Αhvaz terrorist attack

[Abdülmecid I]

Last Saturday, a particularly bloody attack took place in Ahvaz, the capital of the Khuzestan province, Iran. The five perpetrators targeted the ongoing parade, shooting indiscriminately against the bystanders, the participating soldiers and the honoured veterans of the Iran-Iraq war. In total, the attack claimed 25 victims, while all five perpetrators were killed by the security forces. There was a confusion regarding the number of the terrorists, usually ranging from four to six, but now it is estimated that nobody has remained alive. The identity of the group behind the hit remains controversial, but, most likely, it concerned the Arab separatist movement that exists in the province. According to official statistics, which are not completely objective, but whose estimations are generally recognized as sufficiently reliable, Arab-speakers compose approximately one third of the total population.



Unsurprisingly, the coexistence between Arabic and Iranic speakers is not 100% serene, despite the absence of major religious differences. Usually the problems arise when the nation-state attempts to erase local particularities and reinforce cultural homogeneity through the education system. However, in Iran, ever since the imperial regime was overthrown, its revolutionary successors have decided to make the teaching of Arabic a mandatory course of the school's curriculum, in order to establish a closer link between the Iranian society and the Quranic tradition. Consequently, most of the differences revolve over little injustices during everyday life. Tribalism certainly place a noteworthy role, but, in my opinion, the most crucial factor is nepotism, corruption and client politics. Because the most financially lucrative businesses and highest administrative positions are dominated by Iranian families (not necessarily originating from Khuzestan), many residents of Ahvaz feel that their opportunities and rights are stomped by the elites. This also explains the form of the struggle adopted by the Iranian Arabs, peaceful protests. Violent insurgencies, albeit essentially omnipresent since the establishment of the Qajar dynasty, are quite limited and never seriously threatened Iran's territorial integrity after the rise of Reza Shah. The "usurper" monarch violently suppressed the virtually independent Sheikhdom of Mohammerah and the various nomadic tribes of SW Iran, which were sponsored by British petroleum monopolies. Even during the brief occupation of parts of Khuzestan by the Iraqi invaders in the '80s, the vast majority of the population was uncooperative and a large number of Arab Iranian prisoners of war were summarily executed, after having refused to desert the Iranian army and join the aggressors.

The war between Saddam's Iraq and revolutionary Iran is also clearly the symbolic target of the terrorists. Khuzestan suffered a lot during the war and many atrocities were committed there, without taking into account the extremely destructive urban warfare. Therefore, military parades for the memory of the Iranian resistance, like the one that was attacked, symbolise the resilience of the civilians, as well as the success of Tehran in defending its sovereignty. As a result, the massacred civilians and soldiers held a lot of ideological value for the separatist cause. However, there's actually great controversy concerning the culprit. Both ASMLA (Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahvaz) and ISIL claimed responsibility, the latter also publishing visual evidence where three of the perpetrators were supposedly depicted. Personally, I am skeptical, because ISIL is notorious for arbitrarily endorsing terrorist attacks made by irrelevant groups or lone-wolves, in a desperate effort to gain some much needed publicity. Its video also looks a bit random, common sense says that they could release more concrete evidence and, last but not least, ASMLA, or better the sub-group Ahvaz National Resistance, was the first to endorse the massacre. After all, the leadership of ASMLA denounced the attack and instead blamed some dissidents who had been expelled from the organisation.

In my opinion, the overall context of the attack clearly portrays the separatists as the likeliest suspects. The intention of the perpetrators was obviously to provoke the fragmentation of the Ahvazi society and encourage the rise of ethnic tensions (Shiism is overwhelmingly strong in Khuzestan, without facing any linguistic obstacles), in order to exploit the subsequent chaos. Ahvaz National Resistance seems to be either a small team of radicals determined to kill indiscriminately to fulfill their goals or a proxy of ASMLA, similarly to the relationship between PKK and Freedom Hawks in Turkey, which allows it to follow very controversial tactics, without being subjected to popular outcry and losing the sympathy of the most moderate elements. Meanwhile, Iran has implied that Gulf Emirates and the United States are somehow involved in the affair, but the credibility of these accusations is quite flimsy, in my opinion. An Emirati official approved of the terrorist hit in twitter, but such admissions hardly reveal anything more than empty bragging and sectarianism, although the relations between UAE and Iran are very cold currently. Basically, the "partisans" of Khuzestan are so weak, that there no point wasting resources to aid them, in contrary to the Kurdish and Balochi guerillas of the Northwest and teh East respectively.

