9.2.08

Iran & Others

Studying the Nature of Arab-Iranian Relations

During an online discussion with the dear friend Amr Al-Abyad, his opinion was Iran is an enemy to Arab nations and Pan Arabism, maybe not less than Israel case. Amr had plenty of points justifying his attitude against Iran, you can study it here. However, I will not discuss these points here, I will assume it to be true (except for those related to Hezbollah, that I know personally it is not, this I shall discuss later) and go for studying the reasons of this anti-Arab hatred among Iranians.

During Bosnia & Herzegovina war, and like any other Muslim on earth, I was intimidated. However, when I am intimidated, I do not demonstrate and burn flags, as I believe this changes nothing, I prefer to read and study the matter, to figure out the way led us into it, therefore I can imagine a way-out of it. Studying the problem by that time, I went back to find the seeds in Balkan wars, era of the Eastern Question. I found the seeds of hatred put by Turks in the 19th century to create a heritage of hatred among Serbians against Muslims and Islam. Specifically against Bosnians, who are believed to be partially Albanian rooted, descendants of those who accessed the domain during Turks domination. With a similar fashion I will access the Iran Question, and share with you some answers, only to the best of my knowledge and judgment.

Iran and Roots of Hatred
Worthy to say first that Persia held a special status among the nations dominated by Islamic Empire in the 7th & 8th century. Maybe this status played a role in keeping Persia with its distinctive national identity while others were Arabized. We have the fact that while Egypt and the historical Sham were great nations, they were already captured as parts of the Eastern Byzantine Empire capitalized in Constantinople. Being part of a previous Empire for decades, had surely facilitated these nations acclimatization to be part of Arabic Islamic Empire, to mutate overtime into prosperous Arab nations themselves. North African countries were divided into small cities on the shores of Mediterranean with cosmopolitan nature, and Barbaric desert tribes inwards. Therefore, it was easily Arabized as well. Iraq was itself a province of Sassanid Iranian empire for nearly 10 centuries until the Islamic domination replaced the Iranian (Today, this still affects the Iraqi-Iranian relations in specific). Persia was different, it was a glorious empire, apart from the defeat Kesru II experienced against Hercules of Rum in the early 7th century. Only until it was captured by the Arabic Islamic Empirical forces. It was the first time for Persia since mellinia to be a follower state or a province of others, this stands as a major factor resisting the stains of the new Empire. This is typically why Iran became Islamic, however, non-Arabic state.

Moreover, during the Arabic invasion, Arabs were misled enough to destroy the statues and monuments, under the impression that these statues were worshipped, while Iranians were Zoroastrian not pagans, they worshipped no idols. Somehow, violence took place in Persia more than other captive states, maybe due to more resistance. Needless to mention the sayings that Iranians were welcoming the Arabs conquest is ridiculous. As ridiculous as those about the Copts wlecoming Arabs. Even an army of angels upon conquist of a city, will have a drifting elements who causes a more or less turblence here and there. This is never welcome to the conquered nation.

However, this lead Iranians to hate Arabs somehow, but not Islam, the tales about Iranian conspiracy against Islam is simply baseless, as fictious as the tales that Iran adopted the Shiites Islam to destroy Islam from within! Whoever adopts this belief, ignores the fact that Iranians were Sunni Muslims for nearly 1000 years, before the Safavid dynasty roles, shifting the official religion from Sunni to Shiites Islam.

We should remember also, that prolonged suppression of Shiites all through Islamic history from Umayyads dynasty onward, added a punch of hatred toward Sunnis, who were named by their Shiites opponents as Nawaseb, meaning those who fought against Prophet's descendants, as a response to Sunnis who called them Rawafid, referring to their rejection to the -so called- agreed on Caliphate.

