America is a Nation with a mission -- and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace -- a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman.
~George W. Bush

Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
~George W. Bush

Al Qaeda is still a threat. We cannot pretend somehow that because Barack Hussein Obama got elected as president, suddenly everything is going to be OK.
~Barack Obama

I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.
~Barack Obama

On August 7, 1990 U.S. military forces touched down in the country of Saudi Arabia to defend against a possible invasion of the country by it’s neighbor Iraq. Iraq, under the leadership of dictator Saddam Hussein, had already captured the country of Kuwait, whom Saudi Arabia and Iraq share an eastern border with, days earlier. The next day Hussein declared Kuwait a province of Iraq and began installing his own government. President George H.W. Bush immediately escalated the U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf  . In a later speech to Congress on September 11, President Bush said he was responding to a massive buildup of Iraqi troops on the Iraq-Kuwait-Saudi border. The Pentagon claimed that satellite photos showing the buildup would confirm this. The photos showed nothing but empty desert.

An organization in Kuwait looking to influence American opinion toward an invasion of Iraq began distributing material detailing atrocities being committed by Iraqi military in Kuwait. Much of it was PR stuff and never proven but there were valid complaints. Several executions of civilians and senseless destruction of homes just for the sake of doing it. Abuses of women, sexual and otherwise, and a total disregard for anything not wearing a uniform. But many here were hesitant to become involved militarily in the region.  The major problem for many though, was the oil. Even if diplomatic compromises were reached, even if the safety of Kuwaiti citizens could be assured, Saddam Hussein could still control Kuwaiti’s oil supply. One of the richest in the world. Couldn’t have it. Both American and Saudi government officials knew the consequences if this occurred.

Bush eventually got the authority he needed and on January 17, 1991 the Gulf War began. It ended rather quickly. Iraq was not the mighty military machine it had been made out to be early on. Iraq was backed by few countries, Yemen being the most prominent. Iraq was also backed by Palestine and this led to a mass expulsion of Palestinian Arabs from Kuwait.  America had assembled one of the most impressive global coalitions since WW 2. Despite some early claims of the overwhelming success of Iraqi SCUD missiles, the “war” lasted about 3 weeks. Allied commanders were admittedly surprised by how easy it was. Iraqi soldiers abandoned Kuwait, many at the first sight of Allied forces. Sometimes the Iraqi forces would hold their ground and put up a prolonged resistance, but most often fled after the first few minutes of an engagement. Iraqi soldiers appeared poorly trained, even among their officer ranks. It also appears that their numbers had been greatly exaggerated both in terms of troops and hardware. Many later questioned whether military intervention was even necessary at all. Many more questioned the need to bomb Iraqi civilian targets. This was not collateral damage. It was an attempt to destroy the basic infrastructure if Iraq. This has never really been fully explained. Severe sanctions and embargoes were then placed on the country, further decimating an already beaten people.

There was a lot of talk about freeing the people of Kuwait and giving them their country back. Kuwait wasn’t a great place for many of the people who lived there. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq all had a history together. Kuwait heavily funded Iraq’s war against Iran and they had several deals with Saudi Arabia and Iraq regarding the oil fields they share. When the Iraq-Iran war was over, Kuwait called in Iraq’s tab with interest. An economic war quickly escalated to a full scale invasion.  Neither of these countries are  a bastion of democracy and  freedom. But, hey, oil. Gotta do what you gotta do.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGD9O0tks_A

With the “war” won, America packed up and left the region. I’m kidding. We built giant military bases and harassed any Arab and Muslim that came within a mile of them. This move was controversial to say the least. Many, many Muslims did not like the idea of U.S. troops stationed on Muslim holy ground. Saudi Arabia is home to the two most important sites in Islam, the cities of Mecca and Medina. The Saudi Royal family was already quite unpopular and many interpreted permanent U.S. presence as a defense of the crown. And we’re not talking about just “extremists”. A majority of Saudis were quite furious with these developments. In 2003, we finally started moving a majority of troops out of Saudi Arabia. But it was far too late for that and many saw it as a slap in the face. The continued anger over “U.S. occupation” in Saudi Arabia became a powerful recruiting tool for terrorist organizations in the region. People in these countries aren’t stupid. They know the West backs any dictator making their life miserable as long as he can make them a fortune in oil profits.

But, before we go on, let’s step back to 1979. In December of that year the Soviet Union deployed combat troops to Afghanistan in a bid to stabilize the country.  Why? Well, funny story. In the decades before all this mess, Afghanistan was a republic. At some points a democratic republic. Some leaders were more conservative than others but progressive policies were often sought by the interior. Afghanistan formed friendly relations with both America and Russia and both countries paid huge bucks to build up Afghanistan. In April of 1978, a military coup gave control of the country to the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, a communist organization. They were obviously not prepared to rule. Though they followed through with many good reforms including more reforms for women, including government participation, and outlawing usury, they were often brutal in their treatment of the “elite class”. Atheism was made state law and religious leaders were dealt with harshly, as well as the “intelligentsia“. The PDPA wanted absolute control of the country. They claimed to be pro poor and pro worker but they were pro PDPA. Russia found them compatible and the governments quickly formed an alliance.

Watching all this was the CIA. And they saw a great opportunity. There was no way America was gonna let Russia buddy up with Afghanistan and work their way toward Arab oil fields. That shit was ours. So, beginning in ’79 we started funding anti-communist forces in Pakistan, the Mujaheddin. Not the best group of guys in the world but they hated commies just like us. So we could work with them. President Carter and the Pentagon formed a plan to pull Russia into the “Afghanistan Trap”. The Mujaheddin may have thought that we were helping them get rid of the PDPA. Actually we had bigger plans. Unbeknownst to Afghanistan, we wanted to lure Russia into a huge costly war in their country. Sure, Afghanistan would be destroyed, set back many decades socially and economically,  but fuck Russia! Oh, and we’re gonna leave the Mujaheddin in charge, whom most Afghanis also hate. Goodbye democracy, goodbye women’s rights, goodbye schools, goodbye roads, goodbye businesses. Fuck Russia!

Stepping into all this mess was  a man named Osama Bin Laden. A name soon to be known worldwide but this is where the story really begins. After leaving college in ’79 Bin Laden went straight to Afghanistan to fight the “invading infidels”. But we’ll come back to that.  Russia most likely never wanted to invade Afghanistan. Why would they?  The governments were friendly, even before communists seized Afghanistan, and Russia had sunk billions into economic and military aid for the country. At the same time revolution was happening in Iran as the Shah was being deposed by Islamic revolutionists. So the CIA was already operating in the area.  Also during this time the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan was kidnapped by Setami Milli militants and subsequently killed during a failed raid by Afghan police and Soviet military. Things were degrading very quickly. America sent a fleet of ships to the Persian Gulf and everyone thought war between America and Iran was imminent. This and American aided peace treaties between Egypt and Israel further fanned the flames of war between America and Russia. Proxy wars of course. No sense destroying the globe all at once when you can do it country by country while making  a profit.

Afghanistan became lost in the mess over Iran. And we kept pissing Russia off. First we stole Iraq from them and then we sold tons of missiles to people they hate. England said, “maybe we shouldn’t sell missiles to these people. They don’t like us either.” And we said, “Shut up England! Do your job!”. When the Mujaheddin began threatening the government in Kabul, the PDPA called on Russia for military support. Russia took the bait and went into Afghanistan to put down the Mujaheddin. President Carter had pledged to support the Mujaheddin and followed through on it. But things really didn’t take a big turn til Ronald Reagan came into office in 1981. Russia was spending itself out of existence and Reagan knew it full well. The nuclear arms race with America had gutted their country. We knew Russia couldn’t keep up with us so we just kept making weapons til they couldn’t do it anymore.  A protracted war in Afghanistan would not make things any easier.

Congressman Tom Hanks… I mean, Charlie Wilson, was instrumental in upping financial support for insurgents in Afghanistan.

   ”The U.S. had nothing whatsoever to do with these people’s decision to fight … but we’ll be damned by history if we let them fight with stones.” ~Charlie Wilson(1984)

This, of course, was not true. We trained them in Pakistan, told them who to shoot, and sent them to Afghanistan. And look, it may seem like it, but I’m not trying to defend Russia here. They were assholes. I  just wanna clear up the reasons why all this happened.  Anyways, Charlie got his CIA funding and the Mujahedin’s firepower increased significantly. Saudi Arabia and England were also big contributors to the war fund. After the “fall” of Iran the U.S. put a renewed interest into driving Russia out of Afghanistan.  A lot of talk about freedom and liberating the people. Russia had to relent. In February of 1989 Russia finally deserted Afghanistan. They had lost thousands of troops and vehicles, including tanks and super expensive Hind helicopters. At the end of the war, Russia had the 2nd largest economy on Earth. The failed invasion resulted in major power shifts in he government and the Soviet GDP fell by more than half. Russia eventually went “bankrupt”.

After the war America had an opportunity to  rebuild Afghanistan, shepherd them through government transitions, and  forge a lasting friendship with the people they wanted to bring “freedom” to. Instead we sold the country to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who raped the country for every resource they could get. Pakistan formed alliances with regional warlords and backed the Taliban’s eventual domination of the state. So, good times. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are old friends. They’re military personnel and governments work very closely together. Most global intelligence agencies are pretty sure that Saudi Arabia is funding Pakistan’s nuclear program in hopes of buying nukes from them in the future.

Saudi Arabia and Iran, no so much. The a fore mentioned Iranian Revolution greatly strained ties between the two countries. Ties that were not very strong to begin with. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran are led by duplicitous, authoritarian governments who fund proxy wars and global terrorist networks. So we had a lot in common with them. After the revolution we, of course, backed Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was an Islamic theocracy just like Iran but Saudi Arabia favored the Wahhabi school of Islam and Iran did not look kindly on it. Wahhabism got a lot of press in this country following the attacks of 9/11. Since Osama Bin Laden followed Wahhabism, it must be evil. Very little mention of the fact it’s practically the Saudi state religion and he had little choice in the manner. What attracted many young Muslims to Wahhabi teachings was it’s strict adherence to the “old ways” and it’s seeming disdain for authority. Not only did Wahhabists condemn Islamic “spiritual leaders” they criticized priests and rabbis and leaders of other faiths. Al-lah has the only authority and no one on Earth has the means to represent Him or speak with His authority. Many Wahhabi sects felt that no school, even their own, should be considered as an “authority” on scholarly subjects. Just a guide. But rigid ideologies often lead to extremism. It’s the case in almost all religious sects.

Bin Laden was born into a wealthy Saudi family with close ties to the Royal Family. He was a typical  trust fund baby for most of his life. He lived in a strict Wahibbist household but he went to very prestigious schools that boasted the best in “modern”(Westernized) curriculum. He had many different interests during his time in school but most people agree that the majority of his studies were in religion. He was a kind of practicing Wahabbist but he studied many facets of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. During his college years he joined the Muslim Brotherhood and attended many meetings. It was during this time that he became swept up in the supposed jihad in Afghanistan. After leaving school in 1979 he went straight to the front lines against the Soviets. It’s still a point of contention as to whether Bin Laden received the same CIA training most all Mujaheddin did or if he fell straight into he conflict. Either way he quickly became a commanding presence. During his time he met and befriended a man named Hamid Gul. Gul was a Pakistani general working closely with the CIA to train Mujaheddin.