[Harith]

My condolences to the families. I fear this is yet another jigsaw puzzle in the foaming bubble of sectarian hate and violence that is gripping the ME.

I do have to note that it is somewhat too coincidental for my liking that 2 military parades by America's foes have been targeted. While they are not similar, I do find it a bit suspicious. I certainly wouldn't rule out the US having a hand or giving tacit support to the attack. After all, this is but a blemish in their abysmal record.

I do however, wish that the Iranians recognise this violence is not often without a cause and I wish they reflect on their role in the region and some of their domestic policies too. It seems the jingoists have seized on the moment though, as usual.

[95thrifleman]

My condolences to the families. I fear this is yet another jigsaw puzzle in the foaming bubble of sectarian hate and violence that is gripping the ME.

I do have to note that it is somewhat too coincidental for my liking that 2 military parades by America's foes have been targeted. While they are not similar, I do find it a bit suspicious. I certainly wouldn't rule out the US having a hand or giving tacit support to the attack. After all, this is but a blemish in their abysmal record.

I do however, wish that the Iranians recognise this violence is not often without a cause and I wish they reflect on their role in the region and some of their domestic policies too. It seems the jingoists have seized on the moment though, as usual.

2 parades? What was the other one?

[Harith]

2 parades? What was the other one?

Venezuela.

[Geleco]

If people want their young men to stop dying they simply need to stop participating in the games of this region.

Easier said than done, but a much more permanent solution than continuing cold war for eternity.

Ultimately it is up to towns to become self sufficient and eject the theocracy altogether. I fear though they will simply replace it with an oligarchy within the next 50 years, since it is the homeland of imperialism after all.

I cannot blame people for following what is comfortable and seems right to them. But after years and years of watching your countrymen (and those of nearby countries) die in pointless attacks and wars, you have to wonder if the direction your leaders are taking you is even a worthwhile goal. And if 'democracy' in Iran will even change anything, except bring in more globalist money to exploit the people.

[Cookiegod]

If people want their young men to stop dying they simply need to stop participating in the games of this region.

Easier said than done, but a much more permanent solution than continuing cold war for eternity.

Ultimately it is up to towns to become self sufficient and eject the theocracy altogether. I fear though they will simply replace it with an oligarchy within the next 50 years, since it is the homeland of imperialism after all.

I cannot blame people for following what is comfortable and seems right to them. But after years and years of watching your countrymen (and those of nearby countries) die in pointless attacks and wars, you have to wonder if the direction your leaders are taking you is even a worthwhile goal. And if 'democracy' in Iran will even change anything, except bring in more globalist money to exploit the people.

The Islamic Republic is here to stay. There's no serious threat from within. Only whatever the US/Israel/Saudis throw at them.
And you know what? It's fine. Iran is very moderate or even liberal compared to many other states in the region. No one but the citizens of the country themselves should have a say in this.
If you peeps wanted a democratic Iran, you should not have destroyed it.

[Geleco]

Moderate and liberal are bad things, in my view. These are words used by people to disarm the critics of the institutions they are applied to.

First of all, a state that forces its citizens to accept that its decisions emanate from divine authority are not moderate or 'liberal' in any sense of the word. These are old concepts that date from before modern religions even existed. In fact the concept of the 'Islamic' republic is inherently paradoxical if you ask me, but this is not relevant to the discussion. The choice of government is not the issue here.

Second, I agree with you. Only Iranians should be able to decide what happens to their country. As it should be for every person everywhere. They only have themselves to blame if they want to let their state control their thoughts and minds.

Finally, I did not destroy democracy in Iran, I had no part in that or in any of the imperialist actions of the world order, nor did any of my ancestors, such that I can make of them.

It is not the West, or Zionists, or radical Muslims or fanatics that destroyed peaceful coexistence. It is money, and capitalism. That is the root of all evil in the region, not sectarian disagreements.

Am I suggesting Iranians (or rather, people everywhere) lie down and die for the money that is coming to claim their souls? No, of course not. I know that states like Iran are the only thing keeping that from happening immediately, but their existence also tacitly perpetuates the current system. They must all be dismantled if it is ever going to end, not just Israel, or Iran, or the US, or Russia, or China. All of them.

