This Land Is Your Land

This is a photo of 89 year old Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen at the celebrations for the inauguration of Barack Obama as President. They are leading the massive crowds outside the Lincoln Memorial singing Woody Guthrie's greatest-ever song (and my favourite) "This Land Is Your Land". Better still here is the link* (see comment at end) to the You Tube video of this unbelievable inaugural event.

In his book "Woody Guthrie : A Life" Joe Klein describes a left-wing hootenanny in 1946 with "a thousand people singing This Land Is Your Land in four-part harmony, Pete directing with one arm and plucking his banjo with another". 63 years later he now performs a similar role at the highest level in America. I doubt whether it comes as any surprise to Pete who has always been a political optimist. He probably expected that it would have happened long ago. But he teaches us never to give up on our dreams.

In 1997 Bruce Springsteen recorded "We Shall Overcome" for Where Have All The Flowers Gone : The Songs Of Pete Seeger and in 2006 he came out with a CD and DVD which was entitled "We Shall Overcome : The Seeger Sessions" with what became known as the Sessions Band. They then toured Britain and Ireland with a programme built upon their 2006 production and published another CD/DVD set entitled "Live In Dublin" . It is not to be missed.

There could be nothing better than a Woody Guthrie. Pete Seeger and
Bruce Springsteen harmony to usher in (and direct) the hopes placed in Barack Obama.

Hat Tip : Bob Piper

* = Update 7 February : This link has now been removed, seemingly for commercial reasons. So "This Land Isn't Yet Your Land", but it could be some day.

Update 16 February : Restored - THIS LINK IS OUR LINK

Welcome The Iraqi Referendum

The Iraqi Parliament has agreed to a plan that would see the withdrawal of US troops from their country by the end of 2011 and their removal from the streets by the end of June, 2009. It leaves open the question of whether the US will then obtain future bases in their country. And whilst a referendum will be held about the current decision, this will not take place until July 2009 after US troops have been returned to their barracks. A rejection of the plan would then speed up troop departures and would probably create a political situation in which the US would find it more difficult to establish permanent bases in Iraq.

Western Security Contractors (such as Blackwater) also become subject to Iraqi law.

Whatever the shortcomings are about the referendum and its timing, it does give the Iraqi people a voice in the changed situation that has developed since their last General Election. It will need to be democratic and open, with its decision being honoured. It opens up the prospect of the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by around the end of 2009 (instead of 2 years later) by a decision of the Iraqi people themselves. We need a democratic decision with the Iraqi people deciding what they want on this matter - one way or the other.

The Pain Of McCain

Perhaps I am becoming an old cynic, but the BBC's current euphoria over the election of Barack Obama reminds me of its 1997 enthusiasm over the election of Tony Blair. But I do have higher hopes for Barack.

For one thing, he will be obliged to shift US foreign policy. For otherwise he will come to be known as Barack O'Bomber.

My interest in John McCain (above) is that he is my age. This means, of course, that we have always been the same age. So I can follow the dramatic events in his life and remember the more mundane things I was doing when he was going through the traumas of being a POW or was engaged in the excitements of his high level political career in the USA. (I was, however, around 38 days before he was born. But I don't remember that much. It might, however, give me the edge on gravitas.)

What can he now do? Well like all of us at 72, he can keep on reminiscing. Better still, he could get himself a personal blog and click into my comment box now and again.

Washington Or Moscow, Or Neither?

This photograph appears on the front of today's Morning Star. It shows what the paper calls Anti-War Campaigners who are about to hand in a letter to 10 Downing Street protesting about US and British actions in relation to Georgia. The Campaigners led by Tony Benn are in fact spearheaded by the Stop The War Coalition.

What they say in their letter is only at best one side of the truth. But these strange Anti-War Campaigners then fail to go on to condemn the actions of Russia for their invasion of Georgia and for their subsequent hard and dangerous line. I doubt whether they will now be delivering a letter to the Russian Embassy condemning Moscow's actions.

The Socialist Workers' Party used to have a slogan "Neither Washington Nor Moscow, But International Socialism". It is a pity that the bulk of today's Revolutionary and Hard Left don't re-examine the contemporary logic of that position.

