Iran 2009 vs. Syria 2011

The mass demonstrations and protests in Iran after the allegedly forged presidential elections of June 2009 were on a much bigger scale than what happened in Syria after Macrh 2011.
Despite the participation of up to 3 Million people on some days in Tehran alone and despite the disproportional use of lethal violence by the security forces the „green revolution“ ebbed away after a few weeks.

There are several reasons why the protests did not turn into an armed rebellion but the main factors differentiating Irans „green revolution“ from the Syrian version of the „arab spring“ were the following:
– The protesters were not armed and nobody armed them in the process either. There were few casualties among the riot police and the Bassij militia but not as a result of systematic guerilla like violence
– The protesters were not instigated by outside powers to fight against an autocratic regime that was tyrannizing and killing them on sectarian (or ethnic) grounds
– There is a persian saying „The knife has not reached the bone (yet)“ which basically means that despite many social injustices, reprisals, persecutions, economic inequalities and mismanagement and the governments constant interference in peoples private life…still daily life was very much on an acceptable level

In Syria, however, from early on there were deadly ambushes on army and police leaving to the deaths of dozens of security personell in the very first weeks. It is factually completely untrue that the protests were nothing but peaceful for months.
The protests were „contaminated“ quite early with anti-regime accusations and complaints on religious grounds. The state was accused of applying injustice and violence against its opponents because of the latters religious affiliation.
This was by and large utter nonsense but it was meant to serve a well-planned purpose, namely to defame a secular (although autocratic) government as sectarian. Not only there are many Sunnis in the highest political, economic and military ranks of Syrias elite, Bashar al Assad and his brother are married to Sunni women and their paternal grandmother was also Sunni. Now, one could check how many Saudi, Bahraini, Qatari or other „Gulf“ princes and „notables“ are married to Shia women…

The intention behind Syrias portrayal as an allegedly anti-Sunni regime was clearly to incite sectarian sentiment and play the majority card:
a) „Alawite“ Syria is between Sunni countries or border areas with high Sunni presence (Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, western Iraq). This itself makes it totally inconceivable to accuse the Assad regime of having made the conflict sectarian
b) The western-friendly Arab petrodollar monarchies of the Persian Gulf are all ruled by Sunni Kings and Princes. They control the two most influential media networks of the Arab world: Al-Jazeera and l-Arabiyya
c) Hundreds of Millions of North African Arabs are Sunni allowing for a recruiting potential of tens of thousands of „Jihadists“ from among vast numbers of unemployed or socially weak youth. In fact it has turned out that the Jihad idea has attracted even central asian and european Sunnis

The question is whether there was a movement aiming at more reforms, freedoms, human rights and democracy that was hijacked quite quickly or whether this short-lived „secular“ revolution was on a too small scale to be considered a mass movement.
At any rate the power driving the Syrian insurgency is clearly militant Salafi islamism. The forces fighting are not even distantly moderate, academic or technocratic. Their motivation is establishing a (probably sectarian) religious state, not a civil democracy adhering to human rights:

„In fact, the only rebel factions still strong enough to resist and fight the regime on the latest fronts are the radical Islamists. The town of Azizeh, just outside the Marjeh area in the east, the strategically vital Sheikh Najjar industrial zone, the old city and Aleppo’s central prison are all defended by al-Qaeda’s affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, as well as Salafist militants Ahrar al-Sham, a member of the Islamic Front.“

Of course, the US, UK and France along with their Arab „partners“, Israel and Turkey still want to stick to the now grotesque narrative that Syrias war is between a hated, russian/iranian-held, sectarian minority regime and the majority of „it´s“ reform demanding, peaceful, secular, moderate, pro western, democracy minded…people.
So, no matter how much it turns that the „bad guys“ are not only ISIS and JN, but also the other Salafi Islamists who
– are either openly hailing Al Qaeda and its principles
– or closely cooperating with JN (and sometimes even ISIS) as Al Qaedas Syrian branch:
See also:



Israels Haaretz admits Israeli terrorism against Iran

So, finally Israeli press is admitting that Israel has been assassinating Iranian scientists for years, which is nothing short of (state) terrorism:

Of course, you won´t hear western press and even less western politicians admit these acts of terror, let alone condemn them.

Read also:
An important secondary insight of the terror revelations by Israeli sources themselves is that the Iranians were damn right when they were accusing Israel of terrorism for years. All the time their allegations were brushed off as either conspiracy theory or „propaganda“.