[Love Mountain]

There is very limited Democracy in Iran. as far as I understand.



And Iran is by no means one of the more "moderate" and "liberal" countries. Their behavior is heavily opportunistic and while they are a defensive power, this is due to the circumstances in their region, not because they are naturally one. In fact, while many decry the obvious religious backwardness in Saudi Arabia, it's still an autocratic government that uses religion as a vehicle to manage their population. On the other hand, Iran has strong government institutions that incorporate religious authority into their political structure. Which one actually has deadlier ramifications for the future? I would argue that a successful Iran sees a possibility of exporting its form of theocratic governance to other countries. That is much more dangerous than an authoritarian government in Saudi Arabia that merely has to manage religious elements, instead of being ruled by them.

[Cookiegod]

quote

Moderate and liberal are bad things, in my view. These are words used by people to disarm the critics of the institutions they are applied to. First of all, a state that forces its citizens to accept that its decisions emanate from divine authority are not moderate or 'liberal' in any sense of the word. These are old concepts that date from before modern religions even existed. In fact the concept of the 'Islamic' republic is inherently paradoxical if you ask me, but this is not relevant to the discussion. The choice of government is not the issue here. Second, I agree with you. Only Iranians should be able to decide what happens to their country. As it should be for every person everywhere. They only have themselves to blame if they want to let their state control their thoughts and minds. Finally, I did not destroy democracy in Iran, I had no part in that or in any of the imperialist actions of the world order, nor did any of my ancestors, such that I can make of them. It is not the West, or Zionists, or radical Muslims or fanatics that destroyed peaceful coexistence. It is money, and capitalism. That is the root of all evil in the region, not sectarian disagreements. Am I suggesting Iranians (or rather, people everywhere) lie down and die for the money that is coming to claim their souls? No, of course not. I know that states like Iran are the only thing keeping that from happening immediately, but their existence also tacitly perpetuates the current system. They must all be dismantled if it is ever going to end, not just Israel, or Iran, or the US, or Russia, or China. All of them.

"Words used to disarm critics"?! Doesn't that apply to just about any counterargument given? And liberal in this context means simply that they, when compared to other states in the region, are somewhat capable of letting people live their lives the way they want. Women have to wear veils, sure. But they do get around it by wearing very transparent ones if they like. Alcohol is forbidden, yet it's very easy to get hold of some Iranian made wine. So unlike e.g. the "moderate rebels" running around with ISIS and al-Qaida flags we are supporting as our "democratic hope" in Syria and forcing minorities to flee, the Iranian republic does let people live the way they want.

Iran also does have a limited democracy. It does have a parliament and a president. And though the Mullahs and the Ayatollah are very powerful, the role they have are roughly comparable to that of a supreme court and spiritual/representative leaders. The way this is supposed to work, is that the parliament and the government make the decision, and the Ayatollah and Mullahs check whether it conforms with their understanding of Islam. Not perfect, but the only realistic way democracy could make a comeback after the CIA smashed it with their operation Ajax.

And whilst I fully understand your scepticism (and share it, for a large part) of the Iranian government, I just have to point out that the vast majority of its people support their state, and that the Saudis, US, etc. have no interest in helping the country. It's about destroying it, and the opposition is but a tool.

I'm not going to adress your anarchocommunism since it's outside of the topic, except pointing out that this ideology to me is pure wish-think and thus not my cup of tea.

[Prodromos]

For all their complaints about Western empire, Iran seems pretty imperialistic itself, ruling over vast swathes of territory populated by many different nations, such as Kurds, Azeris, Arabs and Baloch, who together make up 40-50% of the country's population. It's understandable for these nations to be interested in exercising their right to self-determination, although it seems quite a bit unwarranted to target women and children.

It's interesting to note the similarities between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Just as Saudi's oil wealth is concentrated almost entirely in the Eastern Province, where most people belong to a different religion (and probably ethnicity) than the Saudi rulers, more than 80% of Iran's oil is located in the province of Khuzestan, where most of the Arabs live.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Both regimes are draining their minorities' wealth, using it to enrich themselves and to fund unpopular foreign adventures, rather than investing it at home to relieve the widespread poverty, unemployment, and general suffering caused by the government's incompetence and cronyist stranglehold on the economy, although eastern Saudis are of course 10 times better off than the average Iranian Arab.

