More like this
Iran: our ally in the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban
Iran has always been an enemy of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Obama and Brown must throw off the influence of the neocons and enlist their help
No Western leaders have yet congratulated President Ahmadinejad on his controversial election victory in Iran. But among the list of leaders who have done so is a name than many will find surprising: President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.
Karzai telephoned Ahmadinejad to congratulate him on his victory, saying that relations between Afghanistan and its Western neighbour had "expanded" during Ahmadinejad's time in office and that he hoped ties would continue to strengthen.
You won't read too much about it in the mainstream Western media, but the truth is that in a battle which the US President and British Prime Minister repeatedly tell us is fundamental to our own security - Iran is on 'our' side.
In 2003, under pressure from neocons, Bush cancelled co-operation with Iran
Shia Iran's opposition to the Sunni fundamentalists of the Taliban is longstanding - in fact, over the past 20 years or so, it's fair to say that Iran has been more consistently and firmly opposed to the Taliban than the United States.
After the Taliban took power in 1996, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, denounced the group as an affront to Islam, and the killing of 11 Iranian diplomats and truck drivers in 1998 almost led to an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan, which was averted by the intervention of the US and UN.
After 9/11, Iran played a key role in the toppling of the Taliban and participated with the US and other Western countries on post-war planning for Afghanistan. Iran's contribution to the anti-Taliban struggle was acknowledged by US officials: James Dobbins, who worked with diplomats from Iran and other neigbours of Afghanistan to create the first post-Taliban government, said that the Iranians were the "most active" of the foreign backers of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, while Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that two days before the fall of Kabul, there were places in Afghanistan "where there are some Iranian liaison people, as well as some American liaison people" working with the same Afghan forces.
But in May 2003, under pressure from the neocons, President Bush cancelled co-operation with Iran.
Since then, US officials have claimed that Iran is actually working against Western interests in Afghanistan and has been aiding the Taliban. But hard evidence to support these claims has proved as elusive as Iraqi WMD. The allegations of US officials have been refuted by those closest to the action - like General Dan McNeill, the former top US commander in Afghanistan, who said there was "no information to support" the assertion that Iran had provided weapons to the Taliban.
In fact, Iran's line on the Taliban remains as uncompromising as ever. Only last October, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki warned the West not to hold talks with the Taliban: "We advise them to think about the consequences of the talks... which are taking place in the region and in Europe and avoid being bitten in the same spot twice."
Neocons have managed to conflate Israel’s enemies with those of the West
So why if Iran is on 'our side' in the war against the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, does the West remain so hostile to Tehran? The answer, of course, is the enduring influence of the neocons, who see the world through a pro-Israeli prism.
Iran is opposed to the Taliban and it is certainly no friend of al-Qaeda. But because of its sponsorship of Hamas and Hezbollah, it is deemed by the 'Israel-firstists' to be public enemy number one. The neocons have successfully managed to conflate Israel's perceived enemies with those of the West: Iran is seen as a threat to Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, therefore it's a threat to the US and Britain.
They've also managed to spin the myth of a coherent and unified Islamic network of terror, which includes Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, the Taliban and al-Qaeda - and before 2003, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, too. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims: "These terrorist states and terror organisations together form a terror network, whose constituent parts support each other operationally as well as politically."
Bowing to neocon and Zionist pressure to isolate Iran is undoubtedly hampering Western efforts in Afghanistan. Enlisting the Islamic Republic's support in the battle against the Taliban is no guarantee of success - but it would certainly increase the chances.
Last weekend, we heard that Iran was preparing a new package of "political, security and international" issues to put to the West. It's highly likely that Afghanistan will be among the issues covered in that package and that there will an offer of Iranian co-operation in return for concessions on the country's nuclear energy programme.