Gul was training foot soldiers for the movement led by Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. Azzam was the spiritual and vocal leader of the Afghani resistance. Bin Laden quickly found a kindred spirit in Azzam and became his prized pupil. Together they set up the Maktab al-Khidamat, or Afghan Intelligence Agency in 1984. Bin Laden was an attractive recruit since he held a vast inherited family fortune. Records say Bin Laden inherited between 25 and 30 million dollars. If you count various holdings and undocumented resources, the number was probably closer to 50 million over all. Quite a chunk of change to bring into a jihad. Most of al-Khidamat’s revenue came from Bin Laden’ s deep pockets. Even though the CIA was training and funding a large number of militants, Azzam wanted “true believers” in his army, not just paid mercs so they began funding and training troops of their own. The groups prospered quickly as money and manpower began pouring in from all over Afghanistan. As the war in Afghanistan entered its final years, discussions began about how al-Khidamat would move forward.

By 1988 Bin Laden had already formed  Al Qaeda  after leaving al-Khidamat. He and Azzam were still friendly but operational conflicts had led Bin Laden to form his own group. Azzam wanted to integrate Arab fighters into the resistance and Bin Laden was in full “holy war” mode and wanted Muslim soldiers only. In 1989 Azzam was assassinated by unknown forces and Bin Laden absorbed the Muslim members of al-Khidamat into Al Qaeda. After the war Bin Laden and his generals returned to Saudi Arabia. To many in the country he was  a conquering hero who had driven out the infidels. American involvement was downplayed and Bin Laden insisted it was Muslim soldiers who had beaten Russia with the strength of Al-Lah.  Bullshit of course, but good bullshit.

After Pakistan took over Afghanistan, America became worried about Pakistan’s nuclear program. Meetings with Saudi Arabia went nowhere so major sanctions were forced on Pakistan further infuriating many in both countries. Bin Laden was gaining much favor with the Saudi royals and was often consulted on military matters. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, bin Laden warned the Royal Family not to enlist Western help. The Qur’an never specifically forbids aid from foreigners but it does condemn non-Muslims spilling the blood of any Muslim on holy land, and U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia would violate several tenets regarding foreign occupation of Muslim Holy Land. Bin Laden saw almost everything in religious terms. He didn’t see Christianity as  a problem so much as those claiming to practice it. Islamic leaders throughout history have had great respect for different religions but a greater allegiance to their own. Bin Laden felt  the West was going to bastardize Islam and Islamic Holy Ground as they had done their own religion.

Worse, he felt that American occupation on Muslim Holy Land would curse Muslims for generations to come. Though he put much blame on the Saudi Royal Family, Bin Laden saw America as the aggressors. Far from just dropping in to help, Bin Laden saw signs of a prolonged American occupation of Saudi Arabia. Men who fought with Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but later put down their arms, all commented in one way or another on Bin Laden’s mental state coming out of Afghanistan. His zealotry had filled him with a resolve bordering on insanity. Everywhere he looked he saw enemies of Islam and appointed himself its champion. Bin Laden already had  a natural charisma and his “heroic” actions in Afghanistan had won him many allies in the Middle East. The fact he was loaded didn’t hurt matter s either. Al Qaeda translates into “The Base” and this is what Bin Laden was forming. A base to launch operations against major targets in Europe and North America. Bin Laden envisioned an organization with centralized leadership but decentralized execution.

Overall direction for Al Qaeda would come from Bin Laden and his leadership team but operational control would mostly fall to the individual cells around the world. They would receive a general idea of what was to be done and it was up to them to execute it in whatever way they could. Which is exactly how the 9/11 attacks played out but we will get to that later. The moment American troops touched down in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden began his crusade against the West. And it did begin immediately. In November of 1990,  3 months after U.S. troops landed in Afghanistan, New Jersey police raided the home of  suspected Al Qaeda member, El Sayyid Nosair. They found evidence of terrorist plots against New York city involving the destruction of skyscrapers. Apparently he had also been fed military info from a plant at Fort Bragg in North Carolina.   Nosair had been arrested for the murder of Meir Kahane, leader of the Jewish Defense League in New York, 3 days earlier. His trial was described as “bizarre”.

Nosair apparently ignored the court and spent most of the proceedings looking through sketches he had made of Princess Di. I shit you not. The Jersey police turned over a mountain of evidence to the courts detailing Nosair’s involvement in Al Qaeda. Nosair’s defense argued that this was all part of a conspiracy against his client and that Kahane had probably been killed by a disillusioned follower.   The jury, after a short deliberation,  returned with a split decision. The judge in the case was shocked. He reprimanded the jury for their stupid decision and sentenced Nosair to 7- 22 years in prison based on incontrovertible proof. The max he could get away with from the bench. Nosair went to prison and his defense team immediately began appealing the decision. I bring all this up to get to Nosair’s “friend” on the outside, the “blind sheik”,  Omar Abdel-Rahman. Rahman was an al-Qaeda confidant in America. Not exactly a member but a partner in affairs who had been carrying out his own war against the West. Along with Nosair, Rahman had gathered a small but loyal group to carry out major operations in America. The FBI was pretty aware of Rahman’s activities but didn’t know exactly where and how he would strike. Part of the difficulty was the way Rahman’s agents so easily disappeared into the American population making it extremely difficult to track them on a day to day basis.

Meanwhile, overseas, Bin Laden was planting Al-Qaeda cells in Iraq in hopes of either finally forming a business relationship with the government or overthrowing it and installing  a friendlier administration. Very CIA. Contrary to popular belief, Bin Laden was not a huge fan of Saddam Hussein. He viewed Hussein as  a puppet of the West who they would toss aside when the dying began. He was right but, again, we’ll get to that later. Bin Laden was not a fan of the sanctions leveled against Iraq after the Gulf War and that was his motivation for seeking an inroad to the country. Whether Hussein joined him or not seemed to be irrelevant. Bin Laden was more worried about the people and how he could win more recruits from them. He did get several cells up and running in the country  but no formal talks were ever documented between Iraqi and Al Qaeda leadership that even came close to some kind of “partnership”. That doesn’t mean back channel communications weren’t used, it just never really led to anything. It’s a good bet Hussein was paranoid of anyone “setting up shop” inside his borders. Like Sauron, he shares power with no one.

In 1992, Al-Qaeda conducted it’s first documented operation led by Bin Laden. In December of that year they blew up a hotel in Aden, Yemen believing it housed American troops on the way to Somalia. It did not. The blast only killed bystanders. Al Qaeda later released a justification for killing innocents stating that any innocent who dies near the enemy will have their reward in Heaven. Forgetting that no enemies were in that hotel. This was their first attack and the first time Muslim leaders began to question whether it was a good idea to support them or not. Killing their own people was never part of the bargain. The Yemen government released a soft condemnation of the bombing but many in the government supported Bin Laden and his associates, most likely providing the intel and support to bomb the hotel. Yemen has been in an almost constant state of revolution since leaving the Ottoman Empire in 1918. North and south Yemen finally united in 1990 but tensions remained high and many terrorist groups found warm welcomes in the homes of Yemeni government officials. In particular Bin Laden.

Back to the states. After the ’92 bombing in Yemen the United States put Al Qaeda on its radar. President Bill Clinton came in with a strategy to pursue Al Qaeda operatives in America and trace them back to the operational base overseas. A similar strategy was already in place but Clinton upped the funds and manpower considerably after many tense debates with Congress, who still wanted money for their individual pet projects.  To many people in Washington, terrorism was the rest of the world’s problem. Over here in America we were supposedly protected from those things so spending all kinds of money on counter terrorism seemed a waste to most. Most of the counter terrorism Clinton’s team produced were voted down. And sometimes not on party lines.  Many in the Congress wanted nothing to do with it. We would spend  decades overcoming this short sightedness. In 1993 America would receive its “warning shot”. Former “students” of Omar Abdel-Rahman planted a gigantic amount of explosives in the basement garage of the World Trade Center in New York and detonated it.  Over a thousand pounds of explosive material rocked the North Tower.  The plan was to knock over the North tower into the South Tower and bring both crashing down. 6 people, including a pregnant woman, were killed in the blast but the tower remained. Barely. They almost pulled it off. Had the explosives been closer to the central supports, the tower very likely could have toppled over.

So you would assume this would renew Congress’ urgency to address international terrorism.  It really didn’t. Democrats used it as an excuse to fund dozens of projects that had little or nothing to do with national security and Republicans, of course, blamed Clinton for all of it and further demonized his attempts at counter terrorism funding. Clinton had been President for a month, but he immediately set to work to install the counter terrorism measures I mentioned in the last paragraph.  During this time Bin Laden was forming the mission statement Al Qaeda would rally around. First and foremost was his plan to draw western powers, particularly the United States, into long, bloody conflicts in the Middle East. He had stationed himself in Sudan  and ingratiated himself to the people by heavily investing his own money into infrastructure and local business. He also became involved with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, . The EIJ was committed to overthrowing Egyptian President Hasni Mubarak  and installing an Islamic government. Bin Laden’s dealings in Sudan forced King Faud’s hand. Bin Laden was still trashing the Saudi royals publicly and they were tired of hearing about it. In 1994 they put immense pressure on Bin Laden’s family to cut off his sizable stipend and disown him.

By 1995 the EIJ was an arm of Al Qaeda under control of Bin Laden and his leadership council. That year they attempted to assassinate Mubarak and failed quite spectacularly. This was the last straw for many in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden’s visa was revoked and his family completely cut him off.  Bin Laden’s operational mode had to change. He still wanted to fund smaller attacks around the globe but, now on somewhat of a budget, he wanted to land an attack that would put his bigger plans into motion. This is when the ideas that would eventually lead to 9/11 began. In ’96 he was forced back to Afghanistan by constant pressure from KSA(Saudi Arabia), Egypt, and America on Sudan. At this time he met and formed a partnership with Mullah Mohammed Omar, the spiritual and operational leader of the Taliban in Afghanistan. He was also funding cells operating in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Some reports date this activity as far back as 1992. There was  a committed Muslim population in Bosnia and foreign fighters from all over Asia and Europe poured into the country to help combat Serb and Croat forces. When the war finally ended in 1995 Bin Laden still kept informants and operators in country in hopes of fueling a larger conflict that would consume much of Europe. When the Kosovo War of 1999 threatened to relaunch the entire conflict, Bin Laden again moved to back sides he felt would lead to larger conflicts.

But most of his time was spent planning his opus. President Clinton’s counter terrorism team, headed by Richard Clark, were hot on Bin Laden’s heels. Most people believed Bin Laden was moving around in the mountains on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Pakistani government was somewhat committed to capturing Bin Laden but a military coup in 1999 would put the kibosh on a whole lot of plans. When General Pervez Musharraf,   was installed as “president” after a brief, relatively bloodless coup, dealings with Pakistan changed immediately. Efforts to “box in” Bin laden on the border were met with resistance by Pakistani officials concerned with political instability in their own country. Al Qaeda had just enough breathing room to plan and stage their biggest attack yet.  Bin Laden was already a wanted man. Several countries had already issued warrants for his arrest. The 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole moved him onto the top 5 on the FBI’s most wanted list. His next move would make him the most wanted man in the world. An attack so heinous and vile that even old supporters would question his sanity. And the worst part is, we were all warned multiple times before it happened and the government did nothing about it.