The Silence Is Deafening

Russians Bomb Gori
Image what the response would have been by the "Stop War Coalition" if America rather than Russia had bombed Georgia.

I did, however, march with them when they attempted to stop the invasion of Iraq. It was only afterwards that I thought they lost the plot. I am, therefore, now awaiting their call to join them once more in a demonstration outside the Russian Embassy. Or are we to be selective about the wars we wish to stop?

Questions To Jeremy

When I was an MP I shared many a rebels' voting lobby and attendance at Socialist Campaign Group meetings with Jeremy Corbyn (left, as always). I now mainly follow his political moves by reading his regular column in the "Morning Star" - indeed for a period in ye olden days I also had the privilege of having a column in the paper which describes itself as the "daily paper of the left". Although I have always seen it as the "daily paper of a left".

On 18 June, Jeremy's article was entitled "Afghanistan: the next Iraq?" and it was highly critical of a statement which the Defence Secretary, Des Browne had made in the Commons two days earlier about the Government's actions in Afghanistan. The flavour of Jeremy's approach is to be seen in his conclusion -

"The Afghan war is anything but a war of peace in the 21st century. It is likely to be the starting point of similar wars.

The government seems unable to break away from the huge mistakes that the Bush presidency made on 2001.

Bush might be going, but his legacy of illegal wars, occupation and death linger on."

Nevertheless, in the body of the article Jeremy did offer a partial criticism of the Taliban in stating that "no-one on the left would support the oppressive nature of the previous Taliban regime in relation to women or education."

In response to Jeremy's article, I immediately e-mailed the following enquiring letter to the editor. It is published in today's issue of the paper and is given the following heading -

What is the correct way forward in Afghanistan?

In his article "Afghanistan: the Next Iraq?" (June 16)*, Jeremy Corbyn points to the oppressive nature of the Taliban when they were in power. How does he feel that the left should now act to try to contain or remove their current influences?

Does he feel that proposing negotiations is a way forward? Does he feel that we should give moral and practical help to alternative progressive forces in Afghanistan and who does he see these as being? Should we help in a genuine rebuilding of the social fabric of the nation and how do we further this?

Above all, if there is scope for pursuing these or alternative avenues, will this be easier or more difficult if British troops are withdrawn or retained? And why?

In short if Des Browne's approach is counterproductive, then what will be productive?

Harry Barnes.

Note: * = This should read June 18. The error is mine.


OVER TO YOU JEREMY

I hope that Jeremy will respond to my questions. Just in case he misses my letter in today's "Morning Star", I am e-mailing him a link to this blog entry.

Fifty Years Is A Short Time In Politics

When Will They Ever Learn?
After a popular Army Coup in 1958, permanent British Royal Air Force bases were quickly forced out of Iraq -including the Movements Unit in Basra where I had undertaken my National Service in 1955 and 1956. Patrick Cockburn of "The Independent" reports on major financial pressure upon the Iraqi Government to now obtain permanent US bases with a continued legal immunity for US troops.

For An Obama-Edwards Ticket

Visit and revisit this web-site for the continuing case as to why John Edwards should be appointed as Barack Obama's running mate in the American Presidential Election. It also provides an avenue for assisting in the campaign to have John Edwards adopted as the Democrats Vice-Presidential candidate.

Who Will Be Obama's Running Mate?

Here is Eric Lee's strong recommendation (trawl down to 7 May) for John Edwards (left) and how you can support it. He states -

"John Edwards set the agenda for all the candidates in the early stages of the primary battles. He came up with the first and best comprehensive health care plan. He raised the issue of poverty as no leading politician has done for 40 years. His charisma, his abilities and his appeal to those voters Obama must win in November are beyond dispute."

See also here.

Assessing Bush's Assessment : Part 6 of "Understanding Iran"

See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.



Last Wednesday, President Bush met with Sada Cumber, the first US envoy to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference - a hopeful body referred to in Part 1 and also in "Criticism 1" below.

At the close of Part 5, I listed four major criticisms which the US Administration levels against Iran. I will now examine each of these in turn.

Criticism 1 : Iran Undermines The Israel/Palestine Peace Process.

