• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Iran Moves Into Afghanistan

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
24
Points
380
I looks like Iran is trying to influence surrounding countries by more than subversive aid.


Iran Moves Into Afghanistan
Article Link

It seems I wasn’t entirely off my rocker in seeing Iran advance into Afghanistan over the next 15 years:
The rise of Hezbollah, with Iran’s support, has demonstrated the extent of Tehran’s sway in Lebanon, and the American toppling of Saddam Hussein has allowed it to expand its influence in Iraq. Iran has been making inroads into Afghanistan, as well. During the tumultuous 1980s and ’90s, Iran shipped money and arms to groups fighting first the Soviet occupation and later the Taliban government. But since the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban in 2001, Iran has taken advantage of the central government’s weakness to pursue a more nuanced strategy: part reconstruction, part education and part propaganda.
Iran has distributed its largess, more than $200 million in all, mostly here in the west but also in the capital, Kabul. It has set up border posts against the heroin trade, and next year will begin work on new road and construction projects and a rail line linking the countries. In Kabul, its projects include a new medical center and a water testing laboratory.
Ambassador Bahrami is correct in saying Iran has a legitimate security concern in making sure Afghanistan is stable… to say nothing of their probable nervousness at beefed up U.S. military forces on either side should things get too bad in both countries.
It would appear Iran is finally feeling in a position to flex its muscles as the returning regional power, given its activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan—a side effect of being a nuclear nuisance. Those activities include making things as difficult as possible for the American troops. This is unfortunate, as Iran and the U.S. actually cooperated in the initial campaign against the Taliban in late 2001. After Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech, the Iranians backed off from their general offer of support and focused instead on securing their position within Herat province.
It has other implications as well. Rather than applying to work somewhere like Europe or the U.S., hundreds of thousands of Afghani citizens are applying for work visas in Iran each year. Despite the probable security concerns five years down the line, Iran certainly seems to have an easier time of PR than the U.S. does, which bodes poorly for the future of our efforts there. For the moment, the U.S. and NATO have a narrow margin in good vibes; this is unlikely to last, however, with Musharraf’s reckless border campaigns and continued low levels of “nation building” personnel
End
 
Iran certainly seems to have an easier time of PR than the U.S. does, which bodes poorly for the future of our efforts there.

The reason obviously is that Iran can control its news media and get the story they want even if they have to create the story. Having a news media in the west that seems to be philosophically inclined toward the islamists is a major disadvantage for us. At some point even the gullible public will wise up and tune out the MSM. We already see some of this in the US with subscriptions to major newspapers dropping and with cable news viewership dropping. The AP has been caught either creating stories out of thin air and regurgitating islasmist propaganda. The media only hurt their own credibility with the public.

One thing that does help us is the mistrust of Afghans toward Iran's mullahocracy. They will not quickly return to the path of rule by clerics after casting off the taliban.
 
I believe that the role of Iran in Afghanistan is actually a step in the right direction.  I believe strongly in regional partners contributing to regional problems, Iran has a cultural, lingual and historical closeness to Afghanistan and under the right conditions it could help contribute to the rebuilding of Afghanistan and more than anyone Iran has only to gain from a strong and stable Afghanistan.

 
 
Salam,

With the greatest of respect, have Iran get rid of the current bunch of people running that country, then perhaps I might be more willing to accept that something that Iran does is beneficial to anybody other than Ahmadinejad and the 12th Imam.  In the meantime I don't think that ANYTHING that Iran does or proposes is worthy of consideration.  Those borders ought to be sealed and the entire country put under siege if we don't have the strength to take out separate the leaders from the followers.

I particularly don't think that Iran's current leadership should be given any legitimacy when it comes to their desire to play regional power games.  Once they learn to play nice with the rest of the kids in the playground then they can come out for recess.  In the meantime they need detention.
 
salam said:
I believe that the role of Iran in Afghanistan is actually a step in the right direction.  I believe strongly in regional partners contributing to regional problems, Iran has a cultural, lingual and historical closeness to Afghanistan and under the right conditions it could help contribute to the rebuilding of Afghanistan and more than anyone Iran has only to gain from a strong and stable Afghanistan.