The 2000 American presidential race was a historic event and one that would become infamous in this country. Clinton’s extra marital dealings had tarnished the last half of his presidency giving the new Democratic hopeful, Al Gore, an unwelcome  handicap.  Gore was facing Texas moron and governor George W. Bush. Son of slimy CIA chief George H.W. Bush of the Nazi dealing, union busting, war profiteering Bush family. Bush got a legacy bid. After crushing his best competition, John McCain, with an underhanded poll question involving mixed race children(A Karl Rove special) he cakewalked to he Republican nomination. He ran on a platform of “restoring integrity to the White House”. I don’t need to tell you how laughable that is. Bush had run three companies into the ground, escaping each one with stocks in hand just before collapse. What a coincidence.   He then ran one of the dirtiest campaigns ever to win the governorship of Texas where he oversaw the largest decline into debt of any state in American history. So obviously this was  a great resume to become president.  But Americans were fat and happy. That was the end of the millennium. Our biggest collective concern was whether or not the President got a B.J. in the Oval Office.

In 1999, in Afghanistan, Bin Laden was reaquainted with an old “war buddy”, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Both had fought together in the Afghan war but never formed a particularly close relationship. This would change after the two were reintroduced through  a mutual friend. Mohammed took quickly to Bin Laden’s ideas about attacking the United States in a spectacular way. Contrary to what anyone in the Bush administration may have said, ideas about hijacking commercial airliners and using them as weapons was nothing new.  Even the idea to attack the Trade Towers was inspired by Israel’s attacks on similar structures in Lebanon during the 1982 war. In 1998 a man in Turkey attempted to desecrate  the tomb of   a former Turkish president by crashing his plane into it. A document detailing, and explicitly warning against, plans to crash hijacked planes into targets in America was largely ignored by the Bush administration, who later denied it even existed.

George W. Bush’s  controversial “victory” in the 2000 presidential election dominated most news cycles in the first year of his presidency. Richard Clarke, one of few holdovers from the previous White House, was trying urgently to get someone in the Bush White House to hear him out. His team had been tracking Al-Qaeda’s movements for years and were pretty confident they would attempt an attack in America very soon. In his book, Against All Enemies,  Clarke details a meeting in January 2001 with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He attempts to brief Rice on Al-Qaeda and the major threat he felt they posed to national security. He felt the capture or death of Osama Bin Laden should be one of their top priorities going forward.  Not only was Rice unmoved by the briefing, Clarke sensed she had never even heard of Al-Qaeda. Clarke’s anti-terrorism unit was downgraded, pushed to the “basement”. It was a sign that the Bush White House felt terrorism was not much of a priority. Clarke was neutered. Instead of sending briefings directly to the president, they now had to go through several levels of scrutiny by SoS Rice and her staff. Very few if any actually reached Bush’s desk. Again, in April 2001, Clarke strongly suggested that the United States put its focus squarely on Bin Laden. He recommended aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, a proxy military branch of the Afghan government. The NA were already deeply vested in driving out the Taliban, along with Bin Laden, and ending Pakistan’s influence through them.

Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, the “architect of the Iraq Invasion”, stated “”Well, I just don’t understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden.”. Clarke’s team tried to explain that this one very rich man’s organization, Al Qaeda, was planning and executing multiple attacks around the globe. Clarke states that Wolfowitz didn’t buy that this one man was behind all these attacks. But Wolfy has always had his heart set on another man. Saddam Hussein, Iraq, and all that sweet, sweet fucking oil. (Not oil for fucking, just using it as an expletive there) We’ll get to that soon enough. Clarke and others in the intelligence community would spend the next few months desperately trying to get anything they said taken seriously.  In July the damning “Phoenix Memo” was delivered to FBI offices and virtually ignored. Special Agent Kenneth Williams, who authored the memo, requested an immediate inquiry into flight schools around the country for possible terrorist links. He noted that his own office in Arizona had seen an unusual rise in flight school attendance from people of “investigative interest”. His unit leader at FBI headquarters, David Frasca, reportedly barely gave the memo a look. He was later promoted by the Bush Administration after the attacks of 9/11. The lack of attention placed on the “Phoenix Memo” is considered by many to be a key moment in the possible prevention of the 9/11 attacks and an absolute failure of this country’s intelligence agencies.

After the attacks occurred a light was shined on the juvenile infighting that goes on between our intelligence agencies. How the FBI and CIA turn almost everything into a “biggest dick” contest. And how neither was ever very helpful or concerned with the thoughts of local officials. Evidence continued to point toward a very serious attack on America by Al Qaeda. In August of 2011 a daily briefing came across the President Bush’s desk(his desk in Crawford, Texas) entitled, Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US. I think the title says it all. It was not discussed very much after that until spring 2002 when it was leaked to the media. Bush spent most of his time after that on vacation.  I’m sorry, “work vacations”.  He spent a lot of time vacationing during his 8 years. Not too much reading, but a whole lot of golfing. But one story in particular would become almost synonymous with is presidency. Not a great political thriller or historical text. A children’s book entitled ‘The Pet Goat’.

Bush was reading the book to a group of children at a Florida elementary school on September 11, 2001  when he received news that would shape the country’s future for the next decade and beyond. And he sat there for 7 minutes. Then started reading to the kids again. O.K., I get that we don’t want to panic the kids but the excuse given by the Bush team was lame. The country was seriously, ACTUALLY under attack, Pearl Harbor style, and you’re worried what leaving a room abruptly would do to your image? Seriously! This is what one of them said:

   Bush wondered whether he should excuse himself and retreat to the holding room, where he might be able to find out what the hell was going on. But what kind of message would that send—the president abruptly getting up and walking out on a bunch of inner-city second-graders at their moment in the national limelight?

(Quote provided by Wikipedia)

PEOPLE ARE DYING!!! You’re worried about ruining their 30 second piece on the local news???!!!! Anyways, the attack that many had dreaded for years was upon us. And we all know the details. They have been poured over so many times. A brutal day. It’s the aftermath of these attacks that deserves the same if not more scrutiny than the events that led up to it. How a group of power hungry men used  a national tragedy to fuel their own personal agendas and fill their private coffers.

This is really where the story begins and we will get into it in great detail in part 2. Until then I am bringing this section to a close. In Part 2 we will list in gory detail the atrocities committed by the Bush administration, the dismantling of our liberties, most of the world turning against us(England is still our bitch),   and much more back story on all the foreign players involved and how it all came to a head.

Welcome to Middle East Update. Enjoy a cup of tea, proper Turkish coffee, or shisha pipe while you’re here. Think of this as a café to discuss the latest goings on in the Arab Uprisings and beyond. We don’t have backgammon here, but there is occasional trivia.

The only rule is that I generally limit the topics to the Middle East and North Africa.

Basic reference material, such as maps and such can be added later here upon request, to assist familiarizing and helping you follow events.

Additional information may also be found in past articles by me:

• Arab Uprisings: Still Writing History
• Mubarak: Half sunk, a shattered visage lies
• From the Embers, Jasmine

Ed Koch when he was Mayor Koch use to ask that very question to New Yorkers walking down the streets of New York quite often.

Now Mr. Koch says he has “never been more terrified. (with Obama as president)”

In a exceptionally self contradictory tirade about President Obama’s foreign policy mostly blaming Obama for heightened tensions with US – Israeli relations but he also blamed Obama for everything wrong in the world from appeasing Iran, North Korea and Pakistan and letting them have nuclear weapons to Karzai’s recent outbursts.   The most laughable attack from the right was his claim that Obama was responsible for the Russians and Venezuelans cutting an arms and protection deal.

Let’s get the facts out first.

-President Obama has kept America safe from domestic attack perpetrated by foreign entities since the beginning of his term, not after 9 months like Bush claimed.

-Afghanistan is now President Obama’s war, he owned it when he sent more troops but that war was started out of necessity since GWB gave up the biggest terror attack in history in Koch’s treasured city.

-North Korea started developing nuclear weapons under your beloved Bill Clinton (his wife is SOS BTW Mr. Koch) and finished development under Bush.

-Pakistan developed nuclear weapons probably beginning back when Mr. Koch was mayor of NY in the ’80s.  Not to mention Obama is getting much more cooperation from Pakistan to confront the Taliban on their end.

-If Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons Bush invading Iraq helped tremendously to draw our attention away from that possibility. In fact while Bush could not get China and Russia to cooperate with increasing UN sanctions on Iran Obama is getting much more cooperation.

-Our nominal Israeli – Palestinian policy has not changed under Obama or Bush.  Both said a two state solution was the only solution on the condition Israel stop building new settlements on Palestinian land.  Just because Bush gave you a wink and nod an lied about being an honest broker is no reason to blame the current president.

-If Mr Koch really thinks a deal between Russia and Venezuela was not more probably under Bush than I have a bridge connecting two boroughs of the city he use to be mayor of to sell him.

Now Huffy will gladly print his ramblings (click to read article) because after all it attacks Obama a little from the left even though it’s mostly from the right but I have one thing to ask you Mr. Koch.

Mr. Koch do you want to know who is really terrified and has every right to be terrified?  Palestinian children living in the Gaza strip who are fighting high tech warplane bombing with rocks.

“Country First” huh Mr. Koch if that country is Israel.

The bottom line is as an elder statesman Mr. Koch “You are doing a shitty job!”

Imagine it’s the fifth century before the Common Era, on a plain bejeweled with a magnificent palace complex and flowing gardens, with the coffee brown Zagros mountains in the distance, and a sky the color of lapis lazuli. Colorful tents and scents all around, wafting in the breeze. Trumpets; drums and bustle. Nobles astride steeds with their retinues, and representatives from thirty nations line up to present the King of Kings, the Shahenshah, with gifts from their lands, be it neighboring Babylonia, or far-flung Ionia, Egypt, Libya, India and anywhere in between. In ancient times, as to the Iranian mind today, Iran truly was the center of the universe.

We are at Persepolis, the Hellenization of what the ancient Persians called Parsa. Today it is known in Persian as Takht-e Jamshid, the ‘Throne of Jamshid,’ after the mythical King of Persia in Ferdowsi’s national epic, the Shahnameh, which kept alive the earlier Yima (cf. Vedic Yama) of the Zoroastrian holy book, the Avesta (itself absorbing the earlier Indo-Iranian myth). This is how the Persian name took root over time in the root of the Iranian imagination and folklore as the past was half-forgotten and mythologized. In reality, the initial completion of Persepolis was finished under Darius the Great.

Please take a few minutes at your leisure to view part of this video, from the documentary, “Persepolis Recreated,” which also digitally recreates, as the name suggests, what Persepolis would have looked at at the time:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGeJRTw7mW8

It is Nowruz, and the Shahenshah is hosting the greatest empire in the world at his ceremonial capital in the foundation of the first great Persian Empire, the Achaemenid Empire, in the modern province of Fars (approximately 45 miles northeast of the city Shiraz). We know that the actual administrative center of  the Achaemenids at that time was Susa (also home to the Tomb of Daniel and the setting of the Book of Esther). Persepolis was officially a summer residence, but moreover, it appears to have been built for purely propagandistic and ritual purposes, but also housed a great treasury and library.

Nowruz (transliteration varies greatly), Persian for ‘New Day,’ is New Year’s Day on the Iranian calendar, beginning on the first day of the month Farvardin. It is celebrated by peoples and nations with a heritage of Iranian ancestry or links to Persian culture: Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia, the Caucasus, Kurdish regions (an Iranian people), India, even in the Muslim Balkan countries.  Over the years in recent history Nowruz has been banned by the Soviets in Azerbaijan, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and there was even a campaign by the most radical Islamists after the 1979 Islamic Revolution to erase it from the calendar.

Nowruz, since at least the time of Persepolis, has been celebrated on the vernal equinox, March 21^st in the Gregorian calendar [1]. This vernal celebration, of course, is not unique. In the West we are all familiar with the successor to the pagan commemoration of Ostara; Easter. However; this not limited to Indo-European cultures, and it appears as if Nowruz is not entirely of Aryan origin at all.