This process is at a pretty low ebb at the moment and Iran's response to the current situation in the Gaza Strip is likely to confirm the Bush Administration in its entrenched position.

On Sunday Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamanei called upon the Islamic people to rise up and for their leaders to hit Israel "in the face with their nation's anger". This follows recent actions which have led to over a hundred Palestinians (including children) being killed in the Gaza Strip in retaliation to terrorist rocket attacks on Israel. He also condemned the US for supporting what he called the "Zionists... unforgivable sins".

In response to the escalating violence in the Middle East, America has deployed USS Cole and two other warships off the coast of Lebanon, where there has been a history of American naval shelling at targets in that country. The tensions rises.

The language seeking to calm the situation has come from the United Nations Security Council who have called for an end to attacks, and by the European Union who have condemned Israel's response as being disproportionate and contrary to international law. The EU has also urged all parties to use restraint.

If there is ever to a serious advance of the Peace Process, then there needs to be pressures from those closest to the protagonists which seriously press for restraint. America's links with Israel need to be used to pull her back from indiscriminate responses. Whilst bodies such as the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (mentioned in Part 1) need to use their position to seek to rein in upon the rhetorical support and military aid which certain Islamic nations and/or splinter groups provide to Hamas, Hezbollah and their equivalents.

Iran has undoubtedly been involved in such activity. At official level this was more likely to be to the fore when revolutionary and theocratic elements initially came to the fore. Some restraints on this action arose in periods when more democratic and reformist elements entered the political game.

It also needs to be remembered that politics is never static. Political changes via both the coming US and Iranian Presidential elections can aid the needed developments.

Criticism 2 : Iran Supports International Terrorism

Outside of the immediate Palestine situation, the US Administration additionally claims that Iran supports violent oppositional activities in nations such as the Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq. On the latter this is seen as being via organisations such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. Further afield terrorist backing is even claimed in areas such as Latin America around attacks on Israeli Embassies and Jewish Cultural Centres.

Such claims tend to be based on intelligence data and many will see such a source as problematic given the since disproven claims about Saddam Hussein holding Weapons of Mass Destruction. On the other hand, Iran has a track record of seeking to exert militant influences amongst the Shia population of Iraq which goes back to events around the Iran-Iraq War.

President Ahmadinejad has recently completed a two day official visit to Baghdad. As Iran now enjoys sound diplomatic and commercial links with the Iraqi Government, its support for militant activity may decline if it comes to be viewed as counter-productive.

Western Government's will continue to feel a need to build safeguards against Iranian links with militant groups in nations with significant Shia populations. But in acting in this, the West will need to look for avenues which will not push the populations concerned even further into the hands of extremists.

Criticism 3 : Iran Is Developing Nuclear Weapons

On Monday, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution placing its third set of sanctions upon Iran whom it claims is constructing a heavy water reactor to produce plutonium and is seeking to enrich uranium. These are key ingredients in the production of nuclear weapons. The sanctions are restricted to those which will hinder or block such developments.

Moving to such a nuclear weapons capability is contrary to Iran being a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran denies that it is involved in such activities and claims merely to be developing a nuclear energy capacity which it is permitted to do under the Treaty.

Russia supplies uranium to Iran for use at its Bushehr power station, but this is done under an agreement which returns the spent uranium fuel so that it can not be reprocessed to produce plutonium. Perhaps to facilitate Russia's signature to the sanctions decision of the UN Security Council, Bush has stated that the arrangement is satisfactory.

Iran's case for developing nuclear power (which it is entitled to do) is that it needs to provide for its future. Its hoped for growth (with an expanding population) could lead to a situation where its annual output of oil for domestic purposes would not meet its own energy requirements. Nuclear energy for internal use would also allow it to expand its export of oil for revenue purposes. Then in an estimated 75 years time its oil will run out, so it needs to prepare for its long term future energy requirements.

Its (unspoken) interest in developing nuclear weapons is that they act as a deterrent against attacks from outside. It is surrounded by US military fire power and four of its near neighbours hold nuclear weapons, including Israel with whom it has a hostile relationship.