Iran, Shiism & Geohistorical Implications
It was the facts of history and geography not conspiracies what linked Iran to Shiism since very early in Islamic history. Iran and Iraq altogether were the land fertile for Shiism linked by geography and historical events. During the latest part of his struggle against Umayyads, Imam Ali headquarters were shifted to Kufa in Iraq. Wherein, majority of battles and major events took place, and wherein also Imam Ali, supposedly was buried after his death as well as good number of his Imam descendants. Logically, Ali's army and allies, Shiite Ali, were the nucleolus of today's Shiites communities, those who lived in Iraq and western Iran, who commemorates their defiance to Ali and Hussein with webbing and weeping rituals in memories of Karbala. Moreover, it was normal for Shiites under the Sunnis Caliphates, to live in the perephries of states, in Iraq, Iran, Eastern lower Gulf…etc. as the cantonal life is the only choice before the oppressed minorities.

Modern History
Disputes between Iraq and Iran is historical, not border related, only like those between Serbians and Bosnians. Extending from Sumerian era to the modern history, in addition to the 10 centuries before Islam wherein Iraq was an Iranian province, it was captive again under Iranian power during the Safavid empire and until Ottomans conquest over Safavids, to capture Baghdad as late as the 17th century. While border disputes extended until the British power imposed itself, declaring the Kingdom of Iraq, after World War I in 1920, succeeded by crowning of Faisal ibn Al-Hussein as King of Iraq in 1921. Border disputes continued until the 50s of the 20th century, during which the Arab-Israeli dispute took the major focus of Arab nations including Iraq. Then, after Nasser's defeat in 1967, and later on his death in 1970, the matter of border disputes, specially the oil rich Khuzestan became to focus again. Amazingly, from 1969 onward, Iraqi media started to deal with Khuzestan as an Iraqi province, calling its Arab and tribal inhabitants to revolt against Iran. Also a dispute about three islands in the Gulf, that belongs to UAE!!!, and Shat El-Arab waterway dispute. These all kept warming things up, until 1974, when Iraq first attacked Iran troops near Shat El-Arab.

Khomeini, who is mocked up today by Iraqis, was a favored guest of Saddam Hussein, the vice president to Al-Bakr by this time. Simply because he was an opponent of his enemy, Shah of Iran, and once the Shah bribed Saddam with disclosure of anti-revolution organization in Iraqi army, that happened to come to Shah Iran knowlege through the HQ of CIA in the Middle East, that was flagged as US Embassy in Iran, Shah alarmed Saddam and Al-Bakr, Therefore, in return, Saddam exiled the Iranian revolt, Khomeini, who was in his sixties by that time.

When the Islamic Republic was declared in Iran, a fear was rising in Iraq as well as all Gulf monarchies from revolution export from Iran to the neighboring countries, based on Khomeini statements about "spreading the word of truth and facing the Great Satan of America", the interests of Iraqis with long history of dispute and hatred, met with the interests of panicking Gulf monarchs. Altogether with the interest of Americans to suppress the revolution in Iran, which did not only deprive them from their faithful servant Shah-n-Shah, but also captured their agents in the US embassy of Tehran, in a worldwide humiliating act to the US glory. It was then when Saddam launched his, so called, Qadissyiah against Iran in 1980. Iraq succeeded first to capture Khuzestan. However, Iranians regained it in 1982 counterattack. Only before the war starts, Saddam exiled 100s of thousands of Shiite Iraqis from the border zones, as he believed their loyalty to Iraq was questioned. They were Iraqis no doubt, but the arogant Sonni tyrant, who is protected to role Iraq under protection of his stream (like the case of Asad family and Alawi stream in Syria) ignored their nationality and exiled them based on their belief. This can never be calles a secular act !!

Iranian counterattack took place in May 1982, and in June of the same year, Saddam, showed his Pan Arabist face, asking Iran to give peace a chance, letting his army to withdraw in peace from Iran, so he can help Lebanon against Israeli invasion. Surely, he was not seeking the welfare of Lebanon, but his own. It was then when Iranians started to be the aggressors, as Khomeini not only rejected the peace settlement, but also stated he will continue the war until Saddam is fallen and replaced by an Islamic regimen!! Followed by Iranian attack targeted Bosra, however, it was a failure, and the Iranian causalities were severe. The war kept ongoing, hard on both sides, but none was willing to scream first. By the end of war, Iraq experienced some tactical victories, then both parties became interested in ceasefire by 1988.