The roots of Nowruz in the pre-Islamic religion of Persia, Zoroastrianism, is generally assumed and recognized by Iranians. In Zoroastrianism to this day it is observed as the highest of holidays, commemorating the creation of fire, the spirit of Highest Truth (Asha Vahishta), and is symbolic of looking towards Frashokereti, when the Savior will come back to destroy Evil and the world will be Renovated to a perfect state. (If this eschatology sounds familiar, it isn’t coincidence. But, that’s a whole other subject!)

Mary Boyce, the late authority on Zoroastrianism, said that it was likely that the Prophet Zarathushtra (known in the West as Zoroaster, c. 11^th century BCE, Eastern Iran) was “re-dedicating what was probably an ancient celebration of spring .” [2] Zoroastrianism made it the highest of all seasonal festivals (Gahambars), the seventh and final of the year. R.C. Zaehner, an earlier philologist and specialist of Zoroastrianism, like Boyce, wrote,

The feast of Noruz survives as the greatest by far of all the national holidays in Iran even now because it is genuinely national, a survival from a long-forgotten pagan past, as little influenced by Zoroastrianism as it is by Islam. [3]

In 539 BCE, Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon. He was invited by the priests on his march south to Babylon, conquered it, and proceeded to return plundered idols and relics to their home city’s sanctuaries, in addition to decreeing that Jews return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Second Temple. As such, Cyrus is the only Gentile in the Bible referred to as ‘God’s annointed’ (messiah). This is also when the first charter of human rights and religious freedom was written, in the Cyrus Cylinder. [4]

On the Babylonian New Year festival of 538,  he had his son, Cambyses II, ceremoniously installed as king of Mesopotamia. On the vernal equinox, the Babylonian king would have the idol of Marduk removed from the temple next to the great Ziggurat and paraded through the streets.  This ceremony was enacted for the first time in many years by the new prince, under the directive of Cyrus. Rule was again restored after a period of strife.

In the Babylonian belief, this annual rite would ensure that order prevailed over chaos; that the seasons for the coming year would remain in sequence, and that they would be fruitful. In similar fashion, Cambyses was installed as the son of Re in Egypt. Michael Axworthy writes,

This was an empire that always preferred to flow around and absorb powerful rivals, rather than to confront, batter into defeat, and force submission. The guiding principles of Cyrus persisted under Darius and at least some later Achaemenid rulers. [5]

As such, several authors [6] suggest that Nowruz was borrowed from the annual Semitic Babylonian politico-religious ritual symbolizing the sovereign’s victory over anarchy, of life over death. This is also found in the Avestan concept of kingship; the victory of asha (Divine Order; cognate with Sanskrit rta, precedent of dharma) over the Druj, The Lie, associated with Angra Mainyu, the Zoroastrian Devil. The famous motif of the Lion overwhelming the Bull at Persepolis captures the essence of both, sans any overt religious iconography or message.

Whatever the source, or combination of sources of Nowruz, by the time of Darius, the first stage of Persepolis was completed and host to one of the grandest celebrations of power in history. In reliefs added later by Xerxes on stairways leading to the central Apadana Palace and the Throne Hall (completed under Xerxes’ son, Artaxerxes), can be seen delegates from nearly every nation with their gifts of tribute, to be followed by wine, music and dance. Persepolis was known as the richest city under the sun, and indeed its treasury was overfull, even though it appeared to serve little other purposes than these. This ended only when it was razed and looted by Alexander the Great in 330 BCE (considered by some as revenge for the razing of the Acropolis in 480 CE under Xerxes). [7]

In the later Parthian (246 BCE – 224 CE) and Sassanid (224-651 CE) Empires, more rituals would be added, though little is known under the Parthians. In the Sassanid, twelve temporary pillars (some say seven) were erected nearly a month before Nowruz day, with different kinds of seeds placed on top of each, sprouting greens by the time of the celebration. The Sassanid Empire, the second great empire, comprised many religions, and although Nowruz was officially a celebration of a Zoroastrian state, it was secular enough to be celebrated by all – including Jews and Christians. At all times it is assumed it was celebrated by all social strata, as well (though history tends to not record the common classes).

Then, 636 CE, fifteen years after the Hijra of the Prophet Muhammad, an Arab Muslim army routed the superior Persian army at Qadisiyyah, near Kufa, Iraq. Such is the humiliation of this event that Saddam Hussein purposefully named his invasion of Iran after it. By 651, the Muslim conquest of Persia was complete. The Persians fiercely resisted culturally (not to mention a few insurgencies), and Islamization took centuries longer, until the 10^th-11^th centuries. It is during this time that many Zoroastrians fleeing persecution emigrated to India, where they are known to this day as Parsis (Persians).

However; unlike across today’s modern Arab world, Arabization never took. In fact, the new Caliphate was increasingly giving way to the superior bureaucracy of the Persians, as it was to the Persian arts. Iran did as it always did, it absorbed its conquerors, adapted, and in turn conquered them culturally.

Around the dawn of the 11^th century the poet Ferdowsi completed a grand translation in an early form of Modern Persian (Farsi). It was a collection of surviving Middle Persian (Pahlavi) texts entitled the Shahnameh (Book of Kings). Ferdowsi is credited for preserving Persian cultural heritage and its language. Not only is knowledge of the character of Iran incomplete without knowing whom Ferdowsi is, I dare say it is impossible.

In the Shahnameh, Jamshid (pictured above) ruled for 700 years as the archetypal ruler in a mythical golden age after defeating the divs (demons). He was endowed with farr (the Zoroastrian khvarena), a Divine Glory. The investiture of farr was like a radiant sun (a nimbus), himself seated a golden throne. This idea, known to the Achaemenids, can also be seen in many solar crowns and tiaras to this day (cf. Sol Invictus). It was this coronation for which Nowruz was first celebrated, according to Ferdowsi’s national tome. In the pagan version of Jamshid (Yima), he his immortal and never dies, but disappears underground. Thus, mankind is made mortal until his return (cf. Persephone).

In the Shahnameh, many myths are shown to have survived, including interpretations of Yima, which do not adhere to what was the orthodox doctrine of what was the Zoroastrian Church, nor to surviving scripture and beliefs of remaining Zoroastrians today. In a similar fashion, forthcoming centuries of Islam would prove unable to alter what transcends formal religion altogether. Nowruz has never successfully been transformed such as Christmas was by Christians. Nowruz, above all, is Iranian. Not only that, as a celebration of joy, like Zoroastrianism, it is a much needed respite from the dour pall a strict state-imposed version of Shi’ism can bring. Outside Iran, and to all people, it is an annual reaffirmation of life, fit for all humanity to appreciate.

II. Nowruz Today

Prior to Nowruz it is custom to buy new clothes, plant green sprouts in an earthenware dish (such as wheat, barley or lentils) and clean the house (khane tekani, which symbolically, was preparing the house for ancestors, traditionally done on Chaharshanbeh Souri; more on this day below). On the streets a minstrel-like character fills the air with boisterous singing announcing that the New Year is coming, “it’s only once a year!” He wears red clothing and conical cap and blackface. [8] He roams the street, alleyways, markets and parks, sometimes with a crew. Watch a just such pair of busking performers in this video.

He is known has Haji Firouz, or Mr. Victorious (successful, et cetera). The origins of this character are obscure, and unrecorded until after the Muslim conquest. Several theories abound though. One is from the Shahnameh, which traces itself back to a Mesopotamian ceremony surrounding the god Tammuz, whom died and was reborn every year, according to Iranist Mehrdad Bahar.

Another is that he represents a Zoroastrian priest who tended the holy fire. The cap does actually suggest the dress of the priests of ancient times with their hood-like caps, adopted from Scythians (picture above). The reasoning here is that the red represents fire, and black-face, ash. However; I am not aware of any colors being worn by the priesthood other than white. This part appears to be fancy.

Among the Parsis in India, colorful new clothes, often red, including caps for boys are worn on New Year’s day there (photo), so there may still be credence and clues to be found in this Iranian custom of Haji Firouz wearing red. In Iran too, underneath chadors, a wave of vibrant (and defiant) color of sleek dresses may catch one’s eye with a slight gust, and indeed, all other lands still paint the town, so to speak (in a good way), with festive clothing. Watch videos of Norouz celebrated around the world.

The Haji Firouz origin story I find most interesting though, is of a Persian soldier named Pirouz Nahavandi, whom was captured by the armies of Caliph Umar at the battle of Qadissiyah. He was brought back to Medina as a slave, where he pretended to convert to Islam. Having gained the trust of Umar, he assassinated him in 644 during morning prayers at the Medina mosque (built upon the site of Prophet Muhammad’s house), as retribution for the Muslim conquest of Persia.

The historicity of this account varies, and as so often happens, elements of truth have surely been embellished over time. It is generally agreed that Umar was assassinated by a Persian plot, though. Such is the curious contradictions of Iran, that a Shi’a country which mourns Umar’s assassination, could also celebrate Pirouz as a national hero. A presidential decree signed by Ahmadinejad in 2007 to destroy the Firuzan tomb near Kashan, where he is popularly believed to be buried, was met with protests. There are layers of symbolism in the legend of Pirouz Nahavandi. And it can be readily seen why opponents to the Islamic Republic sometimes disparagingly refer to the victory of the Islamists as “the second Arab invasion.”

Whatever the origin of the Haji Firouz tradition, it, like Nowruz itself, is emblematic of the nature of Iran itself. The relationship of an enduring Persian nationalism and heritage, with that of the Islamic faith. This is not to suggest that Shi’ism and all other religions cannot in fact be Iranian; but that with the state in the hands of hardliner Islamists, Iran’s pre-Islamic history can present a problematic reality to the foundations of their own legitimacy.

Of the events associated with Nowruz most opposed to by the hardline Islamists is Chaharshanbeh Souri (Red Wednesday). It is begun on the eve of the last Wednesday of the year, and thus celebrated on Tuesday. It consists of trick-or-treating, banging spoons together loudly, fireworks, and bonfire jumping. Among the concerns of the regime has been its roots in “superstition.” But, moreover, is the propensity towards mischief. Since the Islamic Revolution, as one of the few events where mixing of the sexes is relaxed, it has become rowdier and rowdier. The concerns are not unfounded, and there have been numerous tragic accidents, especially since the late 1990s.

This event, generally five or six days before Norouz, occurred this year on the 16^th. It is rooted in the sixth Zoroastrian festival of the year, Hamaspathmaedaya, the Feast of All Souls. According to Zoroastrian belief, on the days from this day until the New Year, guardian angels and the souls of the dead visit the earthly realm. As such, nowadays, divination is still practiced on this night (there is also a Shi’i form, known as estekhareh). Bonfires are lit, often just alone, the idea being not to not let the sun set and to be vigilant against evil. Two views of this year’s Chaharshanbeh Souri can be seen in videos here.

Jumping of seven fires while chanting to them “zardi-ye man az to, sorkhi-ye to az man” (my sallowness is yours, your fiery red color is mine), are attested to only after the Islamic conquest (now often just one or several). The Zoroastrian’s veneration of fire would likely have considered this act of fire-jumping blasphemous. But, in the recurrent Zoroastrian number of seven, this act (according only to my deductive power of intuition) likely preserved symbolically the journey of the year over the seven great festivals of the year (Gahambars) to the Zoroastrians.