 

Really. 

What are these right conditions?

Don't you find it ironic that Iran wants to help in a country that is considered to be a puppet government of the USA?

I'm having trouble trying to make the points I want to say... brain fart.. So I'll summarize

Iran helping in Afghanistan to me smacks in the face of America.  Anything Iran can do to make America look bad
or to take down the American Economy they will do (i.e. selling their oil in Euro's instead of US dollars as the world standard is).
This is a political ploy that does Iran good..  no one else.
 
Okay, well can I firstly say that I am a very strong critic of the current regime in Iran, I believe that there are some truly deplorable human rights violations that occur there everyday and I will continue to press for social/political change in Iran while respecting that it is in the hands of Iranians to bring about this change within their own country. 

Touching on your comment about sealing their boarders and putting the entire country under seige to remove the democratically (not without fault, as in Western countries as well) elected government and replacing them with someone that the world could stomach better...I could not disagree more.  Isolating and demonizing regimes only works to farther understanding and co-operation, and in terms of dealing with Iran I would favour Russia, France and China's model any day over that of the US. 
 
              MODERATOR WARNING


KEEP ANY REPLIES CLEAN, FOLKS
 
Reply to Trinity:

To understand what I am saying you first need to step away from the "Its us against them" "East against West" way of thinking.

It is true that the current Afghan govenment is seen as the puppet of the US, but that government will not be around forever but Afghanistan will always be Iran's neighbor, you have to think ahead.

I think that by pulling Iran into the affairs of its own boarders you force it to deal with the reality of the situation. In other words it is so easy to talk about the job of the Americans in Afghanistan and how they are corruptors..blah blah blah..but make them join in the work and they will have no one to point at but themselves...I may be speaking idealy, but I am talking about the advancement of our sociaety and the way in which we deal with things.  
 
salam,

If Iran really wished to demonstrate it's newfound feelings of goodwill and philanthropy, it could do so by;
- assisting the US in capturing criminals who regularly pass through the Iran/Iraq border,
- by allowing IAEA inspections of it's purpotedly peaceful nuclear program,
- by ceasing to demand that a certain nation be "wiped from the face of the earth",
- by ceasing it's agitating in Lebanon - the list goes on.

No, Iran's "help" in Afghanistan is beneficial to only one country - Iran. This help is little more than a thumb in the eye of the Americans and their allies (including us) who have done all of the "heavy lifting".

Your assertations as to "advancing our society, and the way we deal with things" rings especially hollow with the way the Iranian government presently "deals with" bothersome reporters and opposition party members who oppose them. Part of a free society is that everyone has the right to express their views - and not be killed for it.

 
To all:  first let me say that I am hear to partake in healthy discussion and look forward to sharing ideas between each other, I am not hear to change views or claim to have the best and only one.

GO:

Okay, yes good points, and stuff that I do not necessarily disagree on, however:
-helping the US capturing criminals, it should go without saying, but then how would that fair for its Axis of Evil image??? I believe that both sides need to take steps forward.
-Calling for the destruction of any modern state is deplorable...I am a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause and I can be the first to say that Ahmadenijad is not helping ANYONE with this.  There are far more constructive ways to be a critic of the Israeli/Palestinian issue.  But then that wouldn't make the news would it?? Much like that axis of evil thing said by somone...
-I would like you to clarify on your point in Lebanon, yes Hezbollah has obvious ties to Iran, but as a modern entity whose discourse is supported by many Lebanese, and whose objectives are internal to the Lebanese state, it has little to do with Iran.

I am not at all suggesting that Iran's involvement in Afghanistan is a betterment to what our soldiers are presently doing in the country.  I am talking of the inclusion of regional powers in regional conflicts, but not at the exclusion of the work and sacrifice that is being done by other powers (being us).

Lastly your last line has me all confused. Please refer my post above when I object to the opressive actions of the Iranian regime and I do not at all think that my call for moving forward as a society rings in connection to that.
 