The dangers of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons (even without them adopting threats to use them) are that this would undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, with Arab nations in the region then moving in on the act. Yet only last December the American Intelligence Agency claimed that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons programme back in 2003.

There is always a problem with the current regime in Iran that pressures upon them (such as the UN Security Council's sanctions programme) will prove counter-productive, with Iran digging in its heels and undertaking exactly that which others seek to prevent. On the other hand, a sanctions programme against Iran will be seen by many as preferable to the bombing by the USA of their relevant installations.

Criticism 4 : Iran Has A Shameful Human Rights Record

Even although the USA has its own dismal record over Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghraib prison and the nature of its attacks on Fallujah; it is still the case that Iran has a particularly shameful human rights record. In part 2, I quoted from the "2008 World Report" of Human Rights Watch which spells this out.

Iranian authorities systematically suppress freedom of expression by journalists, editors, academics, students and others. Peaceful protests over women rights, for social improvements and for trade union recognition are suppressed. Iran has a high death penalty rate which includes public hangings (with some until recently being shown an television), the stoning to death of women on charges of adultery and the execution of juveniles. Those who renounce their Islamic faith are open to jail sentences, hard labour or even the death penalty. An Iranian Government Minister has recently defended the torture and executions of homosexuals.

The Ershed patrol (or modesty police) enforce dress codes for women, placing many into detention. Many Iranians are, however, prepared to stand out against such provisions - as is shown here.

Iran is not alone in the operations of the above forms of abuse. Saudi Arabia has a particularly damming record in these areas. This indicates that a common approach needs to be adopted in seeking to overcome such practices wherever they are discovered.


*************************************************************************************

Part 7 will be the conclusion of this series on "Understanding Iran". I will pursue two final questions - (1) What are the avenues of reform in Iran? (2) How should those outside of Iran respond?

The Great Satan v The Axis Of Evil : Part 5 Of "Understanding Iran"

See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

Or could this be the shape of things to come? Ryan Cocker, US Ambassador to Iraq met with his Iranian counterpart Hussan Kazemi Qomi in Baghdad in May 2007 to look for common ground to help the Iraqi Government to help to end the daily bloodshed. Whilst today Ahmadinejad, Iran's President arrived in Baghdad for two days of talks with Iraqi leaders. Iran is lending £500million to Iraq for projects which are to be handled by Iranian companies.

Halcyon Days

Prior to 1953, the USA had a close and friendly relationship with Iran. At that time the two world powers with a track record of interference in Iran's internal affairs were Britain and Russia. These two powers even divided Iran up into differing areas of influence between 1907 and 1917. Then they occupied Iran between 1941 and 1946, dividing the territory between themselves. When the Soviet Union was reluctant to leave after the 2nd World War, it was American pressure which secured their departure.

The Break-Up

In 1951, Iran nationalised the British owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and a tussle for power took place between the Shah and the democratic majority in the Majlis led by Mosaddeq. The Shah was initially obliged to flee Iran, but he was restored to power in a coup engineered by the British MI6 and the American CIA with Mosaddeq (Iran's nationalist and democratic hope) spending the remainder of his life in prison and then under house arrest. Whilst Iranians were used to such forms of action by Britain, they were deeply shocked and offended by the actions of the USA. The Shah allowed a Western Oil consortium to run Iran's Oil Industry with American involvement. America continued to be closely involved with the Shah's regime and supplied him with arms. As the Shah operated an increasingly oppressive regime, both he and the US Government became increasingly unpopular amongst Iranians.

Revolutionary Fervour

The 1979 revolution against the Shah's regime, initially united a wide range of differing interests inside Iran who all hoped to make considerable political advances with his departure. Ayatollah Khomeini's populist appeal rested on his being Anti-Shah, anti-imperialist, having a high Shia religious status and living a simple life-style (a sharp contrast with the Shah). Rather like Lenin during the Russian Revolution of 1917, he found that power could be taken by those who were organised and disciplined around the telling national ideology of its time. He was assisted by two important developments which are dealt with in the next section.