Another hatred inflamming action came from the Egyptian former president, Anwar Sadat, while all the world, including his ex-supporters in USA refused to recieve the exiled Shah, who smashed the revolts under his army tanks before he knows he is a looser already and escape with his plane, his Friend Sadat welcomed him to Egypt. As this was not enough, Sadat started attacking the revolution there from day one, and before giving peace a chance. This lead Iranians later to name a street after the assassin Khaled Islambuli, who hunted down Sadat, which is a stupid thing also, but this is the case alltime. Blood calls blood, hatred calls for hatred, and idiocy calls for idiocy.

US Alliance with Iraq
With my due respect to Amr theory, stating the US support to Iraq during the war as Iranian propaganda, we have the following facts, all from the National Security Archives and can be found at'
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82. Wherein you can find much more details, hereunder a glance of it

  • In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran
  • In 1982, Iraq was removed from the US State Department's list of terrorist-supporting nations to ease the legal impediments for the transfer of "dual use" technology to that country
  • Commerce Department files reveal that the Reagan and Bush administrations approved at least 80 direct exports to the Iraqi military from 1982 to 1989.

About Irangate, we admit it proved US had sold weapons under Reagan administration to Iran, trading it against release of hostages in Lebanon, CIA agents headed by Buckley in Beirut. It was imposed on the USA by the hostage situation, not a choice, alliance or help to Iran.


Today
In 1993, Hady Nasrallah martyred while defending the soil of South of Lebanon. Israelis-the everlasting USA allies- slaying Hady, the 1st son of Hassan Nasrallah, stands as a proof of Hady's faith as well as his father's deep belief. This is not typically the way people who sell out their countries behave. This is the way of real men and real patriots. This is one of the reasons make me stubborn when it comes to Hizbullah. Getting support from Iran and Syria, will never make me believe the propaganda of the Iraqi Ba'ath in this regard. Would I be in his place, I was to seek support even from Satan in person to free my land. Needless to mention that 2001 and 2006 wars stand as additional solid proofs of seriousness. While Saddam was trying to reach Jerusalem through Kuwait oil, Nasrallah known his way to the occupied south of Lebanon. As Mutanabi once said,

السيف أصدق أنباءً من الكتب *** في حده الحد بين الجد و اللعب

in 2003, upon Iraq invasion, US troops were assembled in Kuwait, not in Iran. In Jan 2008, George W. Bush urged Arabs to confront Iran, 'the world's leading sponsor of state terror' as he expressed.

We have an overt enemy, with whom we have an exsistence dispute. The day Israel will apply the international credos, giving up the occupied land in Gullan, Difa and Ghazza, is the day wherein Israel will loose 70% of its regional power. Then, they will never do it in peace. As for Iranians, what we need all to do, is to call for a new start, apart from the historical hatred. I was in a meeting in Sharm El-Shiekh, therein all country reps were available except the one from Iran. Because he failed to get the Visa, while Israelis can access as far as Sharm without even a passport!! What can we call this? Discrimination I can say, that fosters hatred and calls for more blood shedding. Let's wise up and save energy for our real wars.

Finally, I admit I am not an expert in the matter. However, I found no reason to desert the revealed truth to seek conspiracies. Moreover, a man whom I trust like my own self had visited Iran several times and had strong communication with Shah, Khomini as well other leaders. This man is Hassanin Haikal, and I trust the outcomes of his analysis, supported by documents about the Iranian revolution and Arab Irani dispute.

13 comments:

Amre El-Abyad said...

Wewll dear Eyad concerning your post. All the points you mentioned it are quite true. However, they are contextualised from an Irania perspective.

The dispute between not just Iraq but the entire Arab world go back thousands of years in time. The semitc proto-Arab, Akkadi Babylonian civilisation- the greatest of the classics along with the Egyptian one- held its dominion over western Iran for thousands of years. Around 1000 and 1500 B.C savage barberous Indo-Iranian groups coming from India known as Achaemenids sacked the Iranian plateau in 600 B.C. The Iranian savages sacked babylon and Egypt; they adopted the Semitic Babylonian archeticure, learnings and systems.