 
It would also be nice for Iran to stop supporting both the Sunni insurgency and the radical shia militias. ;)
 
salam said:
..... in terms of dealing with Iran I would favour Russia, France and China's model any day over that of the US. 

I am sure you would.  And that is what bothers me most.

Cheers.
 
Strategy wise, and long term wise, it would be....wise (damn, overused it within one sentence  :p) for Iran to get Hezbollah well established in Afghanistan.  They would be great for disrupting and usurping NATO efforts there, and since the western media have been so eager to broadcast that we are going to pull out of there first chance possible (not just Canada, but the demonstrated reluctance to engage an actual enemy by the rest via caveats), they are probably waiting to fill the power vacuum.  Plus, I'm betting that the Taliban crew won't be as eager to blow up Hezbollah medical clinics and trigger an inter-terrorist pissing match.  If NATO does jet prematurely, Hezbollah could then consolidate the radical elements along the Pakistan border, and start working towards pushing PAK into a civil war (which doesn't seem like an impossible occurrence at this point).
I'm betting it would also be nice if Iran could have a nice secured route overland via A'stan from China to bring their weapons in through.  Much harder to intercept if it isn't inbound by sea. 
 
Kirkhill said:
I am sure you would.  And that is what bothers me most.

Cheers.

Alright I expected that. I think that we are definitely coming from two different places on this one, while I am sure we will meet again on another thread I think have said my part for this one. 

I will also bow out from arguing the last post by zipperhead_cop maybe we will talk another time, but that post does not have any valid information worth discussing, for me at least..sorry.
 
salam said:
I will also bow out from arguing the last post by zipperhead_cop maybe we will talk another time, but that post does not have any valid information worth discussing, for me at least..sorry.

I guess I'll break out my bottle of Black Label, drink it down and cry myself to sleep.   ::)
My post was not directed at you.  It was just opinions in general. 
 
salam,

While you may be seeking intelligent discourse on this matter here, the reality of the matter is that Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, are quickly coming to embody the militant Islam that is becoming the enemy of the secular west.

Both sides in the current geo-political conflict have endeavoured to identify themselves as the saviour of their particular sphere, and the only ones able to cast off the oppressive yoke of the other. To the Iranians, we are the latest in a long list of invaders, to be beaten under any banner. To the secular west, first it was Nazis, then Communists, and now muslim terrorists and the governments that support them.

You are posting on a forum that is dominated by the soldiers (both serving and retired) who will (and have been) fighting in this, latest war. Here, discussions about Iranian and Syrian IED factories are much closer to home - the posters here have seen their handiwork up close and personal.

Iran is the enemy of the secular west - it threatens the only middle eastern democracy with destruction, agitates in surrounding states, supplies weapons and expertise that kills and maims Canadian troops and their allies, uses a strategic resource as a weapon of economic warfare and contributes, in spades, to both instability in the region and in global fora, where it continually raises the spectre of a nuclear war, fought on theocratic principles, which by their very nature, resist both negotiation and compromise.

You will find few friends here to share your views, your "peace" moniker notwithstanding.
 
salam said:
Reply to Trinity:

To understand what I am saying you first need to step away from the "Its us against them" "East against West" way of thinking.

 

Firstly, welcome to army.ca

Please enlighten us with filling out your profile (if you like, its not manditory) and perhaps a brief introduction too, rather than just jumping in. This lets us have a glimpse on who others are on here, nothing more.

In this war, it is us against them, they even call it that, because there is no PC here, and thats how it is. The infidel or kufar against the extreme true believers. Thats what hapened on 11 Sep 01, Kuta Beach etc, just to name a couple. What do you think this war is about, and why its happening? Lets here your views.

We know Iran is the West's next biggest worry, and its just a matter of time til there is a BIG clash. The nation is currently radicalised as if it was one giant hornets nest which as fell from a tree, and there we are, barefoot standing next to it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist ot figure that out.

Just my opinion, here at the coalface of the matter, and I hope being here and living the daily onslaught adds to some sense of reality of whats going on, compared to any armchair SMEs out there who lean towards the enemy's beliefs, and may have the 'real picture' of course from their sources, say Al Jeezera ad Al Zahraa, or other media forms which bat for the other side.