The Heat Rises

First, there was the student invasion of the American Embassy in Tehran in which apart from the hostages who were held, documents were seized whose contents were turned against the USA. As a consequence of hostage crisis, the USA instigated trade sanctions against Iran and ended diplomatic relations. Iran responded in kind. Whilst Khomeini was able to use the crisis to advance his version of theocratic beliefs and structures, a second dramatic event then occurred which he made considerable use of. Saddam Hussein's Iraq attacked Iran in 1980. This enabled Khomeini to mobilise Iran in a war which lasted until 1988. The West was seen to be sympathetic to Saddam Hussein's invasion. This made it easier for Khomeini's views on the immorality of Western life-styles, the need for Shariah law and his condemnation that the USA was the "Great Satan", to become part of Iran's conventional wisdom.

Both Sides Fan The Flames

In 1983 hundreds of members of a peacekeeping force in the Lebanon were killed at their barracks when truck bombs were exploded. The majority of these were US Marines. The US accused Iran of assisting Lebanon's Hezbollah in this and similar attacks, which had equivalents in other areas of the Middle East and were also focused against Israel. On the other hand, Iran tends to see bodies such as Hezbollah and Hamas as being freedom fighters on a par with the ANC in the period of its struggle against apartheid. When the USS Vincennes patrolling for America in the Gulf shot down an Iranian Airbus killing 290 people including children, this reinforced such feelings amongst the people of Iran.

Recent Tensions

In 2002, President Bush included Iran within his "Axis of Evil" speech. The USA then invaded a neighbouring nation, Iraq which Bush also claimed was part of this Axis. America has also accused Iran of using its nuclear energy programme as a cover for developing nuclear weapons in conflict with Iran's commitment to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty which it signed up to in 1968. The UN Security Council has adopted various targeted sanctions against Iran's nuclear programme and is currently examining whether it should update these. Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President has also upped the rhetoric in this dispute by saying that Israel should "be wiped off the map".

Are There Any Silver Linings?

A problem with the mutual boycott between the USA and Iran is that it blocks programmes such as the exchange of students, holiday visits and a general cross fertilization of ideas between the two nations. This makes it more difficult for views to emerge which help to bridge the gaps between the two administrations. There are, however, regular informal diplomatic links which operate via the Swiss and Pakistan embassies - and occasionally more direct approaches, including the one in the photo above. Deals eventually arose over the hostages and the USA has helped with disaster relief when Iran was hit by major earthquakes. Even the invasions of Iran's immediate neighbours has its plus side. Iran supported the Northern Alliance in Afganistan and fought a horrendous eight year war against Saddam Hussein. Althoughthe circumstances are difficult, the Shia of Iran can now visit their
holy shrines in southern Iraq which had been blocked to them by Saddam Hussein. Within the next year there is also the prospect of Presidential changes in both the USA and Iran which could lead to improved relations.

How Should The West Respond?

When Clinton was President, he made three major criticisms of the Iranian regime. (A) Iran was hostile to the (then active) Arab-Isreali Peace Process. (B) Iran actively supported international terrorism. (C) Its pursuit of a nuclear energy programme had the objective of developing nuclear weapons. From its vantage point of having bases and troops surroundingt Iran, the Bush regime presses these points even more vigorously and probably now makes more out of a further point. (D) This is the claim that Iran has a hideous human rights record, involving an excessive use of the death penalty and a harsh interpretation of Sharia Law. I will examine these matters in Part 6 and respond to the question "to what extent are these claims correct?".

Factors Shaping Politics : Part 4 Of "Understanding Iran"

When they are free to do so, Iranians who oppose the current regime but don't wish to be associated with the symbolism of the previous Shah, opt for this earlier Civic Flag in place of the current State Flag which appears below. (H.B. 13.4.08)

Part 1 of this series on "Understanding Iran" appears here, with Part 2 here and Part 3 here.

The strength of national sentiment is one of the factors which shape Iranian Politics. But there is also a complex interplay of other factors at work.



