Curiouser and curiouser... the situation in Iran
"Iran has accused the UK of co-operating with bombers who killed eight people in attacks in the restive south-western city of Ahwaz on Tuesday." January 25th, 2006
This morning's news includes reports of another pair of bombings in the province of Khuzestan in western Iran. The bombings were claimed by a "little known Arab separatist group". These aren't the first terrorist acts in Khuzestan where a large number of ethnic Arabs reside and where much of Iran's oil is found. The Iranian government accuses the British of supporting and fomenting the attacks in part because Britain occupies the province of Iraq just to the west which includes Basra.
I find this news disquieting. What are the possibilities? There is an ethnic Arab rebellion brewing against the Iranian government which sees the changes in Iraq as an opportunity to wrest more control of their own destiny, perhaps with the hope the West will help them. There is unrest, but the 'rebellion' is being fomented by western security services, British or otherwise, to keep Iran off balance and less able to freely pursue its nuclear ambitions. There is unrest but the 'rebellion' is actually being staged by the Iranian security services in order to give them a reason to crack down in Khuzestan or to point to the West as attempting to destabilize them in order to unite the country or both.
Oh what tangled webs we weave... The most dangerous thing about this situation, I believe, is that actions from any source which increase the paranoia of the Mullahs and the Iranian people narrow the ground in which diplomacy can be used to control the dimensions of the nuclear development there. Should the Arabs of Khuzestan rise up, the West would be forced to either support their effort or stand by and watch the Iranian regime put down the rebellion. Should the Iranians decide they are being attacked by the West using indigenous malcontents as their tools, they could become hypermilitant and unlikely to negotiate on any level. Intransigence raises the risk that Israel might make a pre-emptive strike on Iran or that someone else would act pre-emptively. All of which increases the likelihood of a boiling regional stew of conflict in which US forces could become part of the ingredients.
Whatever the truth is, this news is not good.
This morning's news includes reports of another pair of bombings in the province of Khuzestan in western Iran. The bombings were claimed by a "little known Arab separatist group". These aren't the first terrorist acts in Khuzestan where a large number of ethnic Arabs reside and where much of Iran's oil is found. The Iranian government accuses the British of supporting and fomenting the attacks in part because Britain occupies the province of Iraq just to the west which includes Basra.
I find this news disquieting. What are the possibilities? There is an ethnic Arab rebellion brewing against the Iranian government which sees the changes in Iraq as an opportunity to wrest more control of their own destiny, perhaps with the hope the West will help them. There is unrest, but the 'rebellion' is being fomented by western security services, British or otherwise, to keep Iran off balance and less able to freely pursue its nuclear ambitions. There is unrest but the 'rebellion' is actually being staged by the Iranian security services in order to give them a reason to crack down in Khuzestan or to point to the West as attempting to destabilize them in order to unite the country or both.
Oh what tangled webs we weave... The most dangerous thing about this situation, I believe, is that actions from any source which increase the paranoia of the Mullahs and the Iranian people narrow the ground in which diplomacy can be used to control the dimensions of the nuclear development there. Should the Arabs of Khuzestan rise up, the West would be forced to either support their effort or stand by and watch the Iranian regime put down the rebellion. Should the Iranians decide they are being attacked by the West using indigenous malcontents as their tools, they could become hypermilitant and unlikely to negotiate on any level. Intransigence raises the risk that Israel might make a pre-emptive strike on Iran or that someone else would act pre-emptively. All of which increases the likelihood of a boiling regional stew of conflict in which US forces could become part of the ingredients.
Whatever the truth is, this news is not good.
Comments
mynewsbot.com