I watch AJ and CNN daily. Two different stories. One non-bias, the other, right out of this world.

Cheers,

Wes
 
I think GO!!! and Wes put the point clearly enough.

Iran is very active in Afghanistan and Iraq because it wants to be the preeminent power in the region.  It has sent a untold number of people, weapons and other items into these theatres, none of these activities where designed to help the people or governments of the countries, but to create carnage and death, to reduce the will of the Western countires and have them drawback -- then Iran as the helpfull ally will move in and absorb the people, land and resources.
 
Well,  I don't think anyone here is unaware of the situation in Iran.  Everyone here can agree on that current governments mindset, goals and problems.  I see it as an oppressive regime that is slowly loosing controll over its population who's primary focus is on survival of the regime. (If I'm wrong,  please tell me what I got wrong.) I can understand the Iranian government reasons for being skiddish when a country who routinely calls you evil, a country that funded a terrible war of aggression against you, for whatever reason has a fair sized armed presence in countries on two sides of your country.

I have to agree that it is in Iran's best intrest to stabilize Afghanistan.  However, it isn't in the best intrest of their leaders.  If a country right next door,  who literally speaks their language (My Farsi/Dari is so bad I have trouble telling the difference) becomes a prosperous, stable democracy, that dictatorship can kiss their privilege and torture chambers goodbye.    I honestly believe Iran perceives a threat against itself.  Iran is doing what countries that feel threatened do,  they're expanding their sphere of influence,  consolidating power,  getting the population worked up.  Prepairing for war on many levels jingoism isn't limited to the Western world.

What isn't standard is the new rules to the game,  before when you're expanding your sphere of influence you'd just say so.  Now Iran needs to keep it under the guise of humanitarian aid (or in supporting oppressed peoples).  Secretly fund groups that do what you want them to (or not so secretly) and then officially give aid and support.  It is delicate and offers benefits other than the obvious. The only problem is that for all the money they throw at the terrorist groups,  they will only succeed if the western world lets them - and for all our talk of peace and love for all,  if we feel threatened by a country we've never quit. 

I think that if Iran's leadership just woke up and saw that they have a great opportunity,  things could change over night.  All they have to do is stop their groups inside of Afghanistan from doing anything (Take the money they're spending on replacements and put it towards setting up a coup de etait)  give the world the appearance that all is good and then when western troops pull out have their groups start stuff up. Then move in to "secure" the country for humanitarian reasons. No one would be fooled,  but keep in mind we'd have just left the country and we really don't like to get in between two waring countries.  They could get a country with a working infrastructure,  land/resources and a fairly strategic country.  At an even lower cost than they are paying now. 

Just a thought  :warstory:

http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/
 
Zell_Dietrich said:
I can understand the Iranian government reasons for being skiddish when a country who routinely calls you evil, a country that funded a terrible war of aggression against you, for whatever reason has a fair sized armed presence in countries on two sides of your country.

Skittish?  You have got to be joking.  There is nothing threatening Iran, other than Iran's stoic pursuit of regional (dare to dream, world) control.  It was quite obvious that as a result of the cold war, the world would not tolerate nuclear proliferation.  Yet, Iran pursues it, to the detriment of its people.  And to suggest that they should "wake up to the opportunities" is pretty naive.  They are quite aware what the opportunities are, they just happen to be pursuing the ones that will bring them to greater power.  They are also engaging in the same tactics as other terror ridden countries (read Lebanon and Palestine) in keeping their people are all whipped up about a fabricated enemy and focusing on the business of killing.  They hope that if everyone is running around in the streets burning flags and effigies they won't notice the clowns running the show are completely nonviable to get their country on with the business of living. 
Iran is simply seizing on the opportunity to be jackholes while the countries that are able to potentially sort them out are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan.  At such time as those two conflicts get sewn up (and god knows when that will be) and the US has more military resources to work with, we may see some policy change out of Iran.  Until then, look to see things continue to tailspin in the middle east (and Afghanistan if they can pull it off).
 
Back
Top