Crescent Magazine

Tehran, Crescent–online
January 30, 2010 – 10:00am EST

The Islamic Republic of Iran has announced a temporary suspension of Iranian pilgrims going for Umrah because of the Saudi regime's failure to provide security to its pilgrims and proper treatment of its citizens. This was announced by Iranian news sources in Tehran on January 29.

Two weeks earlier (January 16), the Iranian parliament advised the government to halt the travel of Iranian citizens to Saudi Arabia because of recent abuses faced by many Iranians in Makkah and Madinah. Iran's decision was based on the Saudi authorities' refusal to address and resolve the mistreatment faced by Iranian pilgrims during last Hajj.

The safety of its citizens is a prime concern of the Iranian authorities. In June of last year, Shahram Amiri, a researcher at Tehran's Malek Ashtar University, went missing after he traveled to Saudi Arabia for Umrah. The incorporation of the Saudi government’s security agencies into a broader US and Israeli defense apparatus is not a secret. There is, therefore, no guarantee of safety for any pilgrim that might be on the US or Israeli watch list.

Iran's suspension of Umrah travel will also have a negative impact on the Saudi kingdom's economy. It is estimated that Iranians make up a quarter of the annual 3.7 million Umrah pilgrims.  

The authoritarian nature of the Saudi regime has long since made Hajj and Umrah a dangerous undertaking for many pilgrims as was demonstrated during the Saudi orchestrated bloodbath in November 1979 and July 1987. Apart from systematic state pressure on pilgrims, they are also constantly faced with extreme arrogance and incompetence of Saudi administrators.

Iran's suspension of Umrah should alert other Muslim countries as well to address the broader issues related to the Saudi government's un-Islamic practices regarding Hajj and Umrah. These range from the triviliazation of Hajj to exorbitant prices the Saudis charge as well as the manner in which pilgrims are segreggated according to nationality, defeating the very purpose of Hajj.

Further, the ban on bara'ah declaration, a Qur'anic command (Surah Taubah), shows the extreme disregard the Saudi rulers have even for Allah's divine commands.   

END

MD-Toronto, Crescent–online
January 29, 2010 – 10:00am EST

The Taliban have learned to shoot down US unmanned aerial vehicles commonly known as drones. This was reported by several Pakistan and western newspapers on January 29. According to these reports, as recently as January 24, a US drone was shot down in Pakistan's tribal region of North Waziristan. Since the last two drones were shot down a week ago the CIA has suspended flights of its Predator drones over Pakistan and Afghanistan.

According to reports the drones were shot down by the fighters of Hafiz Gul Bahadar with the use of portable anti-aircraft installations. Earlier in December 2009 the US military reported that “Iranian backed” Iraqi resistance forces had managed to intercept sensitive video feeds from the US predator drones using $26 off-the-shelf software.

The US military relies heavily on its air superiority to carry out attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq against resistance forces. It seems to have lost this advantage now. If the Taliban manage to eliminate or even reduce the impunity with which NATO’s air force operates in the Afghan and Pakistani skies, NATO will be forced to engage Taliban fighters in close quarter combat.

Fighting Taliban fighters in terrain that NATO forces are unfamiliar with will definitely increase their casualties. The relative equality of Taliban’s and NATO’s ground forces will surely embolden Taliban forces to carry out more offensive operations which will have a negative impact on the moral of NATO troops and western politicians.

Sophisticated anti-air craft missiles are hard to make and purchase without state backing. However, if the Taliban manage to merge conventional air craft guns with conventional software, a significant air defense capability will be created. Air defense weaponry is the only type of weaponry that the Taliban lack completely. It is apparent they are working on addressing this deficiency.


END

Washington DC-Crescent-online
January 29, 2010 - 3:00 pm EST

It seems Americans never learn. While it is not difficult to find Iran-bashers in Washington, at times people go overboard and expose themselves in strange ways.

Take, for example Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations. Writing in this week's Newsweek magazine, he said he had enough with Iran and that it was time for "regime change" as if the US has the right to determine other people's rulers. Let us quote this former chief of policy planning for Colin Powell when the latter was Secretary of State and went to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003 to lie about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

In his Newsweek piece, Haass wrote that while he was never a fan of the George W. Bush policy on "regime change" and that he had agreed with the Obama administration's policy of engagement with Iran, he said, "I've changed my mind." Why? In his column headlined "Enough is enough: Why we can no longer remain on the sidelines in the struggle for regime change in Iran," Haass wrote: "The nuclear talks are going nowhere," accusing President Ahmedinejad of "stealing" last June's presidential election.