In case you did not know: Iran is sending money and fighters to Al Qaida to kill Shias in Syria

Is this supposed to be a joke?

„Today the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced the designation of a key Iran-based al-Qa’ida facilitator who supports al-Qa’ida’s vital facilitation network in Iran, that operates there with the knowledge of Iranian authorities.  The network also uses Iran as a transit point for moving funding and foreign fighters through Turkey to support al-Qa’ida-affiliated elements in Syria, including the al-Nusrah Front.“

Give me a break: Is the department really claiming that Iran is now sending funds and fighters to al-Qaida in Syria, including the Nusrah Front?
The claim is not only shameless, it is totally sick.
The Nusrah has publicly and more than once taken „credit“ for having targetted and killed Iranians and Shias in Syria. They have proudly burned Husseiniyas and shelled Shia mosques. They have beheaded prisoners of war after having accused them of being „Iranian dogs“ or „Shia infidels“.

No person with a single functioning brain cell does believe this garbage, unless one finds it plausible to claim that Iran is simultaneously supporting and fighting each of Syrias warring factions . Why? Because according to the US and many pro-rebel (mainly arab) sources Iran is behind Assad, Hizbullah and Iraqi Shia militias as well as their most deadly adversaries Nusra Front and ISIS.

Israels bombing of Latakia is for torpedoing Rouhani

„Israeli aircraft have carried out a strike near the Syrian coastal city of Latakia, a US official says.“

There is close to zero logic and military necessity in attacking defensive weapons of a neighboring country that is already stuck in a vicious and devastating civil war. The unprovoked attack on a country with which Israel is (at least officially) not at war does not become any more meaningful or legitimate even if we accept Israels claim that the destroyed weapons were supposed to be transferred to the lebanese Hezbollah.
Why is Israel so much concerned about the possible boost of the defensive capabilities of a militia in another neighboring country which has not violated a ceasefire that began 7 years ago?

Needles to object to Israels apparently unlimited „carte blanche“ to attack souvereign countries with impunity. This was the fifth or sixth such attack on Syria which Israel itself did not officially admit and which did not subject Israel to any criticism by the international mainstream media or by more or less unconditionally supportive western states. This is a disgraceful manifestation of blatant double standard. Just imagine Iran would attack a military airbase in Croatia to destroy weapons that were (allegedly or really) about to be shipped to Syrian rebels. Or Syria would attack a military convoy on the Turkish side of the border claiming it were carrying weapons for rebel fighters in Northern Syria. Nato would have declared war on Syria and each and every media outlet would have torn Assad apart.

The real motivation and purpose for Israels renewed attack on Syria is two-fold:
a) Provoke Syria to make the „mistake“ to retaliate, thus giving Israel and probably also Obama the pretext to unleash massive air raids on Syrian army positions and weaponry in order to help the rebels win a fight that they would not win otherwise in the short and mid term.
b) and this is much more important and relevant: „bomb“ Rouhani, his charm offensive and any perspective of US-Iranian rapprochment. Humiliating Syria and Assad once again is meant to provoke Iranian hardliners to undermine and defame Rouhanis peace initiative. Rouhani would be portrayed as a traitor and weak if he and Iran would ignore continuous unjustified attacks on Irans most important arab ally by the US´ most important anti-Iranian ally Israel.

The attack and also it´s time of occurrence – on the day the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said all Syria’s declared equipment for making chemical weapons had been destroyed – is no coincidence. Israel is the true and most active systematic „destabilizer“ of the Middle East and currently Israels number one priority is to achieve Rouhanis failure.

Maliki must be nuts if…

really avoids iranian weapons from reaching the syrian army.

How brazen and stupid is the american foreign policy, especially in person of John Kerry?

They keep demanding the Iraqi authorities to do everything to stop the Iranians from arming the syrian army. But why the hell should the Iraqis do that when the Syrians are fighting the same salafist/jihadist criminals who have killed thousands of (predominantly Shiite) Iraqis?

“The weapons provided to those killers in Syria have been smuggled to Iraq and those wolves that came from different countries to Syria are now sneaking into Iraq,” he [Maliki] said during a youth gathering.

