Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Lessons of the Georgian Conflict to Iran's Separatists

If there is one thing to learn from the recent Russain invasion of Georgia, the carnage, the misery and the large number of civilian lives lost as a result, is that you can not be a small independent nation of a few million, live near the ruthless expansionist Russian bear and not suffer from the misfortunes of this proximity with this forever despotic state.

Don't even think about the "anti-war" groups marching in the streets of Europe in support of your plight, for these active groups only disguise their true agenda under their "anti-war" slogans. Does anyone remember any marches or street protests in Europe when the Chechens got slaughtered by the Russians and when the Chechen towns were flattened?

Similarly don't think about the US or the EU states standing up for you. They will think about their own interests and pros and cons as you would naturally expect them to. The only way to stand up to the brutal expansionist Russia is to remain a strong, united and large nation. Only a Greater Iran will be able to stand up to Russia, our historic enemy. Our historic and cultural ties will bind us together and our differences will enrich us further.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

Most of these "anti-war£" groups as you rightly say have a hidden agenda. In fact most of them advocate a violent revolution, so who are they kidding when they shed croccodile tears for the loss of civilian lives?

Anonymous said...

Did Georgia itself secede?

Azarmehr said...

Georgia was a part of Iranian territory which was annexed by the Russians in the 19th century. My own ancestory from my mother's side were Iranians living in Tiblisi who could not bear to live under the Russian rule and moved south to Iran. Many Georgian first names are still Persian names, like Merab, Zurab(Sohrab), Batcha (child), Medea, Varas, Peroz.
See also the influence of Iranian language in Georgian:
http://www.cais-soas.com/cais/Culture/iranian_elements_georgian.htm

Shah Abbas I, the Iranian Safavid king was half Georgian. Many of the high ranking officers in teh Iranian army were Georgians like Rostam Khan and Gorgin Khan and the Undiladze, who defeated the Portuguese army in the Persian Gulf. Those of Georgian decent played an important part in the Iranian military throughout. Genral Bahram Aryana under the last Shah was of Georgian origin. Iranian poet, Nima Yooshij was also of Georgian decent etc.

Of course Georgia has its own culture and identity too and I don't proclaim it to be ruled directly from Tehran, but I do believe a formation of something similar to EU amongst those nations in the region with Iranian heritage and links to be for the benefit of all. Its a long term goal but I believe such a union makes economic sense and will make us stronger to stand up to the Russian threat.

Anonymous said...

"I do believe a formation of something similar to EU amongst those nations in the region with Iranian heritage and links to be for the benefit of all"

Please, no! The EU is wasteful bureaucracy that centralises power in an elitist Council of Ministers and the Commission, which puts the interests of smaller states secondary to the interests of a few large states. Perhaps a mutual defence pact or something similar, but not some misguided attempt to recreate an empire modelled on the EU. Anyway, Georgia - culturally (it is the oldest Christian country and has the cross of St George as its flag) and politically - looks to the US and Europe, not further south.

Hanif Leylabi said...

Ha! The hypocrisy is unbelievable! You attack 'expansionist' Russia but then call for a 'Greater Iran.' You really think the people of the caucuses feel somehow Iranian?

Maybe we should have a united Shia Khalifa since Arabs had a huge impact on Iranian culture and language. Many Iranians even have Arab first names you know...

And the StWC actually is having a public meeting about the crisis and it has taken up about 5 pages (including front) of this weeks Socialist Worker http:://www.socialistworker.co.uk

Azarmehr said...

Whether you like it or not a greater Iran exists. Just go to Tajikistan and see for yourself how enthusiastic they are about being Iranians. If only there had been no Islamic Republic. In fact a friend of mine who attended the bi-annual celeberation of Iranian nations in Dushanbeh told me that he was told the Tajik president said to Hadad Adel, why don't you call your country Palestine so we can call Tajikisan, Iran!

I bet the bombed Georgian civilians are delighted you are having a meeting after the ceasefire :))

Go and worry about all the shit you put pn your ridiculous post aabout Teleghani's eye lids :)))))

Winston said...

the morons in anti-war groups and ignorant separatists will never learn any thing.

Hanif Leylabi said...

Since when was Tajikistan in the caucuses? fool

Arash said...

Hanif,

"Ha! The hypocrisy is unbelievable! You attack 'expansionist' Russia but then call for a 'Greater Iran.' You really think the people of the caucuses feel somehow Iranian?"