So what does this zionist neo-con propose? He says the time has come for Washington and the Europeans to impose economic sanctions, condemn Tehran's "human rights violations" and do whatever might be helpful, in a "nonviolent way," to topple the legally-established government in Iran.

America's "engagement" with Iran, as indeed with other countries, is really strange. What the US means by engagement is that Washington cowboys make a set of demands and insist that these must be fulfilled. If not, then the targetted country is not being responsible and its government must be changed.

Perhaps it is time for Americans to learn some manners. While it may be difficult for them to do so, they have no choice because the US is no longer a superpower and it cannot continue to dictate to others how to conduct their affairs, especially a country like Iran.  

Haass was intimately involved in Powell's infamous speech at the UN in February 2003 that was based on outright lies. That episode resulted in one of the biggest debacles in post-World War II American foreign policy and has brought the US to verge of collapse.

END

London-Crescent-online
January 28, 2010 - 11:00 am EST

Afghanistan's beleaguered President Hamid Karzai declared at conference in London that reaching out to the Taliban should be the main plank of any effort to end the war. He also said at the January 28 meeting attended by representatives from some 70 countries that it would take "5 to 10 years" to train Afghan police and army and another "10 to 15 years" to enable the country to financially support them.

Karzai said “reconciliation” was one of his top priorities. “We must reach out to all of our countrymen, especially our disenchanted brothers,” clearly referring to the Taliban. And he appealed to Saudi King Abdullah as well as Pakistan to help broker negotiations.

The London conference was called by Prime Minister Gordon Brown to get pledges of finanacial support as well as reinvigorate the 44-member military alliance fighting the war in Afghanistan.

The Taliban have intensified attacks and the US-Nato-led war has faced stiff resistance throughout the country. Even General Stanley McChrystal, the gung-ho US commander in Afghanistan, was forced to admit to the Financial Times of London this week that the military campaign must lead to a "political solution" in Afghanistan.

While "reconciliation" seemed to be on everyone's lips, including US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, some observers believe the London conference was an attempt to deflect criticism of the disastrous war that is extremely popular in Europe as well as North America. Large majorities in all countries that have troops in Afghanistan want them out of there, sooner rather than later.

Informed observers in Pakistan have told Crescent International that back channel negotiations are underway with the Taliban including their leader, Mulla Omar. Pakistan's intelligence agency, ISI, is involved in the talks and have reported that Mulla Omar may be willing to consider the reconciliation option provided the US announces a set deadline for complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Others, like the Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai who has good connections with the Taliban leaders, are less sure. He said Taliban sources have told him the latest reconciliation effort would fail like all previous attempts. Further, he pointed out that the five names removed from the UN terrorist list on January 26 had already either joined the Karzai regime or were living under its protection. Karzai has asked for more names to be removed from the list.
 
Given the beating the foreign forces have got from the Taliban in 2009, announcing a withdrawal date may be the only option left for US-Nato warlords. While Hillary Clinton tried to put a positive spin on the "reconciliation" process by saying “many low- and mid-level Taliban are driven to extremism more by economic opportunity or local politics than by ideology. With the right incentives, they can become part of Afghan democracy.” She also talked about women's rights, a favourite western theme that has no relevance for the Afghan people.

But what kind of animal is "Afghan democracy"? Obviously, Americans continue to believe that they can export democracy through the barrel of the gun to unwilling people around the world.

Iran had been invited to the conference but refused to attend because it saw the meeting as an attempt to escalate military operations in Afghanistan. While the mood at the conference reflected a growing sense of panic and confusion among countries, especially Britain, whose troops are in Afghanistan, Hillary Clinton cautioned that NATO’s plan to begin transferring authority to Afghan forces was “not an exit strategy.”

Karzai, however, could not pass an opportunity to revive one of his old campaign slogans, saying that what the Afghans wanted could be summed up in four words: “Afghan leadership, Afghan ownership.” This may be a long time coming.

END