Not counting these preceding days, the festival of Nowruz lasts thirteen days. During this time the country of Iran shuts down. Family travel home, marriages are performed, coworkers and acquaintances exchange sweetmeats, gifts are given, and hidden wine bottles appear from the back of cupboards. Amou Nowruz (Uncle Nowruz), who kicks the winter out, is a Santa Claus type figure who also gives gifts to children. The days are filled spending time with family, outings, and eating traditional meals and treats, such as Sabzi Polo Mahi (an herbed fired fish dish with pilaf), on Nowruz Day or the night before. Koukou Sabzi (herbs and baked eggs) and Reshteh Polo (rice and noodles) are other typical dishes. A sweet mixture of nuts, berries and raisins known as aajil is consumed throughout the remainder of Nowruz.

By far the most iconic aspect of Nowruz is the sofra-ye haft sin, the haft sin spread. Haft means seven [9], and sin, the Perso-Arabic letter corresponding to s. The Haft Sin is set on a table, over a dining cloth (sofra). It can be elegant and luxuriant, or fairly simple. But, more social conscious households will arrange more aesthetically pleasing ceremonial spreads, as this is the time to entertain visitors, as well as family.

The exact moment of New Year has a bit of a countdown like in the West. Before it, the family is assembled around the Haft Sin (as with the Christmas Tree) and poems or scripture are recited. The second the New Year strikes is called Saal Tahvil. Elders’ hands may be kissed out of respect, and kisses and hugs all around! This is when presents are exchanged. After this the house may be purified with the burning of esfand, sprinkling rose water, and walking around the house with a mirror and candle as a blessing. Candles are left to drip away and burn out on their own.

In addition to the essential seven items beginning with s, are several other common additions. No Haft Sin need be identical, and will differ to taste and by regional custom. In fact, there isn’t even any consistent essential seven s items. While containing elements of much older symbols, the custom of arranging them this way is only attested to as being a little over a hundred years old.

The following are among the most popular items, their Persian, its meaning, and what they represent. Every spread will contain most of these, varying by combinations thereof:

• sabzeh – greens – sprouts of wheat, barley, mung beans, or lentils in an earthenware dish. This is the one essential item.

• samanu – a sweet pudding made of germinated wheat – affluence and ingenuity.

• senjed – dry fruit of the oleaster tree -- love.

• sepand – esfand – seeds of the Syrian Rue – protects from evil eye.

• sir – garlic cloves – medicine, protection.

• sib – apple – health, beauty.

• somagh – sumac – the color of sunrise; triumph of good over evil.

• serkeh – vinegar –age, patience.

• sonbol – hyacinth flowers – spring.

• sekkeh – coins – prosperity, wealth.

Other items commonly found, which don’t start with ‘s’ in Persian:

• goldfish – life, the animal world; Pisces.

• mirror -- reflection.

• candles – illumination.

• decorated eggs -- fertility.

• book – wisdom.

These are but the most common. Several other items can be found, starting with ‘s’ or not. While the practice of spreading the table is relatively new, the symbols that comprise it are ancient. To go into each one could easily take a page. An apple is seen in the Persepolis reliefs. Esfand seeds are burnt like incense to ward off the evil eye. The very heptad itself, can be seen as Zoroastrian (related to the Amesha Spentas, like Archangels).

The book is often a Qur’an, but depending on one’s respective religion, it can also be a Torah, Bible, Avesta, or Kitáb-i-Aqdas (though given persecution of Bahá’í’s, this would not likely be left in view for just anyone to see). More secular families will have the Shahnameh, or the Divan-e Hafez. While Rumi is among the greatest poets revered in Iran, it is Hafez, a 14th century Sufi poet of Shiraz, whom Iranians turn to for guidance and inspiration more than any other.

Or, there may be two of each. The table is also kept stocked with fruits, such as apples, pomegranates, and quinces; and pastries and nut flavored nougats or mixes. A fruit not for eating that can be found is a bitter orange floating in a bowl of water, symbolizing the world.

Though the table spread is not itself Zoroastrian, there are several unique layouts for them, as well. (One such assertion claims that it may have started in Zoroastrianism, as seven metal trays.) In this layout they will put the candle in front of the mirror, to spread its radiance. Look in the most holy Shi’i shrines and you will see a splendid reflection of light refracted to infinity. A Shi’i philosophy, known as Eshraghi, can be traced itself to Zoroastrian thought. The thing that distinguishes the Zoroastrian spread, though, is that it is not a Haft Sin, but a Haft Shin. All items beginning with the letter sh.

Yazd, smack dab in the heart of Iran, is the largest center of Zoroastrianism surviving in Iran. It has one of the most famous Fire Temples in the world (picture above), or the most photographed, at least. It is a custom of Iranians, regardless of religion, to visit it on Nowruz. A particularly apropos time, would be on the sixth day of Nowruz, what is known as Nowruz-e Bozorg (Great Nowruz) in general, and Khordad Sal to Zoroastrians -- the date Zarathushtra’s birthday is honored. Author Paul Kriwaczek, tells of a conversation he had with a Zoroastrian when visiting the Yazd area,

Before Islam, Noruz was celebrated with a haft shin not sin table. We put on seven things beginning with ‘sh.’ We put sharab (wine) for celebration, shir (milk) for nourishment, sharbat (sherbet) for enjoyment, shamshir (a aword) for security, shemshad (a box) for wealth, sham (a candle) for illumination, and shahdaneh (hemp seeds) for enlightenment. So that these things would be ours for the coming year. [10]

The Parsis of India do not celebrate the Haft Sin, though they still do Nowruz. Among Zoroastrians it is still customary to settle outstanding arguments, put on new clothes, exchange presents, and visit the Fire Temple. Going to the Fire Temple, unlike other religions, is not a central feature of the faith, and reserved by the laity for such special occasions. Another noticeable addition to a Zoroastrian spread, as on the Fire Temple walls, will be a framed portrait of Zarathushtra.

At the end of the Nowruz period, on the last day, Sizdah Bedar, ‘Getting Rid of the Thirteenth’ is observed, though ‘observe’ is not the right word! Not only does it sometimes overlap with April Fool’s Day, it is also filled with pranks and fun. It is the day for everyone to go outside, play, and picnic at the local park, or go for a hike. For school children who didn’t complete their homework packets over the break though, it is a day of torment!

In the old days, the goldfish from the Haft Sin would be released into a creek, but nowadays most keep the goldfish. The sabzeh from the haft sin table is still taken outside though, and scattered, having collected all the bad that could befall the family in the coming year. The ancient roots in Zoroastrianism to this day also signified the victory over the demon of drought for the coming year.

And with that, life in Iran once again resumes the next day, until the next Nowruz, the biggest, and notably un-Islamic, holiday of Iran.

III. Politics of Nowruz

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XkrK95atT4

Tomb of Hafez in Shiraz, on Nowruz Day Eve

After reading this far, you will have readily seen the political significance of green, sabz, its not only being the color of Islam, but of rebirth, growth and new hope. The Islamic government has never been able to crush this holiday’s spirit, and attempts to co-opt it are meager and farcical, at best. Each year it is customary for the Supreme Leader to name the next year. One year was the “year of Imam Ali,” and last year, it was “Saal-e Eslah-e Olgouyeh Masraf” (the year of reforming consumption patterns).

It is also a time for all figures, to give Nowruz messages. This is typically the president, but this year, the year of 1389, included messages from all the Green Movement leaders, including Zahra Rahnavard, Mir Hossein Mousavi’s wife (Iranian women keep their surnames). In a speech to the Iran Participation Front (Reformist organization), Mousavi ended with this,

In regards to the future, I feel that the movement that has begun is irreversible. We will never again return to the conditions that were a year ago. We have to value these change in ideas. I am very hopeful for the future, we must encourage hope and patience; patience meaning faith. This movement wants nothing for itself, it wants freedom and prosperity and progress and better days for all people and it will surely achieve these aims. The move after the election, and the election itself raised people’s awareness about their rights. We must invite people to fortitude and perseverance. We must name and know the coming year as the year of fortitude and perseverance. A year of perseverance for the green movement to reach its aims.

Mousavi declared the year as one of “patience and perseverance.” Supreme Leader Khamene’i, for his part, declared this the year of “redoubled diligence and redoubled work,” after congratulating the country for crushing “the foreign plot” on 22 Bahman, that conspired against the Revolution after an “unprecedented” and “outstanding” election.

As to anything Ahmadinejad had to say, this sums that up:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=p79sfRMe37I

President Obama issued his second Nowruz address not only to the government, but more to the people of Iran, this year. An excerpt from his address,

Last June, the world watched with admiration, as Iranians sought to exercise their universal right to be heard. But tragically, the aspirations of the Iranian people were also met with a clenched fist, as people marching silently were beaten with batons; political prisoners were rounded up and abused; absurd and false accusations were leveled against the United States and the West; and people everywhere were horrified by the video of a young woman killed in the street.

The United States does not meddle in Iran’s internal affairs. Our commitment – our responsibility – is to stand up for those rights that should be universal to all human beings. That includes the right to speak freely, to assemble without fear; the right to the equal administration of justice, and to express your views without facing retribution against you or your families.

I want the Iranian people to know what my country stands for. The United States believes in the dignity of every human being, and an international order that bends the arc of history in the direction of justice – a future where Iranians can exercise their rights, to participate fully in the global economy, and enrich the world through educational and cultural exchanges beyond Iran’s borders. That is the future that we seek. That is what America is for.

As John Limbert, the former Iranian hostage now with the State Department said during his lecture I had the pleasure of attending, Obama is here offering himself up not as an enemy, but as a rival to the regime. To its people, John Limbert joked about him being a houvi, the prettier and younger wife. All in all there is no way to measure if this is the case, but taking Mousavi out of the equation, it’s hard not to be more attractive than Khamene’i!

On a positive note, in February the United Nations General Assembly voted to recognize March 21st as International Day of Nowruz. In the United States House and Senate both also passed Nowruz Resolutions. In the Senate, it was unanimous and a who’s-who of co-sponsors. In the house, there were two votes against it. Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) had written an open letter to the two naysayers prior to the vote, even gifting them flowers and the book Funny in Farsi, by Firoozeh Dumas (in fine Nowruz spirit). I’ll let you in on who these racist fucking bastards are: Jeff Miller, representing Joe Scarborough’s old district, and arch-Birther (who’s mother may or may not be a crocodile), Bill Posey. But, as Nowruz teaches, good overcame evil.

In this house,

May obedience overcome disobedience!

May peace overcome discord!

May generosity overcome avarice for wealth!

May reverence overcome pride!

May the true-spoken word overcome the false-spoken word distorting truth!

- Zoroastrian blessing [11]

Endnotes

1. The date has crept over the years in India according to two of the traditional Parsi calendars, with insufficient intercalation, and falls in late August!

2. Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices 34.

3. R.C. Zaehner, The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism 138. Zaehner was also a British intelligence officer during the Iranian coup d’état of 1953.

4. Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology 215-216.

5. Michael Axworthy, A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind 21.

6. John R. Hinnells, Persian Mythology 98-108, is inconclusive on the depth of influence, but suggests some level of syncretism was likely, at the very least.

7. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago has a Persepolis complex map and archive photographs from their groundbreaking archaeological expedition in the 1930s here. Another site, Persepolis3d.com reconstructs a virtual Persepolis in full color and detail. A brief complex overview from Iran Chamber Society, here.

8. Before the Pahlavi dynasty, folk theater also featured a jester-like character in black or white face whom defied convention. I wonder if the two could be connected.