More importantly, the Illiterate Iranians adopted the Bablonian Aramaic( the closest predessor of Arabic along with Hieroglyphic and Akkadine, and ancient Yemnse) aplhbet. Ironically enough later on after the Semitc penisula Arabs both the descndants and ancestors of Babylonians and Egyptians gave Ittranians letters for the econd time as Iranian adopted Arabic writings.

A very important factor that you overlooked in the case of the Arabisation of Iraq and Egypt which is not the case for Iran, is the ethnic and linguistic close relations between Pennisula Arabs on the one side, Iraqis, Syrians and Egyptians on the other. Their 8ooo thousands of years history languages and culture are quite intermingled.

Just ponder on the parallels between Babylonian and Pharoanic beilif systems and lawa and thtose of theholly book.!!!!


Arabism is the semitic will, the indigenouis authentic nature of the Middle east revolting against the allien Persian and Greco-Roamn Aryan domioance, as opposed to SERMITIC.

Iran has a terndency to jump into our region where it doesn't belong- much the same as Roamns and their contemporary extension the U.S.


Also a very important point that has to be taken into conideration is that there had never such thing as Persians in the very first place. First there were the Baraberous Achaemenids who sacked Babylon and Egypt followed by Parthians who liberated Iran from the Greek colonialism ( Alexander sacked the savage bloody Persian empire) and fianlly we have the Sassanids.

They never spoke one language and bitter infightings were incessant among them. what brought them together apart of the sword, is that their languages were of an Indo-Iranian origin as well as some common cultural trends that binded them.

When comparing Arabic to Babylonian and Hieroglyphic and Aramaic as well as the different religons that evolved in the region, and the level of interaction among the ancient Arab world cultures on the one side-one would definetly note that both Babylon and ancient Egypt are quite rightflly called Arabs much more than the Savage baraberous groups of the Iranian plateau are called Persians:))))))

Persians was collective name used to denote e the barabarians of the Iranian plateau.


Using this historical explanation along with geo-politcal rivaly the Iranian grudge on ASrabism and the thousands of years old bonds that bring Arab together, thus halting them form extending their agreesive malicious culture into our Arab world.

Amre El-Abyad said...

Now to back to the presnt.

Iraq according toall international resources was the catching up very quickly, it was indeed the most modern Arab state.

Saddam Hussien in abrave move nationalised oil in 1969 and ussed to industralise and modernise Iraq something which constiuted a paradigm shift in the region similar to the Naserite one. One wouldn't expet such a bold descion from a leader unless he is graetly patriotic.


During th 1973 Iran was supporting the ultra nationalist Mussad collaborating Kurdish rebels in the Irqi mountains. So several politcal dals were going on between Iraqis and Iranians.

When the retarded revolution of the retarded freak Khomeini, It was resisting vehmently through Khomeinist demagogic discourse Iraqi secualtrisation and modernisation of the south.

Iraq had no alternative but to break Iran


Secondly I think you are unjustified in your usage of a moral qualificaton on Saddam's offer to sieze fire in 1982. Otherwise how would expalin Saddam sending half of the Iraqi army to defend Damscus. And it is acknowledged that Saddam's interfernce saved Damscus by all independent military analysts.

How would you explain Saddam's Scud Bs with which he supplied Egypt With just before 1973 to deter Israeli incursions into Egyptian inland?

How would you explain the Iraqia fighting sqaudroon on Sinai which were praised by Saad el-SHAZLY AND El-Gamasy???

How do you Explain his giving oil to Jordan in subsidised prioces.
How do you expalin what happened in 1989 when some of the Iranian-IRAQI SHITES STARTED TO KILL EGYPTIANS, THEN HE CAME OUT on TV AND SAID WHO LOVES sADDAM LOVES EGYPT AND EGYPTIANS!!!!!!!!!

Finally this Arab-Persian war proved very well the tremndous qualitative differences btween Arabs and Iranians.

Iraqis were outnumbered by 5:1


Iranians army was made of fantics who were brian washed by khomeini and promised heaven when dying fightiong Arabism. That was the shiite version of Al-QWueda style.


Israel and U.S were supplying weapons to Iraq who fighting with Old Egyptian and Russian weapons as well some modern French one......