Hanif, you are mistaken. People of the Caucasus are culturally, historically and genetically linked to Iranians. Zartosht himself is said to have been born in and/or around 'Aryanem Vaejo' [middle Persian] which is referred to Azarbaijan/Armenia/Georgia and also Tajikistan/Khorasan and Uzbekistan areas.

Many Iranians have links to the above ethno groups. As an example, my grandfather (on mother's side) moved down to ‘Iran-proper’ in early 20th century, round about the same time as the Russian revolution, and settled in Lorestan.

A greater Iran cannot be compared to the EU which is void of any singular or central culture or Russian expansionism which has nothing to do with Georgia and everything to do with NATO’s proposed expansion into former Soviet territories. Russia doesn’t like Sakaashvili’s pro western inclinations and Georgia’s progressive new agenda and you are an idiot!

Azarmehr said...

I was talking about Greater Iran in general you arsehole.

Even in Caucuses, the people in Republic of Azerbijanwere and Nakhchevan were more keen on restoring their ties with Iran first but IRI sent them their mullahs to recite the Quran and the Turks sent their singers and entertainers! Even so the repressed Talish minority in the Republic of Azerbijan still feel closer to Iran. The Ossetians also still refer to themselves as Iroonis. Generally wherever the people celeberate Nowruz and think of Shahnameh as their own you will still find the bond with the mother Iran and thats the common denominator between the people of Greater Iran.

Hanif Leylabi said...

Arash - Genetic similarities? So fuck? People from my area have genetic and linguistic similarities with Danes, would a greater Viking Denmark be a reasonable idea? Iranians have genetic/cultural and religious ties with Arabs. Does that mean anything important?

Potkin - Yes but you compared Tajikistan with the caucuses. A crap comparison because Tajiks speak Persian (an obvious unifying factor) where as people in the caucuses do not.

Many Turks celebrate Noruz as do mayb 25 million non Iranian Kurds. I'm sure they do not feel part of your greater Iran.

Hanif Leylabi said...

And the half of Georgie which was under Persian control achieved independence in the mid 18th century actually.

Azarmehr said...

No one said Georgia should not be independent or become part of Iran, but our historic and cultural ties will make us good political and economic partners in a union like the European Union, and it will protect us ALL against the Russian dreams of reaching the warm waters.

Kurds are differnet however. Whats the difference between us and the Kurds? slightly different dialect? In fact I have met many Kurdish people who always tell me 'You won't get more Iranian than us' and they are correct. There may be some uneducated Kurds who have forgotten or were never told about their roots with the mother Iran. Many Kurds in Turkey have mostly even forgotten to speak Kurdish, but I am sure when they are explained what Nowruz is and what it is about, they will realise that we are all but one nation with the common culture and outlook on life as that of Zoroaster, whether Medes, Persians or Parthians, there is an eternal fire that unites us all in our celeberations and customs. Thats why we all also celeberate Chaharshanbeh Souri.

None of these guys:

http://azarmehr.blogspot.com/2008/02/they-are-safe-at-last.html

except Pejman Piran, who were thrown out of Turkey into the Kurdish Controlled region of Iraq were Iranian Kurds, yet within a few weeks they understood and learned Kurdish and got on like brothers with the locals and vice versa.

These borders today are just artifical borders drawn by the British after the war without any justification. Many of these countries in the region did not even exist and are creations of the British desires to divide and rule and as usual, you and your childish ideas do a good job as a tool for those British imperialists who drew up these artificial borders.

In fact you have given me an idea for my next post. Perhaps I should explain how the British manipulated the Communists in Iran to weaken the popular support for Mossadegh. Someone you try to jump on the bandwagon of but know very little about.

How are you getting on with research on Taleghani's eye lids? :)))

Hidden Author said...

Oh yes! A Greater Iran would be just great! Would this include Armenia? I mean, shit, the Armenians had a fabulous time with Muslims, whether it was the Shah deporting them to Isfahan or the Young Turks committing genocide. And of course, secular nationalism merely transformed religious differences into racial differences, whether it was the Jews in Europe or the Armenians unfortunate enough to be under Ataturk.

Georgia may seek Western aid to lord over South Ossetia, et. al. (If Georgia can secede from the Soviet Union, then why can't South Ossetia secede from Georgia?) But Armenia would rather hang with the Russians, at least they have a Christian heritage. Even under Communism, it was the Soviet zone of Armenia that retained its Armenian population--and so it was able to later form the independent republic in the '90s.