9. For any fellow etymology enthusiasts, think of Greek hepta, Latin septem. It is from the Avestan hapta, which was closely related to Sanskrit, sapta. All Indo-European languages, of course.

10. Paul Kriwaczek, In Search of Zarathustra: The First Prophet and the Ideas that Changed the World 216.

11. From a Fezana Nowruz prayer book [PDF]. Adapted from this prayer.

Happy Nowruz!

February 1, 1979. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s fourteen year exile was finally coming to an end. From Neauphle-le-Château where he had spent only a few months after being kicked out of Najaf by Saddam Hussein (accounts differ on the Shah’s role in this) he had chartered an Air France 747 and was finally entering Iranian airspace. On board were a cadre of Western journalists, including Newsweek‘s Elaine Sciolino, who wrote of this exchange between ABC’s Peter Jennings and Ayatollah Khomeini in her book, Persian Mirrors:

“Ayatollah, would you be so kind as to tell us how you feel about being back in Iran?”

“Hichi,” the ayatollah replied. “Nothing.”

“Hichi?” Ghotbzadeh asked him. Even he seemed incredulous at the response.

“Hich ehsasi nadaram,” the ayatollah said for emphasis. “I don’t feel a thing.”

While stoicism is characteristic of a mojtahed of his rank, this laconic reply has nonetheless been the subject of  debate and speculation to this day. (Unbeknownst to me at the drafting of this writing, someone thought of the same opening for their short piece. So, I’ll briefly add that Elaine Sciolino says Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, Khomeini’s aide and translator, innocently flirted with her).

A month earlier, after losing several close confidants and seeing the tide of history mounting against his crumbling regime’s edifice, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi announced the decision to name long time opposition National Front politician, Shapour Bakhtiar as Prime Minister and invited him to form a new government. It was a desperate concession of an autocratic monarch in failing health to salvage his dynasty.

Prime Minister Bakhtiar promised to disband SAVAK, relax martial law, and did lift restrictions on the press and free political prisoners and further promised to hold free elections and determine the future of the monarchy. On the 16th of January, Bakhtiar convinced the Shah to go on holiday. The Shah would never see Iran again; and with him, 2,500 years of royalty was banished. Yet all this was for naught. Too little, too late. And all was made moot by his most fateful mistake: relenting in allowing Khomeini’s plane to land at Mehrabad Airport. After arriving, Khomeini went to Behesht-e Zahra cemetery (sort of like a mix of Père-Lachaise and Arlington) to honor martyrs whom had lost their lives in confrontations with the Shah’s security forces. In a speech before a large crowd there, he vowed to “smash in the mouth of the Bakhtiar government.”

Four days later, Ayatollah Khomeini declared technocrat, Mehdi Bazargan, as the “true” Prime Minister of a provisional government. Of Bakhtiar, Khomeini said in a radio address, “Why do you talk of the Shah, Mossadegh, money? These have already passed. Islam is all that remains” (without any sense of irony that Bazargan was also an admirer and former public servant of Mossadegh). The demonstrators on the streets chanted to effect that Bakhtiar was a servant with no power. They were right. He had alienated both the most loyal military royalists and his erstwhile revolutionary comrades, whom had expelled him from the National Front as a traitor for dealing with the Shah.

To this day some in the Iranian diaspora bemoan President Carter for not supporting Bakhtiar more; but I have doubts there was anything to be done, and fear much of this is emotion (though understandable). On the 4th of January, General Robert “Dutch” Huyser had been dispatched to Tehran. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski had advocated a coup (I know, right?!). In the weeks he was there, General Huyser concluded and reported back that with troops peeling off at nearly a 1,ooo a day to desertion and defection and the officer corps divided, no such military reassertion of power was practicable.

The evening of February 9, Bakhtiar decided to air the Peter Jenning’s interview to discredit Khomeini. It backfired. At Doshan Tappeh Air Base, southeast of Tehran, Homafars (Air Force cadets and technicians) rebelled. Word reached the Feda’iyan and Mojahedin guerrillas, whom helped fend off the Imperial Guards. After this routing, Tehran became a war zone and the next two days were spent opening up armories and prisons, and overtaking police stations and military bases in Tehran and provinces. There were over two-hundred casualties. At two p.m. General Abbas Gharabaghi declared the Army’s neutrality and they pulled back to their barracks. Around four hours later the national radio station was seized and the victory of the Revolution declared, “in sedaye enghelab-e mardom-e Iran ast” (this is the voice of the Revolution). It was 22 Bahman 1357, the day which would be in symbolism the “4th of July” of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

22 Bahman 1388. Thirty-one years later, this celebration would also occur eight months after protests first erupted in the wake of the contested reëlection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Since the Ashoura protests, the pressure and preparation had been mounting from the security forces and hardline politicians, with principlists issuing similar warnings to lesser and varying degrees; executions, rounding up and detaining opposition, etc. Much of this I outlined in my previous article and won’t go into much depth again here. Although Jason Shams did an excellent summation on the government’s gearing-up,

It tries to deny our existence in the provinces far from the cities, with oil dollars, Chinese tear gas, and Russian hackers helping make the point; telephones are tapped, activists imprisoned, a stroll down the street and we are faced with gangs of Basij and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Iranians can watch MTV and pornography on satellite television, but the BBC and Voice of America have been jammed. The Internet has been reduced to a trickle, newspapers shut down.

Many in the diaspora were hyping this up to be the last stand. Even Reza Aslan miscalculated. I demur that I may have not made this clear, but I had my skepticism and worry and generally agreed in tone with Geneive Abdo’s prediction. Of all days on the Iranian calendar, the government was not about to be humiliated on this day of all politically charged days. The Greens also risked being too easily  branded counterrevolutionaries. In the weeks that have followed, it has been difficult for me to figure out just what transpired that day in confirmed protests in Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Mashhad and Ahvaz (see videos). Ali Arouzi, reporting for NBC, says he was transported straight from his bureau to Azadi Square for Ahmadinejad’s speech, not allowed to talk to even pro-Government supporters, and driven straight back. Other journalists gave the same account.

So what really happened? I still don’t know. I would agree with Scott Lucas at Enduring America though, that “The Regime Won Ugly“,

There was nothing hopeful in the rows of security forces who, having been prepared after the humiliations of Ashura, were not going to countenance another retreat. There was nothing of glory or Islamic value in the confrontations with Mehdi Karroubi (wounded, his son missing), Zahra Rahnavard (beaten), Mohammad Khatami and Mir Hossein Mousavi (forced into retreat), let alone the thousands of encounters in which chains, batons, and flying-squad detentions trumped hope and determination.

Muhammad Sahimi from Tehran Bureau, added his own positive spin,

First, the very fact that on the thirty-first anniversary of the Revolution, the hardliners had to saturate Tehran and other large cities with security forces just to prevent peaceful demonstrations by the opposition represents a significant victory for Green supporters. This is the day when the people are supposed to come out freely and celebrate the establishment of the political system that the hardliners claim they support, and yet there was an unofficial state of emergency, with tens of thousands of security forces patrolling the streets.

While I wouldn’t call it a “victory” for the Greens (maybe a tactical retreat, at best), this all, of course, make the Leveretts jump for joy. I and other Green sympathizers are often chided to go and join those in Iran. I shoot back that the armchair Basiji fan club have no place telling us that. I’ve been to pro-Green demonstrations here in the states. Maybe for them to show solidarity they could come at us with tear gas and crack a few of our skulls; or take pictures, track us down, and intimidate our friends and family?

As Mir Hossein Mousavi recently said in his first comments since 22 Bahman on February 28th, “this year’s rally was engineered” and,

The green movement missed a historic chance because the regime eclipsed its presence,” he said. “However, it was much more harmful to the regime than the movement because covering up the reality will never result in [the movement’s] elimination. I’m sure that this massive crackdown will deepen and broaden the movement.

Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mohammad Khatami were prevented from joining protests, or for only a brief time. Khatami’s brother, Mohammad Reza Khatami and his wife Zahra Eshraghi, the granddaughter of Ayatollah Khomeini, were detained then released after trying to join protests. Mehdi Karroubi’s car was again attacked and he is reported to have shed blood. Karroubi’s son, Ali, was allegedly beaten in a mosque after trying to protect his father, whose security detail never showed. His other son, Hossein Karroubi gave an interview expanding upon that here. Further, there was word of shots fired in Sadeghiyeh Square north of Azadi Square, where opposition was to meet, but whose numbers were disappointing.

IRIB, the official media organ of the Islamic Republic broadcast this helicopter footage. The original did not, of course, have that pro-government hip-hop, which struck me in similarity to this techno infused Mousavi campaign song. In any case, most rap is banned, especially under Ahmadinejad, so forgive me if I roll my eyes at that. State media also reported the day saw fifty million regime supporters demonstrate according to this live-blog. Iran’s population is approximately seventy million. If I were to define this day as celebrating the overthrow of the Shah or just enjoying a picnic with family and friends, well, that’s not hard to believe. I don’t think that was the expressed intent nor implication though.

From the Green sites now. A video with text commentary, from inside Azadi Square during Ahmadinejad’s speech. There are several significant things in it, including a man sitting on a picture of Supreme Leader Khamene’i and at the end, the Coat of Arms of the IRI, is cut out of a flag and on the ground. Most notably, this (zoom) satellite image went viral:

It was taken when Ahmadinejad was giving his speech, as seen on state television. Compare camera angle there with the picture above. Pro-government supporters contest that these are doctored (by the usual suspects: Hypocrites, Monarchists, Zionists and American Imperialists, of course). This rings hollow with me from those whom cite IRIB and post their own videos with Persian rap, though. A dose of skepticism is always healthy, on both sides. But having said that, IRIB and IRINN’s coverage was suspect most notably in one regard. No live sound. Instead, they played patriotic songs, and their “live” coverage was very canned. This was reported by more than one observer, but Pedestrian gives the most entertaining account (if I can even use the ‘e’ word regarding state propaganda).

Setting up loudspeakers to drown out any eghteshahgar, “attention seekers creating disturbance”, doesn’t match up with a secure government who brushes off the opposition as marginal elements, with decreasing numbers due to “radicalization” (which is admittedly a worry to keeping broad support on the streets, and not confined behind proverbial Persian Walls). Numerous accounts abound of security forces searching people for any green contraband or cell phones and rounding them up into alleys and whisked away. Truth is, there is no telling how many opposition supporters actually made it in and around Azadi Square, and any guesses one way or the other is mere speculation.

There is also the possibility, that given the five day weekend this year, that many more affluent went to Dizin (a ski resort) or the Caspian coast. Of course, there are class undertones in these assertions, but they are not altogether untrue. On the other side, were pictures such as these:

These are the infamous buses the government uses to bring in pro-Ahmadinejad and otherwise conservative supporters to regime rallies and events in Tehran from outlying villages. These supporters are what are pejoratively referred to as sandis. The term comes from a fruit drink handed out to regime supporters by Pasdars and others. The condescending implication here is sometimes that they are poor and are bribed to come to these events with a lunch and drink. Aside from the appeal of a free meal, I would say that’s the wrong way to look at it. This hospitality is common to the Middle East, and Iran is no exception! Except for the fact that while the so-called sandis get refreshments, anyone with green gets a beating (or worse).

Ahmadinejad’s ramp up to this day was full of talking about sanctions, nuclear rights and a failed rocket launch into space. Some speculate that this focus on issues that unify all Iranians could have had an impact in softening opposition. His speech, replete with a rocket centerpiece (paging Dr. Freud), had little of substance. Blame Israel, blame America, blame MeK, and cartoonish gholov (braggadocio), yada yada. He also declared Iran a “nuclear state” boasting they’d reached capability to enrich uranium to medical isotope levels of 20%. Funny thing though, they appear to be having trouble with this. Even Robert Gibbs said that,

“The Iranian nuclear program has undergone a series of problems throughout the year. We do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree to which they now say they are enriching.”