Still irq eventually broke the back of Iran.


Americans had one interest which is checking the Iraqitremndous progress while on the mean time they didnt want Iran to win so as notcrreate ananti American oil rich Iranian gulf.

The war had to go on for eternity, whenever a side appeared to be winning they propmtly supported the other.

However, against all expectations Iraq turned the table upside down and provided Iran with the Ftal blow in 1982which forced the freak Khomeini to surrender as he stated that accepting sieze fire was like sipping poisin LOL.

There I get goose bumps whenever I remeber the Egyptian role especially in the planning of Al-Fao battle and supplýing Iraq with Egyptian missiles which ended up in massacring thousands of religously fantic extremist Iranian soldies who were occupying El-Fao.

Amre El-Abyad said...

Finally, regarding Iran and shiisim.

There is a terrible tension between Arab Iraqi shiite cleriks like Gawad Al-Khalsy and Hussien El-Moeyad and Hasani and IRANIAN ONES.

Those honest patriotic shiite cleriks accuse Iran of spreading blood and and playingon sectarian tensions to tear Iraq apart.


Yesterday THE eGYPTIAN AL-AHRAM NEWsPAER PUBLISHED A PLEAD SIGNED ABY A CONFIDERATION OF SHIITE, I REPEAT SHIITE ARAB CLANS IN THE SOUTH ASKING EGYPT, THE U.N AND ALL ARAB COUNTRIES TO INTERFERE BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE AS iRANIANS ARE PERSIANISNG THE SOUTH AND COMMITING TERIBLE CRIMES AND PORVOKATIONS AGAINST ALL ELEMNTS EOPPOSING Iranian presence in IRAQ.

I think those incidentS debunk very well the mythical link between Iran and Shiisim

Amre El-Abyad said...

Finally regarding Hiekal.

I think that Hiejkal despite of his great talent is not reliable sourc on many issues. He ofyern mixes perconal issues with public ones.

He hates any one with high ego. Since his own ego was inflated because of hi sinfluencial role on Nasser.

Also Hiekal didnt forgte the old rivaly between Baathists and Nasserites. Anyway, the stratigic interets of the ASrab ntion must go over all other considerations and diferences.

Also Hiekal was not welcome well by Saddam in 1982 because of his froiendly attidude towrds the terrorist, ignorant horrible freak anti Arab Khomeini

Amre El-Abyad said...

one last thing those exiled were not exiled because of being shiites instead, they were of Iranian origin. If you check your facts you will find that the borders between Iraq and the south is inhabited by people of mixed Iranian Iraqi origin. They openly declared thgeir support for Iran during the war. they had to be expelled because ofbeing Iranians not shiites.

Dont forget the 50% of Iraqi army which brought Iran down on its knees were shiites!


one more thing why did you over look the fact that Israel was the main supplier of arms to Iran. And that was a totally diferent deal from the American sales to iran in what came to be known as Iran contra:))

Finally, 90% of Iraqi equipmnt were Russian and french- while Iranian equipment were Israeli American Ruyssian and chinese.

I can't help wondering how would you venture to put those facts in the perspective of a legenadry presumed Iraqi American alliance.


Also you very strangely accuse a secualr modern state like Iraq of being sunni domiante one! that goes against all facts like for instance the fact that majority of Baathists were shiites. high rank officers were shiites:)


In th mean time you choose to overlook the fact that Iran is a weird stae ultra sectarian one where shiisim is mingled with Iranian nationalism, and where anti-arabism is one of the main consitutents of that ultra fanatic state.


One last thing, We have a golden chance to revivce collective Arab national cognition , if all Arabs interfere and teach Iran a lesson that would be the biggest blow to the neo-conservative project- which is targeting Arab identity of the middle east in the very first place.

The momentum of this alliance could very well be captialised and reoriented towards Israel later on.

Especially that Iran is more of an infalted baloon that can be crushed quit easily

That

Amre El-Abyad said...

Finally regarding that retarded freak Hasan Nasarallh. No one said that he sold out his country. I wonder how you manged to come out with this termionology!

