: is the state of Iran a geopolitical obstacle to Petroleum Diplomacy? As noted by Engdahl:
“The overall emphasis is on removing obstacles – whether political, economic, legal and logistical – to the increased procurement of foreign oil…” [William, Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press, p.264, 2004].
Olson’s study of Turkish-Iranian relations notes how Iran is itself an obstacle to geopolitical lobbies and Petroleum diplomacy:
“Iran was still an obstacle to the new combinazione (Pax Israel-Pax Americana), and its government and/or state would have to be changed, removed or diminished” [Olson, Robert, Turkey-Iran Relations, 1979-2004: Revolution, Ideology, War, Coups and Geopolitics, 2004, p.236].
Olson also notes how the use of Azerbaijani separatism simultaneously accommodates geopolitical objectives by removing Iran as a powerful state [a] and facilitate petroleum commerce [b]:
“The re-emergence of the Azeri question also fit the international geostrategic objectives of the US, EU, Turkey and Israel. First it would lessen the baility of Iran to participate in the distribution network of oil and gas pipelines criss-crossing Central Asia, the Middle East and Southwest Asia. Second, the growth of Azeri nationalism facilitated US and EU efforts to make the Caspian Basin region a “second” Persian Gulf…to exclude Arab and many Muslim countries…from having any effective voice in international affairs…to more effectively determine the price and access to…the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea basin.” [Olson, Robert, Turkey-Iran Relations, 1979-2004: Revolution, Ideology, War, Coups and Geopolitics, 2004, p.155-156]
If the Greater Khorassan and Baluchistan projects are revived (and there are indications that this is happening), then eastern Iran will be detached as well, allowing for pipelines to be laid from Central Asia to Iran’s southern waters. Engdahl has argued that the main reason that the Taliban of Afghanistan was supported by the West was due to hopes of laying a Central Asian pipeline across Afghan territory all the way to Pakistani ports.
A popular argument in today’s media outlets is that much of today’s predicament is the result of more than two and half decades of political and ideological alienation between Iran and the United States. There is no question that the Iranian people are entitled to (Human Rights, Democracy, as well as technology.
The real issue is sincerity: these same lobbies (who now call of "human rights") had no compunction for Iranians getting slaughtered by the pan-Arabist forces of Mr. Saddam Hussein in 1980. .
It was on September 22, 1980 , when Pan-Arabism graduated from hate literature (not all of which is Arab in origin) to outright violence: the Iraqis invaded Iran . Just as the Iraqi tanks were rolling into Iran , King Khalid of Saudi Arabia (1975-1982) (see photo) stated publicly to Saddam to “crush the stupid Persians”.

King Khalid of Saudi Arabia (1975-1982)

I do not recall any western media outlets condemning this racist statement against an entire people and nation. Are Iranians less than human? Judging from recent movie blockbuster releases, it would seem that this is what a number of lobbies want to us to believe:

Since when are Iranians no longer members of the human race? Is the argument between the current administration in Washington and the Islamic theocracy now ruling Iran? If it is, then why distort anthropology and history - nay, even reality itself?

It is sad that so much of the world in 1980, threw its support for the Saddam regime and its genocidal policies. Note the following excerpt by Eric Margolis in the Toronto Sun ( Sunday, January, 19, 2004 ):

“Britain, the U.S., Kuwait and Saudi Arabia convinced Iraq to invade Iran, then covertly supplied Saddam with money, arms, intelligence, and advisers...Italy, Germany, France, South Africa, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Brazil, Chile and the USSR all aided Saddam's war effort against Iran, which was even more a victim of naked aggression than was Kuwait in 1991”.
Saddam Hussein
Britain, the U.S., Kuwait and Saudi Arabia convinced Iraq to invade Iran, then covertly supplied Saddam with money, arms, intelligence, and advisers...Italy, Germany, France, South Africa, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Brazil, Chile and the USSR all aided Saddam's war effort against Iran, which was even more a victim of naked aggression than was Kuwait in 1991".
Few Iranians are aware that among Saddam Hussein's most ardent supporters of Saddam's invasion was Yasser Arafat (see his embrace of Saddam in the early 1980s).
Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein
Arafat had obtained 2 billion dollars of funds from Iran just a year before Saddam's army invaded Iran.
Note in the photograph below, the diverse range of Arab nationalities and races in Iraqi service, seen here captured by the Iranian army in February, 1984 (photo below):
"To the dismay of the pan-Arabists, the Khuzistani Arabs fought against Saddam from the start of the invasion, giving the Iranian army precious time to re-organize and counterattack. It is worth noting that only 200 of the defenders of the city of Khorramshahr were professional soldiers - the rest were locals of the city - many of them local Arabs. Together with the Iranian army personnel, they literally fought to the last man. Note photo below of Iranian Arabs preparing to fight Saddam Hussein's invasion forces in the early 1980s; the man with the beret is a professional soldier from the Iranian army teaching the Khuzestan Arabs in the use of rocket launchers:
Arab Iranians fight alongside Iranian Army and against pan-Arabists. Note that only the soldier with beret is non-Arab.
It was these same Khuzistani Arabs who again fought alongside the Iranian army when the city of Khorramshahr was liberated from Saddam's occupation in 1981. Unfazed by this failure (and rejection from the Khuzistanis), support still continues for pan-Arabists to separate Khuzistan from the rest of Iran (See http://www.alahwaz.com)
Why is it that nearly 2 decades after the end of the Iran-Iraq war, few media outlets (if any) speak of the atrocities committed on Iranian civilians by Saddam's troops. Atrocities against Iraqi civilians or Kuwaitis are only mentioned due to current political expediency.
There is no question that the current political animosity must be lifted, and is a major contributor to present day politics. However the issue being discussed here is the largely unreported geopolitical and economic factor: Petroleum Diplomacy.
RegardsKaveh Farrokh