For once, when not complicit in manufacturing cable news hysteria and pandering to AIPAC & Co. hawks, the White House had a moment of honesty which was in line with such differing experts as David Albright, Flynt Leverett and Reza Aslan on PBS Newshour, during which Reza Aslan said,

But we have to under — we have to recognize that the statement that Iran is going to start enriching uranium at 20 percent, that it’s going to build 10 more enrichment plants in the next year, are, frankly, laughable. I mean, it took Iran years to build its one site in Natanz. It can barely keep that up and running.

So, this is not just for domestic consumption, but, more importantly, it’s designed to get a response from the West, because, if there’s one thing that all people in Iran, despite their politics or piety, whether in the Green Movement or the pro-government movement, agree on is Iran’s inalienable right to enrich uranium.

Of course, the cable news networks seized upon the “nuclear state” headline like addicts to a crack pipe. Rudi Bakhtiar, former CNN and FOX News anchor now with the Public Affairs Alliance of  Iranian Americans (and niece of Shapour Bakhtiar) being interviewed on CNN called out their coverage and said what I have said so many times. In so many words, she basically accused CNN and other networks of collaborating with Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad counts on this response, and instead of keeping the focus on the Green Movement and human rights, they take the bait every time, and muddle the message. I almost stood up and clapped when I saw her do this.

The “Green defeat” analyses have been endless. Juan Cole is included in those that were blunt about it. The government seems to have finally caught up to the calendar battle, and the asset of online social networking and SMS communication has become a liability through monitoring and phone tapping (though this has been overblown, as word still spreads like fire the old fashioned way from alley to alley). This includes exiles like former regime insider Mohsen Sazegara publishing detailed protest routes; and, Karroubi calling to meet at Sadheghiyeh Square and march towards Azadi Square. Security forces just had to close off such routes and again prevent the opposition from forming any large group. From here on, broadcasting rallying points and plans has to be reëxamined and alternatives found.

On the eve of 22 Bahman, amid sporadic Allah-o Akbars (view World Press Photo of 2009), Hashemi Rafsanjani leaked a letter on his personal website which he had sent leader Khamene’i before the June ’09 election day. In it he warned of Ahmadinejad’s lies (most likely referencing presidential debates, which hearken back to the 2005 presidential election), and against potential election fraud. Before moving forward, I’d like to take a brief excursion back to over a dozen years ago.

On May 16, 1997, a week before election day, delivering his sermon at Tehran University Friday Prayers, Rafsanjani warned, “treachery is an unforgivable act, and I do not consider any sin greater than someone giving himself the right to rig the votes of the people.” Goaded by Rafsanjani, Khamene’i assured a free and fair poll. The following needs to be quoted in full, from Geneive Abdo and Jonothan Lyon’s 2003 book, Answering Only to God,

But Khatami and his aides were well aware that pressure was mounting steadily on President Rafsanjani and the leader to prevent him from winning a clear majority in the first round. They worried that a second round would allow plenty of time for dirty tricks, sabotage, or even a coup by hard-liners in the Revolutionary Guards and their volunteer auxiliary, the basij. If the establishment were ever tempted to defraud the voters, then this was surely the moment; the threat from Khatami to the social, political, and theological order that had settled over the country since the revolution appeared simply too great.

These Khatami aides telephoned Rafsanjani to ensure the integrity of the count on election day. His daughter, Faezeh, arrived at the Interior Ministry with a retinue of armed security to ensure no shenanigans (though this could be interpreted as one in itself, she can handle herself. Watch this recent verbal confrontation with Basijis where she is cornered). In elections, while counts are taken locally, a second counting is undertaken when they are collected at the Interior Ministry (which does not have to match up with the first form’s tally). Before this year’s count, there were allegations from officials in the ministry warning of the possibility of tampering and pointing to a supposed fatwa from Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi, Ahmadinejad’s spiritual advisor and member of the Assembly of Experts, that rigging the vote was okay for the greater good of preserving the Islamic system (this would correspond to rumors that he is part of the Hojjatieh, an anti-democratic “C Street”, it might be put).

The Interior Ministry’s count is then validated by the Guardian Council. The Guardian Council is notoriously conservative. It is made up of six clerics, appointed by the Supreme Leader, and six jurists, nominated by the Head of the Judiciary, who is himself appointed by the Supreme Leader. Notice a pattern here? (It is also the Guardian Council which selects candidates in the first place.) To claim that their recount was impartial begs incredulity; quis custodiet ipso custodes? And, finally, the Supreme Leader can nullify the results. Mohsen Reza’i, then still Chief Commander of the Pasdaran had hinted in 1997 he was prepared to crush an uprising should Khamene’i have asserted this power.

This past election, as a candidate himself, Reza’i expressed initial doubt over the election results. An additional irony to all this is that I am not one of those convinced Ahmadinejad necessarily couldn’t have actually won. The institutional power and stacking of provincial power and influence in the Interior Ministry involved in administering elections did nothing to engender confidence though. Nor did the clumsy handling of election announcements. Any ‘Zionist instigation and sowing of doubt’ would frankly be redundant, and those claiming this is part of the imperialist MSM demonizing the IRI need to do their homework to disabuse themselves of this adolescent reductionism. Correcting all these institutional inequities in the system constitutionally have been core planks of the Reform platform since its inception, as the name would imply.

What now though? Questioning the election results are now regarded as a “sin” by Khamene’i and hardliners. Even conservative foes like MP Ali Motahari, opposed to Ahmadinejad have suggested Mousavi drop this issue and stop protests altogether, additional overtures of allying against Ahmedinejad and addressing compromised solutions to the problems, blaming both sides of stubbornness. This, of course, would remove leverage which Mousavi gets from the streets. Also to be taken into account is the eternal pragmatist, Rafsanjani, who in his recent praises of the Supreme Leader and condemnation of “sedition” cast a little worry, though one must consider the art of Persian riddle talk that I’ve mentioned before. It may be triangulating, hedging and deal making behind-the-scenes to be read here. It is widely assumed that Rafsanjani still covets the title of Supreme Leader for himself. Ousting Khamene’i via the powers invested to the Assembly of Experts, which Rafsanjani chairs, is not happening. Rafsanjani is playing his own game, where the opposition serves not only his more moderate positions, but perhaps more importantly, his own ambition. Mousavi is still safe, and Rafsanjani’s fingerprint can be assumed in that circumstance.

My humble advice would be to sideline the election issue, as Mousavi has done, and focus on the human rights and constitutional violations of the past eight months. There is plenty of material to work off of here, as outlined in this lengthy Iran Human Rights Documentation Center Report, “Violent Aftermath: The 2009 Election and Suppression of Dissent in Iran” (PDF). Just recently, this video from June 15th, thought to be leaked, came out capturing a Tehran University dormitory raid (one can only wonder what may come out in months and years to come). Regime defenders are more comfortable debating numbers and math, rather than blood. Even the now ubiquitous, “I didn’t vote for Ahmadinejad, but…” posters on the internet (taking a cue from arch-apologist and Leverett BFF, Tehran University professor, Dr. Mohammad Marandi) try to compare riot control tactics of the West and Iran, or Iran under the Shah. The crackdown isn’t as brutal as under the Shah, and therefore this isn’t a real movement (only they use the straw man of “revolution”), goes the line of reasoning. How facile! You think veterans of the ’79 Revolution don’t know what affect a public massacre like Black Friday has?!  The riot comparisons can be interesting, though, and I take note of the valuable perspective. But stretched too far and ignoring the broader societal context can take it to levels ad absurdum. Kent State, Seattle 1999 and G20 crackdowns of free assembly are not to be celebrated, and the deflection employed by the IRI hardly lives up to their utopian boasting. What are they trying to say? That they’re Western-lite and still backwards in their repression? In addition, we’re not talking about sound cannons here, and the backdrop is of a much more authoritarian state apparatus. Patriot Act? eat your heart out. Freedom of Information Act? …Hold on, let me stop laughing. Sorry, but no, it’s not the same thing.

One of the more interesting articles on riot tactics compares 2009 Iran with 1960′s America. This suits me just fine, as my contention is not to think of this movement as about sore losers, but the election as a spark for a long simmering civil rights struggle and shifting demographics of the Children of the Revolution, as Hamid Dabashi contends in his series of webcasts, “This Week in Green,” and as was written in an article by Ian Morrison, “An Iranian Civil Rights Movement?” which pivots to economic policy,

Aside from comparisons to the Civil Rights Movement, one finds in the discourse on Iran a great deal of squabbling about the class character of the Green Movement protesters and what that means for its future. Early on, Ahmadinejad sympathizers heaped scorn on the Green Movement, claiming that protesters were all from the affluent neighborhoods of northern Tehran. This account is parochial at best; while nobody has contested that people from northern Tehran participated in various demonstrations, the Green Movement has an amorphous and complex makeup that belies easy classification along the lines of this or that political allegiance, especially given the suffocating repression of the Iranian state. Calling the demonstrations “middle class,” as though this alone amounts to a “political analysis,” circumvents any consideration of the potential for working class and labor issues to be taken up by the movement over time.

Indeed, when discussing where the movement goes from here, everyone looking back to the years of 1978-1979, look to the crucial aspect which organized labor played through strikes. Ian Morrison previously did a piece entitled “Iran’s New Labor?“, an interview with trade unionist, Homayoun Pourzad, who described Ahmadinejad as “profoundly anti-Left and anti-working class.” Four labor organizations listed ten minimal demands before 22 Bahman with the reminder that,

A nationwide strike lead by workers at the National Oil Company, the vanguard of the Iranian working class, shut down oil pipelines, ultimately tearing the despotic regime asunder. Masses of people chanted, “Our oil workers! Our resolute leader!” Power fell to the people.

This is a not so subtle reminder of the Left’s crucial role in overthrowing the Shah. On February 19th, 600 workers at Bandar-e Abbas went on strike for a common complain: unpaid back wages. Other strikes can be found in Hamid Farokhnia’s “Ahmadinejad’s import mania” which has this passage full of symbolism,

Today, even women’s traditional attire like chador comes from abroad, all government agencies have been instructed to use imported food staples for employees’ meals, and many Chinese goods are cheaper in Iran than anywhere in the world outside China itself. No wonder domestic producers can no longer effectively compete with the flood of foreign goods.

Ahmadinejad is importing to offset inflation and benefits from an artificially high exchange rate for the rial. As such, the article points out only 9% of tea is domestically produced (Iranians take great pride in their tea), and over the past four years sugar production has been halved. Such hard numbers are hard to come by, though, to substantiate this, and economics generally makes my eyes glaze over. The article’s title of “import mania” though, is a reference to the same phenomenon of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the 60′s and 70′s. One should be aware of trying to draw too many conclusions in attempts to make comparisons for an agenda. It doesn’t make it untrue though. It would also explain what jumped off of my computer screen as a stretch when I read Reza Aslan’s review of 22 Bahman,

If the mullahs and the merchants begin joining forces with the protesters, even as the Revolutionary Guard becomes more entrenched in the political sphere, a civil war may be inescapable.