Hidden Author said...

Oh and one more thing. You said that after independence Azerbaijan sought to build ties with Iran. If the two united as part of a Greater Iran, would Tehran aid Baku in asserting its claim to Nagorno-Karabagh?

Anonymous said...

I think the Ottoman Turks had a large role in determining the borders of Iran through border treaties. Blaming the British and Arabs for everything wrong in Iran and harking back to some Sassanid golden age is just nationalist mumbo jumbo. Iranians love to be victims and that is their weakness, because it is so disempowering to think that your country's problems are all to do with foreigners and that the nation's destiny is out of its hands, subject to some conspiracy.

Azarmehr said...

Hidden AUthor,

I think like our Trotskist friend, you have misunderstood what Greater Iran is and what an economic union is.

Also your historic facts are wrong? Which Shah deported Armenians to Isfahan? Are you talking about the Safavid kings 400 years ago, who ENCOURAGED the Armenians to settle in Jolfa near Isfahan? In the whole 400 years, Armenians have been in Iran, they have got on well with the rest of Iranians and Iranian Armenians consider themselves as Iranian as anyone else in Iran. Even now despite the Islamic Republic, Iran is Armenia's ally and they enjoy a peaceful co-existence in all parts of Iran. But just read some of the Azeri separatist literature and you will see the ethnic pogroms that they are planning ahead.

Azarmehr said...

anon,

some of what you say is true and some isn't. You are right to say 'Blaming the British and Arabs for EVERYTHING wrong in Iran and harking back to some Sassanid golden age is just nationalist mumbo jumbo' Of course we have to move on. Britain now is not the same Britain as in the 19th century and of course we should realise that our destiny is in our own hands. Yet you can not deny, for example, that Afghanistan's cesation from Iran was down to the British and Afghanistan by the way is a good example how devastating cessation from Iran can be, even this 8 year old realises that:

http://azarmehr.blogspot.com/2006/05/amazing-8-year-old-ariana.html

This post however does not say anything about the Sassanid Golden Age, instead it highlights the weakness of small states against the Russian expansionists and how an ECONOMIC union and a MILITARY PACT between all these countries with a future secular democratic Iran because of our common cultural and historic ties can strengthen ALL of us against the Russian threat.

If you do accept there is alaways an unhealthy desire for expansion by the Russians, then what would you suggest? How do these small nations stand up to the Rusian bear?

Anonymous said...

Afghanistan is as much of Iran as Ghana is of Britain. The British did not support Afghani "cessession", all or large parts of it had been autonomous or independent for centuries, eg the Kushans and Nadir Shah. The British were only involved in the 19th century, long after Iranian influence had waned. Afghanistan's problems are largely related to the dominance of local tribal leaders who have never been fully under the control of a central government. This was been exploited by Pakistan under American patronage, with the creation of the Mujahideen and from that the Taliban. It's little to do with Afghani "cessession" from Iran.

In relation to the Ottomans, I had in mind the treaties governing the western borders, eg the Shatt al-Arab. These were negotiated between the Turks and Persians. Again, the British were very late on the scene and by the fall of the Ottomans, the Pahlavi dynasty was regarded as an ally.

The problem in the Caucasus is that there are a plethora of small-scale ethnic disputes: Ngorno-Karabakh, Chechnya, Abkhazia, etc. All governments are involved in each other's territorial problems, with Turkey also in the mix. I don't see how a defence pact would work unless these disputes were settled. It's a laudable aim, but does not fit into the realities on the ground. It would be good for the Caucasus to form its own political and economic union in which territorial integrity was respected but with significant devolved power. This would also be a good model for Iran. I don't believe that strength comes from a heavily centralised state, but one that is devolved so that separatism becomes irrelevant.

Hanif Leylabi said...

Potkin - Why are you trying to make things up! Kermanshahi Kurdish or even Gorani may be very similar to Farsi (but only the former being mutually intelligble with Farsi) but to describe Sorani and Kurmanji as a dialect of Farsi is ridiculous.

Azarmehr said...

Anon,

How can you say the British had nothing to do with the creation of Afghanistan? In 1856 Britain prevented Iran from reasserting control over Herat, which had been part of Iran. Britain helped create Afghanistan in order to extend eastward the buffer between its Indian territories and Russia's expanding empire.

I will guarantee you that a future secular propserous Iran will be like a magnet for all these countries to affiliate themselves with a greater Iran. That does not mean they will be ruled from Tehran but all these people will feel part of the Iranian heritage and culture, as the educated ones already do.