(1) Nationalism

Iran has experienced three major shifts in its overall political make-up since the end of the Second World War. These occurred (1) under Mohammed Mossadeq's democratic premiership (1951-53), (2) under the Shah's dictatorship (1953-79) and (3) from the time of the Islamic revolution in 1979. Although the nation's politics have lurched dramatically in differing directions with each of these shifts, the bulk of the Iranian population have always shown a strong sense of national identity. This arises from their long history and their long term coherence as a single unit. The most recent exception to their operating in a common structure goes back to the relatively short-lived consequences of the Anglo-Russian invasion during the second world war, which produced foreign controls and a split in the administration of the nation.

Further factors adding to this sense of national identity is the size of Iran and what it perceives to be its status in its region. It has not seen the break-ups and re-alignment of some of its neighbours and has held a strategic position as the only nation on the eastern bank of what it calls the "Persian Gulf". On the other hand the remaining bank is currently shared out between seven different nations. The Gulf itself also having the presence of the US fleet.

The next two factors, also add to Iran's sense of national identity.

(2) Shia Islam

98% of Iran's population are Muslims, with 89% being Shia. Given Iran's size, coherence and status as an Islamic Republic, this makes it the world leader of the Shia version of Islam. The only potential rivals to this position are the Shia of Iraq. The territory dominated by the Iraqi Shia contains most of the Holy centres of this faith. However, the Shia of Iraq have just recently emerged from under the totalitarian dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. They operate inside a nation in turmoil, in which their fellow believers in Iran play a role which is seen by some as supportive and others as interference. Indeed it is only just over a quarter of a century since Saddam Hussein launched an attack on Iran which led to a hideous eight year conflict between the two nations and between the two Shia camps. All of these factors help to keep Iran and not Iraq, at the forefront of the Shia world.

The majority of Iran's Shia clerics come from mainly urban petite bourgeoise families, but they are also widespread throughout society and tend to retain close links with people from their own backgrounds - which include the working classes.

(3) Anti-Imperialism

In 1953, the US Central Intelligence Agency played a major role in restoring the Shah to power. The Shah ran an oppressive regime which was backed by the US and other Western powers. When the Shah attempted to modernise and westernise Iran, he did this in a highly oppressive and exploitive way which included the use of a hated secret police force.

Further aspects of the conflict between the USA and Iran will be examined later. But from the Shah's period it has always been possible for Islamic forces (in particular) within Iran to spread the notions that liberal values from the West are invariably intermingled with forms of decadence and exploitation. What the USA, in particular, sees as forms of liberty are often seen by Islamic peoples as being mere licence and immoral excess.

It needs to be remembered, however, that when it comes to issues such as the way women dress and whether they should have open access to the same life-style as men, then anyone in Iran who is in their mid-40s or over will have experienced the norms of a more Westernised (but corrupt) regime. As Iran is a young population, this is a minority of the population. On the other hand, younger people with middle class lifestyles face the excitements of an illicit Western culture. There is, for instances, a high number of Iranian bloggers and a current dispute over how their activities should and can be subject to control. So whilst Iranians tend to share strong anti-Imperialist feelings, for many this does not spill over into say a full grown anti-Americanism.

(4) Diversity

It isn't inevitable that the above factors of Nationalism, Shia Islam and Anti-Imperialism will lead to a monolithic society; for different people will give different weights and interpretations to each factor. On top of this there are numbers of divisions within Iranian society which persist and challenge tendancies towards a uniform outlook on life. Such divisions will not necessarily lead to splintering. In favourable circumstances they could aid democratic and pluralist developments.

(a) CLASS DIVISIONS

Class divisions are significant in any society. Iran is highly urbanised and has seen the growth of industrial working class occupations. Although this social class draws down from the influences mentioned above, it it can also be attracted towards collective action in pursuit of its common interests. In the past there was clear influence from the Communist-inspired Tudeh Party under the impact of the former Soviet Union which rested on Iran's northern border. Today there are also struggles to organise Trade Unions amongst groups such as the Tehran bus drivers. There is also a high level of graduate unemployment which can act as a recruiting ground for liberal and socialist understandings. Some of the latter move out and back into Iran and help to cross fertilise ideas.

The pull of the views of the Islamic clerics from the time of the events leading up to the Islamic Revolution has been strong amongst the poorer sections of this working class. Numbers of these have moved from agricultural areas and send remittances home to their families who often still live in rural areas.