A response to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawis latest hate speech against Iran

1. The Sheikh says that Iran and Hezbollah want „to exterminate Sunnis“. About Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollahs leader he says: „The leader of the Party of Satan comes to fight the Sunnis… Now we know what the Iranians want… They want continued massacres to kill Sunnis,“

a) 60% of the Syrian Army are Sunnis. If they would consider Hezbollahs motivation as „extermination of Sunnis“ they would either join the rebels or leave the battlefield
b) Hezbollah has never been a sectarian anti-Sunni movement in Lebanon and has always had coalition and political alliances with different Sunni lebanese factions
c) If Hezbollah was interested in „exterminating“ Sunnis, they would not go to Qusair and lose dozens of men. Instead they would attack Lebanons Sunni civilian population
d) Neither is Iran interested in „exterminating“ the Sunnis. If so, Iran would attack its own Sunni population in Iranian Kurdistan, Khorasan or Baluchestan
e) Not a single Iranian or Hezbollah official has ever attacked the syrian rebels for being Sunnis. Never were the rebels called „Sunni unbelievers“, „Sunni apostates“ or „Sunni traitors“
f) For many years Iran (and Assads Syria) supported the Sunni Hamas. Iran also supported the mainly Sunni afghan Northern Alliance of General Massoud against the Taliban
g) In the syrian civil war, the rebels and their wahhabi gulf-arab sponsors have clearly been the side that has acted and spoken sectarian anti-Alawi and anti-Shia. Assad and the syrian regime not once used the word „Sunni“ to characterize or „denounce“ the rebels
h) Unlike the prostitute-like character of the Hamas who turned the back on Assad after being hosted and protected by his regime for many years, Hezbollah has proven to be loyal to the syrian regime. Hezbollahs motivation to fight in Syria is not to „exterminate Sunnis“ but to secure their own supply lines from Syria to Lebanon AND to help the only arab regime that shares a border with Lebanon and supports Hezbollah.

2. The Sheikh asks „How could 100 million Shiites (worldwide) defeat 1.7 billion (Sunnis)?“

a) Only in the Sheikhs twisted phantasy the worlds Shia are fighting (and defeating!) the wordls Sunnis. The broad majority of Shias and Sunnis have either no contact or live peaceful together
b) Where there are continuous sectarian killings it is either totally one-sided against the Shia like in Pakistan or it is the Shia who have lost much more people through attacks on pilgrims or bombings of market places, mosques and even funerals in Iraq where they even constitute the majority of the people

3. The Sheikh called Alawites „more infidel than Christians and Jews“

Now this statement is really bewildering and embarassing for the Sheikh. Since when are Christians and Jews considered „Infidels“ in Islam? The Quran calls these communities „People of the book“ and considers them in general as „believers“

Warum der „Annan-Plan“ scheiterte: Die inoffizielle Begründung

Folgt man der Berichterstattung der meisten „Mainstream-Medien“ (inklusive der öffentlich-rechtlichen „Quellen“), so scheiterte Kofi Annans 6-Punkte Plan zur Befriedung Syriens fast gänzlich an der syrischen Regierung.

Es gibt aber andere, abweichende Fakten, die man aber offenbar gerne ausklammert:

  • Wie inzwischen bekannt ist hat Obama in etwa zeitgleich mit dem Start von Kofi Annans Initiative „heimlich“ grünes Licht für die Unterstützung der syrischen Rebellen (FSA) gegeben:
    >>> As Reuters reported, President Obama signed a secret order earlier this year—this is, when the U.S. was publicly playing lip service to the Annan peace plan—which permits the “C.I.A. and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.” <<<
  • Saudi Arabien und Katar sabotierten Annans Plan schon sehr früh, als sie völlig unverhohlen Millionen an USD als „Sold“ (bzw. Lockmittel für syrische „Wackelkandidaten“) sowie zum Kauf von Waffen den syrischen Rebellen bereitzustellen begannen:
    Lediglich eines von offenbar fünf Schiffsladungen an Waffen für die Rebellen wurde vorzeitig entdeckt und (von der libanesischen Marine) beschlagnahmt:
  • Die Regierungen der Syrien umfassenden Länder (Türkei, Libanon, Jordanien und Irak) waren weitestgehend entweder nicht in der Lage oder nicht gewillt zu verhindern, dass Waffen von ihren Ländern aus nach Syrein eingeschleust werden und (oft nicht-syrische) Kämpfer ihre Grenzgebiete als Plattform für Angriffe auf syrische Streitkräfte und Polizisten sowie als Rückzugsort für anschliessende Fluchtaktionen missbrauchten
  • Kein einziger Punkt im Annan-Plan sah Sanktionen oder sonstige „Strafmassnahmen“ für die Rebellen oder ihre ausländischen Unterstützer vor
  • Das Zurückziehen schwerer Waffen durch die syrische Armee bedeutete, dass (zurück)eroberte Vorposten der Armee in der Nähe von Rebellenhochburgen leichte Beute für die FSA würden, deren mit mittelschweren Waffen (u.a. RPG-Panzerfäuste) ausgestattete Kämpfer speziell in ländlichen Gebieten einerseits deutlich in der Überzahl waren (sind) und andererseits sich aufgrund ihres „zivilen“ Äusseren unauffällig den in der Regel von wenigen wenigen Soldaten bewachten Checkpoints nähern konnten. Dieser erste Punkt des Annan-Plans war – wenn auch eventuell ungewollt – faktisch eine eindeutige Parteinahme für und militärische Bevorteilung der Rebellen. Welcher Logik folgend muss eine sich im Bürgerkrieg befindende Armee, die einer Vielzahl gut bewaffneter Rebellen gegenüber steht, auf ihre besten Trümpfe verzichten? In zig „Erfolgsvideos“ der Rebellen auf Youtube sieht man, wie Kämpfer von Dächern und Fenstern von Wohnhäusern und sonstigen zivilen Gebäuden Panzer und Truppentransporter des Regimes sprengen. Sollte aber ein Panzer oder ein Hubschrauber des Regimes solche Rebellenstellungen beschiessen hiesse es sofort „Assad lässt Wohnviertel bombardieren“. Dass eine Vielzahl der als „Zivilisten“ deklarierten Opfer FSA-Kämpfer sind ist bekannt:
    >>> Every day the opposition gives a death toll, usually without any explanation of the cause of the deaths. Many of those reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters, but the cause of their death is hidden and they are described in reports as innocent civilians killed by security forces, as if they were all merely protesting or sitting in their homes. Of course, those deaths still happen regularly as well. <<<
  • Wie zu erwarten war waren es die Rebellen, die von den wenigen Tagen als der Annan-Plan zumindest teilweise befolgt wurde profitierten:
    >>> The UN monitoring team says that during the ceasefire „the level of offensive military operations by the government significantly decreased“ while there has been „an increase in militant attacks and targeted killings“. <<<
  • Die Rebellen aber auch grosse Kreise der sie unterstützenden westlichen und „golfmonarchischen“ Politiker und Medien mockierten vom ersten Tag den Annan-Plan, dessen Scheitern sie im Voraus fast schon schadenfroh verkündeten. Ein Rebellensprecher ging sogar so weit zu sagen, man fühle sich an keinerlei Absprachen mit dem syrischen Regime mehr gebunden, da man das Regime nicht für legtimen Vertreter des syrischen Volkes halte.
    Darauf lässt sich entgegnen, dass die Umstände der Machterlangung und des Machterhalts der herrschenden Baathpartei gewiss nicht modernen, demokratischen Massstäben entsprechen. Sind denn aber die Rebellen in irgendeiner Weise legitimerer Vertreter des syrischen Volkes? Haben sie eine eindeutige politische oder militärische Führung bzw. eine klar definierte parteipolitische Agenda? Haben sie sich denn irgendwann irgendwo zur Wahl gestellt und demokratisch legitimieren lassen?Solch arrogantes Gabaren der vermeintlich unterlegenen und unterdrückten Seite zeugt von einer eindeutig selbstbewussten, wenig kompromissbereiten Haltung einer Konfliktpartei, die über wesentliche finanzielle und materiell-logistische Unterstützer bzw. Drahtzieher verfügt, die ihr in keinster Weise grünes Licht für Verhandlungen geben. Einigung ist in diesem Szenario offenbar nicht vorgesehen.

Diese einseitige und selbstgerechte Beschuldigungsberichterstattung ist bekannt: Die Kriege gegen den Irak in 1991 und 2003 waren angeblich einzig die Folge der sturen und unkooperativen Haltung Saddam Husseins. Grundsätzlich ist in jedem Konflikt der letzten Jahrzehnte der meistens bereits im Vorfeld ausgemachte und deklarierte Feind des „Westens“ (und seiner lokalen Sympathisanten) ausschliesslich „schlecht“ und an allem üblen schuld:

  1. Im Irak-Iran-Krieg wurden die Iraner als die „bad boys“ porträtiert, obwohl die Iraker den Krieg begannen und später auch chemische Waffen einsetzten.
  2. Den selben Irakern blieb aber nach 1988 (dem Ende des Kriegs mit Iran) nur noch die Rolle des „Schurkenstaats“. Plötzlich wurden bestimmte Worte und Phrasen dauernd gegen den Irak verwendet: „Terror“, „Gräueltat“, „Provokation“…