Being a believer in welayit faqueeh and and a Pan shiite who believes in one shiite state domioanted by Iran and ruled from qum doesn mean that he considers himslef a traitor to Lebanon. That is an entirely different ketttle of fish! your use of language was meant to transfer a pre-disposition of yours.

Anyway, what occupied south are talking about!?!?. Israel withdrew in 2000! clearly the war was not an attack to liberate shabaa farms!

it was a provokation of Israel that incurred the destruction of lEBANON AND THE OCCUPATION OF THE SOUTH By INTERNATIONAL TROOPS.

What liberation are you talking about? it would have been like that if it was a planned attack on shaba farms. Als that wasn't the case. it was an invition for Israel to destroy Lebanon while Hisbollah pro Iran guerillas wereon the offensive.

Finally what about the sons o Saddam who died fighting Americans

what about Saddam who stood up and died like a lion.


Fianlly what good will are talking about with those criminal Iranians. Do you conmsider the killing the drilling and acidfication of Iraqis by Iranian quds brigade an issue to beside stepped for the sake of good relations ith the Iranian enemy?

That is a very bizarre perspective I have to say.

So is Iran helping the Arab cause by ethnically cleasnisng shiie and sunni Arabs in Iraq. Is Iran helping the SArab cause by forging identity ion basis of sect!!!

the de-Arabisation of the Iraqi south the killing of hundreds of thousanfds of Iraqis by Iranians and their deportation from the south speaks very well against all your arguments.

The Iranian crimes which everyone inclides Iranian acknowledge is no less horrendous and terrible than the Israeli ones in Paletine in 1948. That says it all

Dr. Eyad Harfoush said...

Dear Amre,

I know from the very begining, this is a dispute that will remain so between us, however, we will remain friends. Basically, because I like to look in roots whenever it fosters the present. You look in roots in a way that I see dangerous. Anglo-Germanic tribes were of similar root and language, but this did not prevent world war II to take place? Neither it supported the EU to prosper. We are all affected by historical movements I agree, but the most recent is the most remembered and effective.

By the way, this is not contextualized from Persian standpoint, it is my view, and I am not a Persian, I am Arabic too :)))

Dr. Eyad Harfoush said...

Now, you can never compare Qaida to Iranian WAR against Iraq. Terrorism is different from Frontal war.

Then, I did not deny starting from 1982, Iranians were the agressors, and kept so until liberation of Faw. This is true, but it was a payback of the initial agression. In this war, no sheeps were around.

Then, I know Iran is playing now in Iraq, also I know there is a secret dialouge with Americans on tit for tat basis. However, They are fighting against an enemy who previosuly defeated them. This is normal. needs no conspiracies to explain.

Again, I am Egyptian, but I do not say we brought Israel down on knees in 1973, we gave painful strategic defeat, but not a complete one. Same applies for Qadisyat Saddam.

It is not me who says that Nasrallah is a traitor. It is many anti-Hizbullah streams. Then, Israel withdrawn from south in 2001 because of the sole real resistance, that is Hizbullah. I visited lebanon before, lived the things there, so, I am more solid for my knowlege about south liberation more than any other thing related to Iraq.

Then again and again, Iranis are not freaks. Our war is not against them. It should be against FANATICISM, be it "Islam is the answer" of MBs, or "Clergy Leadership" of Khomini. The thing we can do for Iranians is we support the modest stream there. We should support secularism there and here. FANATICISM in all forms is the real enemy of all of us, Arabs and Iranis. I also know in person some Iranians, they are superb civilized and well educated men, only like a veeeery scanty elements inside Israel itself. However, we cannot live happy and have Israel live the same. Sadly it is an exsistece war. Unlike to Iran, they have their homeland, and so do us. Shall a real secular foundations be there in all Arab and Iran land? No more blood shall be shed.

War on ethnic and faith basis is stincky, it trapped europe for ages. Now, the road map is clear.

If your hatred is against Welayet el-faqih dear Amre, I am with you to the end of world. It is bad for the followers before it is bad for us. But against an entire nation. NO

Thank you for your valuable comments

Arabic ID said...