The growth of the towns has also led to a growth of Bazaars. Those running businesses in these (often with extended family links) plus employees making the goods they sell, have been amongst the stongest supporters and publicists of the norms of the Islamic Revolution.

There is also a class with business, management, professional and financial skills in a mixed economy with a wide area of State, co-operative and foundation structures. Numbers of these have clerical connections and all tend to share concerns to preserve and advance their interests - however, some will seek to do this via more radical avenues then others.

(b) ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES

Iran contains numbers of minority ethnic and religious groups. Such divisions are mellowed by inter-marriages and the unifying factors mentioned in sections (1), (2) and (3)above. Divisions can come to the fore, however, in periods of tension such as that of the Revolution itself - for it wasn't clear at the time that the forces around the Khomeini would truimph.

The largest ethnic minority are the Azeriz and since the collapse of the Soviet Union there has been the pull of a neighbouring independent Azerbaijan on part of Iran's northern border. Other groups include Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis and Turkmen (with now a neighbouring Turkmenistan). Whilst inter-ethnic relations tend to be reasonably amicable, outside events in neighbouring countries (such as the move to relative autonomy by the Kurds in Northern Iraq) can have an impact on attitudes amongst their related ethnic minorities in Iran.

On religion, the only sizeable minority are the Sunni, who are also strong amongst the Kurds. Developments in Iraq can influence the Sunni of Iran in contrasting ways to their impact on the majority Shia.

(c) GENDER DISTINCTIONS

Whilst the role of women is seriously restricted by the practices of the Islamic Republic, a number of countervailing factors also need to be considered.

Women have the vote, widespread access to some genuine education and improving health facilities. They played prominent roles in the Islamic Revolution and during the Iraq-Iran War which enhanced their status within what was otherwise an alien setting.

The legal, practical and social restrictions upon women in Iran cannot be ignored. But if other forces begin to work upon their husbands and sons to achieve democratic, libetarian and social advances: then women are liable to be able to press more effectively for their own improvements. The struggle for advancement can then (in numbers of areas) cross the gender divide.

Female undergraduates outnumber males and are often restricted to jobs openings in the teaching profession. It is, however, a key avenue for those wishing to open up the minds of future generations. At the moment the franchise might have its limitations, but it also provides votes from 15 for all - including those taught by female graduates.

Those in Iran who press for civil rights for women, trade unionists, homesexuals, reformers, minority interests and others can benefit from outside pressures organised by groups such as Amnesty. Here is an example.

Amiriya : 17 Years Ago Today In Iraq

Lest The West Forgets.

See this from "Treasure Of Baghdad" and view the telling video at the close.

Exactly How Does The USA Leave Iraq?

I have just discovered this. It was published by the American Magazine "Mother Jones" on 18 October, 2007. The two quotations which follow are from the editors' introduction to that issue. They set the scene for what is an important contribution on Iraq which needs to be known outside of the USA.


... it's not just the administration that has its head in the sand; to varying degrees, we all do. For those of us who argued against invading, it is tempting to simply demand an end to "Bush's War" and wash our hands of it. But as General Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. forces in the Middle East, told us, "Your conscience is not clean just because you're a peace demonstrator." In other words, just because you weren't in favor of going in doesn't mean you're not responsible for what happens when we pull out...

Yes, Bush, a leader with all the impulse control of a petulant three-year-old, "broke" Iraq. But we own it now. Time to get ready with the apology, the checkbook, and whatever else is required.

I Told You So

The line argued above is in line with a position I adopted between the invasion of Iraq on 18 March, 2003 and its conquest on 1 May, 2003. Having vigorously opposed the invasion, on 27 March I raised the following point in the Commons -

"Should we not have a debate on the humanitarian arrangements in Iraq to handle the current crisis? However hon. Members voted in relation to the war, surely we are all deeply concerned about the humanitarian crisis that exists in that country at the moment. For instance, Basra is the gateway to Iraq. It has an extensive dock marshalling yard and a railway line to Baghdad, and if it can be used properly for humanitarian provisions, that is all to the good. We should be able to debate those matters on the Floor of the House."