While I’d ask Reza to watch it with loaded talk of civil war (his track record is still pretty good though), he points to an article by Jamsheed K. Choksy about Ahmadinejad moving more from the clerics and doing triangulating of his own. Ahmadinejad is a maverick, and shrewd politician, whom has cultivated real appeal to a good segment of Iranians. From Choksy’s Newsweek article,

As a result, together with the IRGC and Basij (a volunteer paramilitary group that has attacked opposition protesters), Ahmadinejad and his ilk are turning to totalitarianism, rather than the fundamentalism of Shiite clerics, to suppress the steadily growing democratic aspirations of the Green Movement. Yet the mullahs have strong allies too, not only in the legislature, led by Ali Larijani (who hails from a family of well-known clerics), but even among the president’s own clan, whose members remain divided on abjuring theocracy.

I realize I’ll need to decode all this economic factionalism. Let me try to piece this together. As Nikki R. Keddie put it in Roots of Revolution,

Governmental favoring of nonbazaar trade and industry and various plans of “modernization” or dispersal of the bazaar … were partly designed to weaken the bazaar’s politico-economic cohesion.

That was during Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s reign. Now consider the following from Robert Baer’s The Devil We Know in light of Ahmadinejad’s “import mania”,

[T]he Revolutionary Guards are, in a sense, a state within a state. They own more than a hundred companies and control as much as $12 billion, possibly more, in assets.

Reza Aslan contends that it was part of the Obama Administration’s strategy, in targeting the Pasdaran (which may control as much as a third of Iran’s economy) in sanctions, to send a message to bazaaris (traditional merchant class). The bazaari-ulema (merchant-clerical) relationship is deep, their networks complex, and go back centuries. Along with the intellectual-professional class and labor on the Left they formed the indispensable Right flank that brought down the Shah. Clerics often come from the bazaari class, and mosques are often situated in or near bazaars at the heart of a city.

The bazaari-ulema constituency is most often associated with the principlist conservatives like Speaker of the Majles Ali Larijani or commercial pragmatists like Rafsanjani. The first general bazaar strike since the Revolution occurred in 2008 in response to a proposed tax by Ahmadinejad. Taken all together, Aslan’s view is a good angle to take on deciphering the purpose of these new sanctions. Because, other than appeasing AIPAC and hawks in both the Republican and Democratic parties who want to “be tough” on Iran for domestic consumption (even if only with empty and counterproductive measures), the sanctions will likely have minimal effect on an organization which operates significantly like a mafia; on the black market. However; even if words of Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey (whom Press TV always subtly has a prominent picture of) to the effect of helping ordinary businessmen over a “select group of insiders” never makes it past the filter of Iranian state media (unlike Secretary of State Clinton’s “military dictatorship” comment and Iran’s response), at least Obama’s policy team is sophisticated enough to get the internal dynamics of Iran when they’re not concurrently pursuing the same old failed Washington-Tel Aviv-Riyadh line. As Shirin Ebadi suggested, sanctions on Siemens Nokia Networks would also be appropriate, even if sanctioning a Finno-Germanic venture is less palatable to US lawmakers.

Of course, Newt Gingrich compares the policy of the Obama Administration to the appeasement of Hitler. If anyone is Neville Chamberlain, it is George W. Bush, who created the political vacuum with which Iran could implement the Lebanon model of proxies and utilize long established Shi’a political allies (many who were exiled in Iran under Saddam). The upcoming Iraqi elections will be a good measure of the level of their success in effectively annexing the chunks of the country in all but name. In any case, Newt, take it up with Iranian-Americans, who in a PAAIA poll conducted by Zogby International, approve for the most part of Obama’s tact.

My cautionary take in regard to the bazaari-ulema class is to see it through the prism of parliamentary factional maneuvering and not to put too much hope in a general strike, and certainly not in them joining the ranks of the Green Movement (at least not any time soon). Such is reminiscent of speculation that the Artesh (regular army) might step in in the height of the summer protests. To their credit, they have remained professional and neutral, honoring Khomeini’s injunction on the armed forces (unlike the Pasdaran).

In any case, aside from fundamental sociological factors, looking back upon the ’79 Revolution, which 22 Bahman commemorated, as a blueprint for another revolution is specious. What the Green Movement represents, officially, is a simple aspiration for there to be respect of a plurality of opinion and civil society within the framework of the Islamic Republic. This is expounded by Mousavi in his most recent interview published on his personal site, Kaleme. While pointing out that bussing in supporters was done by the Shah among other repressive tactics, the headline was when Mousavi stated that “[t]his is the rule of a cult that has hijacked the concept of Iranianism and nationalism.” I would highly recommend reading the full translation.

He also echoed Karroubi’s request that dueling rallies be allowed (I even recall the suggestion that they could be held outside the city) and a referendum on the Guardian Council’s role in future elections. The translation cites Art. 54, but I believe it is Art. 59. This would mean going through Art. 177 to change Art. 99, if I am not mistaken. That requires going through Khamene’i, Ahmadinejad and the Expediency Council after which, a Council for Revision will be formed (which is required to consist of members of the Guardian Council itself, among representatives from every other key institution and branch of government) to discuss the proposal. Then, the Supreme Leader approves of the referendum, to be put to the people to vote on (how many problems could you count in that formula?). This was only done once before in 1989, at the behest of Khomeini, who tailored it to his successor who had neither the charisma, following, nor religious credentials he had. Members of that council included Karroubi and Mousavi. They are posturing here. They know full-well the hurdles and equilibrium of power is decidedly set against them. But, so do those whom identify with the Green Movement. Maybe the task here, with this specific goal, is to unify the movement in pressuring the Supreme Leader to entertain it or implicitly highlight the faults in the current system to the most ardent and apathetic alike and mobilize them around a coherent message.

As to the Supreme Leader jettisoning Ahmadinejad, in what was from the start of his first election, an awkward alliance, I would ask this: can he afford to do this without further risking the legitimacy of his own position? It would be tantamount to a concession and desperation mirroring Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s scapegoating of Prime Minister Hoveyda in 1977. It would be possible, I suppose, to hold Ahmadinejad in breach of Art. 113, stating that the president must be held to uphold and protect the constitution, and under Art. 130 “voluntarily” issue his resignation. But, since elections are “divine tests” of Allah’s will, and the Supreme Leader is Allah’s proxy on earth who already validated the election, how could he pull this off? And, more importantly, is the Supreme Leader really in complete control anymore? It goes to the core of the inherent contradictions of a Theocratic Republic, which is critiqued at length by Islamic scholars such as Mohsen Kadivar, and bemoaned with sad regret by the writers of the original draft constitution from the liberal Freedom Movement like Nasser Katouzian, whom had their work mangled and the exaltation of the position of Vali-ye Faghih enshrined beyond symbolic mediator and into a turbaned shah. I have a pet theory on why since Banisadr, no president has ever lost reëlection, but it’s more of the musing category, and I don’t really feel comfortable sharing it in this piece. There are also other perfectly reasonable explanations regarding state media and elections being personality-driven.

But, if the opposition’s goals seem doomed, then what does that leave us with? On CNN Newsroom, Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment and Trita Parsi of the National Iranian-American Council were interviewed by Don Lemon (for a humorous look at this pairing read this!). Trita Parsi made this point,

And the mere fact the game continues is in and of itself a defeat for the government because eight months, nine months after the fraud in elections this is still going on. Sometimes demonstrations are bigger, sometimes they’re smaller. But any sense of normalcy the government is yet to be able to find.

With all the talk of disappointment, or squabbling over the true size of the movement, perspective is lost. Even by the most conservative estimates, this is the largest social upheaval and challenge to the institutional establishment of the IRI in certainly twenty years; the length of Khamene’i's tenure. Larger than the original 18 Tir student protests in 1999 or their commemoration in 2003. Comparisons to anti-war demonstrations starting in the spring of 1985 which intermittently continued until 1988 (when Mousavi was Prime Minister, by the way) as the Iran-Iraq war needlessly dragged on before Khomeini drank the “poison chalice” would be more tenuous. But it would validate Mohsen Kadivar who said in 2000 that, “if more Iranians are willing to suffer, the establishment will have to give in.” Except, in that case the suffering was more immediate and affected everyone. As I said, tenuous comparison, and hardly an analogous circumstance. Although, it sapped the original revolutionary zeal in the public which Ahmadinejad and his coterie of mid-ranking Pasdar allies pledged to restore in 2005.

For additional perspective, one only need look at Mousavi’s history itself, such as in this article from The New Republic by respected scholar of Iran, Abbas Milani; or this one from Tehran Bureau’s Muhammad Sahimi. Who would have thought that Mousavi; a soft-spoken regime insider selected by the Guardian Council to run, would have stood up to his old rival Khamene’i this long? And can they afford to arrest him? Apparently their current line, from an Assembly of Experts’ statement is that the “sedition” is crushed and are more successfully changing the subject yet again with the capture and “confession” of Jundallah leader, Abdolmalek Rigi (this is actually newsworthy, unlike most manufactured distractions). Jundallah is a Sunni Baluchi terrorist group, which has had support from America in the past. Figure out the implied message here. And yet, Mousavi will not be cowed.

In Mousavi’s Kaleme interview on the path forward, he was asked about the floated idea of using Cheharshanbeh Souri, a secular sublimation of the Zoroastrian Jashn-e Sadeh (links of which I included at the bottom of my last article “Keeping the Fire Burning“). It is an evening celebration like Guy Fawkes Night mixed with Halloween. Bonfires are made, and jumped over saying “sorki-ye to az man, zardi-ye man az to” to the fire (your red color is mine, my sallowness is yours). Any reader of the Golden Bough or with any knowledge of similar Indo-European practices will instantly recognize parallels here. In present day Iran, it is one of the few times the sexes can freely interact socially and includes a Persian version of trick-or-treating. It also involves fireworks and has developed a reputation as a night of mischief and tragedy, reminding me of scenes of Devil’s Night in The Crow. Blogger Pedestrian thought it a horrible idea, and Mousavi concurred,

The ritual on this day reminds us of the defeat of darkness by light. But the supporters of the Green Movement, while respecting such national and religious occasions, do not want them to be used to harass and hurt the people, especially since those who oppose the Green Movement may have planned to use the occasion to bring the Movement into disrepute.

However; the grand Iranian holiday which it precludes offers hope. While 22 Bahman commemorated a Revolution which occurred before approximately 70% of the population was even born; Nowrouz, the Persian New Year, will provide a test of the Green Movement’s creativity and vigor, and is more ideal in its timeless ancient symbolism than any revolutionary anniversary.

Robin Wright, interviewed by Council on Foreign Relations,

[There's] the graffiti that is showing up on walls and fences and buildings that berates the regime or calls for a new public demonstration; posters that go up in the dead of night with pictures of political detainees demanding their freedom; and shouts at the subway stations [and] in soccer matches that erupt spontaneously, shouting, “Death to the dictator,” or “Down with Khamenei.” These things are playing out on a daily basis. There is a lot of energy behind this movement, not just on the days that people turn out on the street. It is arguably the most vibrant and imaginative civil disobedience campaign anywhere in the world today.

With more creativity to be seen, hopefully, as in the “wall dialogues” mentioned above (1), (2), or as in the fluidity of Persian Rap:

Ghogha ft. Shahin Najafi -- Enghelab-e Tafakor

www.youtube.com/watch?v=emoyRgBm084

As always, my disclaimer. I am not an expert. I do my best to interpret current events in Iran, that is all. Corrections are welcome. And nothing is more appreciated than questions on anything Iran-related (even if you don’t make it through the whole article). To prove I don’t take myself too seriously:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4sUINMteVo

Appendix: BBC’s helpful flow chart on the political system of the IRI to help you follow parts of this article.