Azarmehr said...

Hanif,

You are a linguistic expert now??

Just tell me what these basic words are in all these different dialects:

- day
- Good Day
- Thank You
- Name
- brother
- Fire
- moon
- good
- new
- old
- eye
- white
- horse
- water
- swim/swimmer
- snow
- rain
- sky
- star
etc.

Sorani spoken in the Iraqi Kurdistan has had much Arabic influence over the years, words which would not be understood by Sorani speaking Kurds in Iran, but it can all be picked up very quickly. Its also very easy for all Kurds to pick up Persian.

Anonymous said...

Hanif the Kassif the collaborator can't speak Persian yet he is a linguistic expert on Kurdish!

Anonymous said...

Hanif the Kassif the collaborator can't speak Persian yet he is a linguistic expert on Kurdish!

Anonymous said...

Hanif is a Communist. Being a Communist is not so different from being a Nazi. They all murdered innocent people and they all did commit crimes against humanity. hanif is a low life traitor

Winston said...

People like this moron Hanif the Commie should be ashamed of themselves for defending murderers of the world.

Nadir said...

SWPs new slogan:

'Useful Idiots of the World Unite! You have nothing to lose, You are lost any way'

Hanif Leylabi said...

Italian and Spanish are both Romance languages, with many similar vocabulary, but would you call Spanish a dialect of Italian?

I don't have to be a linguistic expert to know that Kurdish and Farsi are not mutually understandable. It's not like Azeri and Turkish or Dari and Farsi.

Hanif the Kassif, has a nice wring to it. And I am utter filth aren't I?

And I'm not sure which murderes you're referring to but I think you'll find revolutionary socialists of my tradition have opposed Stalin , Mao etc for over 50 years.

Azarmehr said...

First of all your arguments are very similar to a Stalinist. They too would have quoted some statistics comparing the advancements made in Russia after Stalin compared to that of 3 decades ago under the Tsar. I am sure the unemployemen figures and literacy figures and vaccination figures etc. improved under Stalin compared to that of three decades prior to Stalin.

Secondly, ok so you are a Trotskyst and a Leninist. How is that any better? Stalinism was not a distortion of Leninism. In the months after October seizure of power by the Bolsheviks, the two were side by side on all issues. Lenin promoted Stalin wherever possible. Read Lenin's personal orders for the frenzied blood letting in Richard Pipe's Unknown Lenin.

From Lenin himself to the SR Isaak Shteinberg who acused Lenin od social annihilation :
'thats exactly how its going to be'
Lenin's handwritten notes demanded shooting, killing and hanging of those who stood in the way of the revolution.
'how can you make a revolution without firing squads?' Lenin asked.
and lets not forget that it was by Lenin's orders that the tsar's children were murdered!!What kind of a human being orders innocent children to be shot in cold blood??

Hanif Leylabi said...

Only a utopian believes that the bourgeoisie would give up their wealth without a fight. You either fight for a fairer society or you allow the exploitation to continue.

In his last letters before he died Lenin explicitly warned against allow Stalin power in the Party. Stalin also set about destroying much of what Lenin and the Bolsheviks had achieved, including massive attacks on national minorities (particularly the deportations) 'socialism in one country,' the popular front etc.

I believe homosexuality and abortion were also outlawed in Stalin's period a clear contradition of earlier Leninist policy.

There is no argument for saying Lenin and Stalin were political bedfellows since their policies were manifestly different.

Of course there were executions and bloodshed. But what do you expect?

Azarmehr said...

How does killing the children of the Tsar, one of them a haemophiliac achiever a fairer society???

Who decides killing who achieves a fairer society?? Who has the legitimacy in the name of fairer society to kill others?

This is exactly teh same argument as the Islamists in Iran. All the killings were done to achieve God's will on earth but those who had appointed themselves as God's representatives on earth.

Anonymous said...

Wow.... what a bunch of nonsensical, ethnocentric, ideologically immature, ill-informed garbage - from Hanif to Winston. Koshkeh meefameedeen cheghat nemeefahmeen.

Tisk tisk....

Anonymous said...

Dude, I totaly disagree with what u said about Tajiks. First of all Tajik people are not at all enthusiastic about being Iranian coz we are not Iranians!!! We say we are Persians but Persia does not mean Iran! I Would advise you to check out Wikipedia from time to time. Would be very helpful.