Unfortunately, no such debate was forthcoming and by my then turning my attention away from a "troops out" position my friends in the anti-invasion movement thought I had sold out. I was amazed that they were not automatically following the line I was taking.

Given that an invasion was then underway, we now know that the numbers of troops involved and the nature of forward planning were totally inadequate. It would have been revealing if the debate I had called for (and continued to press for) had actually taken place.

Acknowledgement

I thank "Rwendland's" contributions in my Comment Box for providing me with links which led me on to find "Mother Jones".

US War Department Does Well In Iraq

Unfortunately this was back in 1943

The War and Navy Department at Washington DC issued a "Guide For US Forces Serving In Iraq 1943" which has been re-published with a Preface by Dark House Publications (2008, £4.99). It is in a format, like the original which is easy to slip into a pocket.

Whilst the guide might not be unproblematic, it gives useful advice to troops about "getting along with Iraqis and making them your friends", saying "the best way to get along with people is to understand them. That is what this guide is for".

It is a pity that Bush and his advisers did not study it before the invasion.

Towards the end, the guide gives 28 tips on how to respect and (where appropriate) join-in with Iraqi customs. It concludes with hints on how to pronounce some key Iraqi words and phrases, pressing troops to talk "Arabic if you can to people. No matter how badly you do it." Appropriate recordings were also supplied to help extend their skills in Arabic.

I undertook my National Service in Basra in 1955-6. I would have found a British version of the guide to be invaluable. But never once did Officers in the RAF organise any guidance whatsoever to us on how to mix with Iraqi people and to respect their way of life. We weren't even told where we were at or what we were doing there.

The US also issued "A Soldier's Guide To The Republic Of Iraq" in 2003. I have not yet seen a copy and can only point to this criticism of part of its content. Things seem to have gone downhill since 1943.

I am seeking to discover whether a British version (past or present) exists. I would be grateful for any information on this.

Iraq : Which Troops Should Get Out?

The article I posted in July on Iraqi Trade Unions was subsequently covered in Harry's Place and this led to a lengthy debate in its comment box. As a consequence of the debate and under pointed questioning, I came to clarify my position about whether to have foreign troops in Iraq.

I argued (a) for the removal of mercenaries and (b) the replacement of Coalition forces by troops from Islamic nations (other than the nations surrounding Iraq). On the later it needs to be remembered that more than half of the world's Muslims forces live in South and South East Asia; whilst Islam is the world's second largest religion and isn't dominated by political extremists.

Since I represented my case the urgent need for point (a) has been furthered by the Blackwater's disgraceful operations in Iraq. I then dealt with this matter here, here, here, here, and here. The case for the replacement of American troops (in particular) is now advanced HERE. For such acts are in the style of Blackwater themselves.

Blackwater Makes A Killing

As shown on Iraqi Mojo's fine blog, see this telling video discussion on the disgraceful role of Blackwater's Private Army in Iraq.

Blackwater : Shadow Army

After reading this, please turn to the important link I provide at the end.

The link takes you to the comments section of an item posted by "Treasure of Baghdad". Just above the point at which your arrive there is a telling You Tube Video to watch of Blackwater Security operatives in Iraq travelling by car and engaging in randomn shooting at other vehicles. After you have watched it, see the further video links shown at the bottom of the screen. In particular, look at the one entitled "Blackwater : Shadow Army."

The post and its comments are also worth examination.

This is the link.

Bush On Private Security Firms

This is what he did not know. Does he know (or care) much more now? Whilst this is the lastest US response on this issue which I have covered over the past two days.

Needed - Security Against Security

The news that the Iraqi Government is finally to review the position of overseas security firms who operate in a free-lance way in their country, can only be welcomed.

The early withdrawal of these private armies of 20,000 overseas mercenaries is essential. In the meantime, Britain and America (in particular) need to ensure that their own sets of private warriors in Iraq are placed under strict controls as was pointed out in this recent evidence by Duncan Bullivant to the Iraq Commission. It is revealing material directly from a security sector operative.

Blackwater Security who are under contract by the US State Department had their licence revoked by the Iraqi Government yesterday following their killing of 8 Iraqi citizens and the wounding of 13 others. Further relevant links are given in this item which I posted yesterday.