The pro-Israeli lobby will do all it can to get the proposals rejected; but if, as Obama, Brown et al state, it is really true that the war against the Taliban is fundamental to our national security, and that it is a conflict that must be won, then Western leaders would be wise to give them the most serious consideration. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Actually, Neil Clarkâ??s article is worse than I wrote. In making his claim that some supposed neocons (interested only in Israel, of course) have prevented the US from taking the supposedly commendable path of embracing clerical Fascist Iran, aside from completely misinterpreting US relations with Iran, Clark has screwed his head into a pretzel. A) He claims that the supposed neocons were only able to effect US rejection of Iran after May 2003. But doesn't Clark also claim that neocon power got the US INTO Iraq? So before May were the supposed neocons supposedly strong enough to get the US to mount a massive invasion, but too weak to prevent US meetings with Iran? Or is Clark just being 'inventive' in order to slither around the problem that in 2002, as Emperor's Clothes has reported, the U.S. worked with Iran and others in the IDLO to plan Islamist rule in Afghanistan? So, since the IDLO meeting is now public knowledge, Clark has to claim that US policy changed after that meeting. B) If as Clark claims the US was hostile to Iran after May 2003, why did Iran *order* Iraqis to support the US-created constitution in 2005? Are the mullahs also under the spell of Israel and the neocons? (Perhaps Clark is too, and he makes these arguments on orders of the neocons, to make the anti-Israel amen corner look like imbeciles?) C) Clark makes the remarkable claim that Israel has hegemony over the Middle East â?? Iran, he writes, is seen as a threat to Israeli hegemony. Hegemony over a region in which EVERY state is intensely hostile to Israel, only varying by degree of hostility, and in which the US invasion of Iraq, supposedly ordered by those Jewish hegemonists, has desperately hurt Israel, by changing Iraq from the one state in the world that does everything it can to weaken Iran (Israel's most dangerous enemy) to one which is an ally of Iran. Some hegemony, and some control of US policy, eh boss? You know, to find this level of mental decay - with Israel pictured as having hegemony in the Middle East - you have to go to the Hamas charter or Stormfront. Well, if the shoe fits, wear it.
--Jared Israel, editor Emperor's Clothes
While other Ahmadinejad apologists argue the nonsense that the Iranian protests are a creation of the CIA, Clark apologizes with the opposite nonsense -- that Iran and the US are united on fighting terror. He has achieved 'reasoning' as convoluted as any Iranian cleric.
Iran wants one thing in Afghanistan: NOT 'stability' but ruthless Islamism under its domination. Despite State Department handouts about Iran helping 'stabilize' Afghanistan, the boys at State know Iran's goals. So perhaps the U.S. and Iran are indeed united -- however, not around achieving some abstract 'stability,' but around consolidating Islamist rule under the 'stable' direction of Iran. The idea that the U.S. has an Iranian strategy is supported by the predictable effect of the invasion of Iraq, which has massively increased Iranian influence, as I predicted it would 6 years ago.
Since Hussein was the deadly enemy of the mullahs, of course getting rid of him, installing a Sharia constitution in Iraq (as the US also did in Afghanistan) and installing governments in Iraq (and Afghanistan) that are friendly to Iran had to mean an immense increase in Iranian Islamist power. Which in turn has strengthened the most extreme among the Iranian clerical fascists, emboldened them in Gaza, etc. The opposite of fighting terror.
Jared Israel, editor Emperor's Clothes
He helps against the taliban because he is against them too....has his own interest there to see the taliban defeated in afghanistan. So whats the big deal about that? Still he is a very dangerous person to walk the planet today.
Oh that's OK then. You have a leader of a regime who murders through the courts run by unelected and fascist clerics - communists, political opponents, homosexuals. A regime that beats and arrests women who do not dress as they are ordered and who restricts where women can be employed - and now rigs elections and murders and imprisons protesters.
We should ignore them seizing British sailors, arresting local British embassy workers even encouraging their terrorist groups in Iraq to kidnap British workers.
We should treat this regime as our allies???
I have morals not many but some - this an illegal regime run by eveil men (no women in this government or on the Guardian Council). It is cloaked in the figleaf of democracy - hah ha ha ha ha
So the real problem is "...of course, is the enduring influence of the neocons, who see the world through a pro-Israeli prism".
The stated genocidal intent of Hamas and Hizbollah, enthusiastically supported and funded by Iran, is not a problem? School curricula, media broadcasts and pulpit sermons that drip with racism and bigotry are acceptable to Mr Clark? The well documented persecution of the Baha'i in Iran as well the 80 plus years of Iranian brutal oppression of the Awazi Arabs are of no concern?
Iran's opposition to Al Qaeda is predicated on the Shia-Sunni divide and the ever simmering religious conflict and power struggle in the region, not about some great ideological differences.
The Iranians are not the poor victimized and misunderstood players in the Middle East. Under the repressive mullahs, their intent has always been crystal clear.
I have no reason to doubt the truth of this article, but it doesn't change the fact that the Iranian election was rigged and he's an illigitimate leader.
This article is a joke. Ahmadinejad wastes very little time in continuously condemning the USA and of course Britain at every conceivable opportunity. Even blaming Britain for the recent riots in Iran. Most of the equipment provided to Hizbollah & Hamas from outside comes from Iran. No colusion indeed! Who exactly are the neocons? Iran poses a danger to Israel and the surrounding Arab states. Your article is pure nonsense Mr Clarke.