د/أياد
العزيز /عمرو
والله أنا مش عارف أقرا من الأنجليزى
ولكنى حاسس انكم أكثر من رائعين
تحياتى لكم انتوا الأثنين

تذكروا ان الكبر يضيع العلم
ومش لازم واحد يبقى غلطان فى كل حاجة
ومش لازم أنا أبقى صح فى كل حاجة
وفى الأصل كل واحد بيعرض وجهة نظره
أنا باقول كده وماريتش لا البوست كله ولا الردود ما بينكم كلها
لأنى الانجليزى والوقت مش مساعدنى
بس وعد أنى أقعد كده بتاع أسبوع أحاول أقرأ فيهم وأفهم

تحياتى ليكم انتوا الاتنين

Dr. Eyad Harfoush said...

الصديق الذي أعتز بصداقته Arabic ID

شكرا لك أخي العزيز على تحيتك و حرصك الرقيق على أن أحتفظ و الصديق عمرو بالود في الاختلاف ، و سنفعل ان شاء الله ، و انا لا انكر مثلا أن عمرو اخبر مني بالشأن العراقي و الايراني ، لكني هنا أتحدث عن مبدأين عامين ، الأول هو محاولة فهم موقف الاخر من خلال وضع ذاتي مكانه ، و الثاني هو توجيه طاقة الحب و الكراهية للمباديء و ليس الشعوب ، فعلينا أن نمقت الاستعمارية الصهيونية و نحاربها ، و ليس اليهود ، كما علينا أن نواجه ولاية الفقيه و نحاربها ، و لكن ليس الشعب الايراني ، فمن مثقفي ايران من يكرهها أيضا
تحياتي و تقديري

Dr. Eyad Harfoush said...

Dear Amre,
Important point about Haikal, the man is not biased to Nasserism, he is only committed to a stream he was one of his founding pillars. When Saddam meets a mega journalist like him unfavorably. Only because he disagrees to his views about Iranian Revolts. This stands against the image of Saddam not Haikal.

Amre El-Abyad said...

Dear Eyad,

I have just re-checked the details of the final battles in 1988 betwen Iraq and Egypt on the one side, and Iran on the other.

After the massive defeat and th slaying of hundreds of thousands of Iranian troops occupying El-Fao and Magnon Islands, Iraq reversed the tide and chased Iranis into Iran , within the course of the fighting Iran's entire armoured divisions melted away according to Anthony Cordseman. Iraq occupied the entire western part of Iran.

The Iraqi generals wanted to enter Tehran, however Saddam gave his troops orders to stop. It was a massive Iraqi victory, yet Iraq failed to capitalise on it politically, they could have got massive concessins from Iran. Unfortunately, Saddam was too merciful with the defeated Iranians.

Secondly, I want to know your say on the Ahwas Arabs. Do you know that the oil rich Abbadan province of Iran the eastern shore of the Arabian gulöf is inhabited by Arabs who are struggling fro independence from Iran. Gamal Abdel Nasser considered the Ahwas Arabs part of the Arab nation. Nasser's photos are to be found in Ahwas everywhere.

Do you know that the pan Islamist, supposedly non-nationalist state of Iran ban them from learniong Arabic , kill their community leaders and deport them by force while they build Persian settlemnts in ther regions. By the way, I forgot to tell you those Arabs are SHIITES NOT SUNNIS.

Another thing, I wonder if you know about the Azeri Turks who make up 25% of Iranian population , they live in th North of Iran. Now be prepared for this surprise, A war broke ut a few years ago between the chrstian Armenia and the shiite Azeribayjan, and guess what? Iran supported the christians afainst shiites so as not to empower the azeri monrity in Iran who don't consider themselves Persians and insist on speaking TURKISH as they resist the Turkofication policy.

Dr. Eyad Harfoush said...

Dear Amre,

Ok, Can we agree it is not genetic in Iranians to hate Arabs? They have a blessed homeland that accomodates them, and so we do. Right? Can we agree the disease lays in Welayet Faqih? That is not better or worse than other fanaticism streams that wants to control people to seed hatred in them and mobilize them as bloody tools for a very earthy glory. This is our real utmost threatining enemy in Iran as well as all the Islamic world.