However this is ultimately a minor concern to the Iranian regime. The main threat to the regime's survival stems from regular Iranians. Some footage from the constant protests against the regime:



This video is of Iranians raging against the Islamic regime and the hijab:

https://twitter.com/ritapanahi/statu...98173767081984

[conon394]

It is money, and capitalism

To be replaced what exactly?

[Geleco]

To be replaced what exactly?

We should not even have to ask this question. It shows the depths to which our species has sunken. But I will indulge you. When I say money, I refer not to currency as a whole. Currency as a system is not inextricable from authority and tyranny. Concentrated capital, agglomerations of wealth, lordship over land and tenant systems are what led to money's control of our world, not the concept of money. The folly of the last few centuries has been man accepting the fact that this is how the world has always been and always will be.

Capitalism is a much easier thing to replace. We (the people) have no need of it. Only our masters do. Any other conclusions about capitalism (by the people, at least) are delusions planted by the state's education and media apparatuses. Why? Because we gain nothing from contributing our labor in such an unequal fashion. The answer, then, is decentralization, down to the town or even house/estate (as in commune, not manor) level if need be.

[Cookiegod]

@Dr. Legend: Even in Khuzestan the percentage of Arabs is a mere 33%. Calling Iran imperialist for having Balochistan is like calling Spain imperialist for having Basques and Catalans in Spain.

The Saudi system is unsustainable and austerity coming, and serves primarily the royalty. Most of the money is expended in those parts of the country that are far from the Shiite oil producing part.
The Saudis also don't stop at anything to suppress revolts, including bombing them from the air, which you'll never hear any protest against, because hey: It's our friend.

The Iranian system however is a limited representative democracy that does enjoy the support of the vast majority of the Iranian people. It does not throw money out the window like the Saudis do, nor do they have royals reproducing like rabbits with multiple wives to pay for. They do, however, have a population of almost thrice that of the Saudis, and their economy has incurred significant damages because of sanctions and war.
They have more people to spend money on and less income to do it with. They nevertheless do stand with their government. Calling it regime is as ridiculous as calling it imperialist. It makes you sound disingenuous.

We should not even have to ask this question.

Oh well, I'll bite. And no, you absolutely should ask this question!
"Hey, let's burn this building down." "Ok what after?" "You should not even ask that!"

It shows the depths to which our species has sunken.

The depth where we think of the consequences of our actions before we make some terrible mistakes?

But I will indulge you. When I say money, I refer not to currency as a whole. Currency as a system is not inextricable from authority and tyranny. Concentrated capital, agglomerations of wealth, lordship over land and tenant systems are what led to money's control of our world, not the concept of money. The folly of the last few centuries has been man accepting the fact that this is how the world has always been and always will be.

Capitalism is a much easier thing to replace. We (the people) have no need of it. Only our masters do. Any other conclusions about capitalism (by the people, at least) are delusions planted by the state's education and media apparatuses. Why? Because we gain nothing from contributing our labor in such an unequal fashion. The answer, then, is decentralization, down to the town or even house/estate (as in commune, not manor) level if need be.

In short: Your understanding of capitalism is extremely limited, and you do not propose an alternative. You just tell us to expect a fairy tale magically come true by just renouncing it.

[Prodromos]

@Dr. Legend: Even in Khuzestan the percentage of Arabs is a mere 33%. Calling Iran imperialist for having Balochistan is like calling Spain imperialist for having Basques and Catalans in Spain.

The Saudi system is unsustainable and austerity coming, and serves primarily the royalty. Most of the money is expended in those parts of the country that are far from the Shiite oil producing part.
The Saudis also don't stop at anything to suppress revolts, including bombing them from the air, which you'll never hear any protest against, because hey: It's our friend.

The Iranian system however is a limited representative democracy that does enjoy the support of the vast majority of the Iranian people. It does not throw money out the window like the Saudis do, nor do they have royals reproducing like rabbits with multiple wives to pay for. They do, however, have a population of almost thrice that of the Saudis, and their economy has incurred significant damages because of sanctions and war.
They have more people to spend money on and less income to do it with. They nevertheless do stand with their government. Calling it regime is as ridiculous as calling it imperialist. It makes you sound disingenuous.

I call it regime because it's a top-down system of government, wholly unaccountable to the people. Remember that democracy does not consist in casting a vote, but is a whole culture that permeates government and society, and includes respect for freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and religion, unrestricted access to alternative sources of information, as well as the right to participate in or alter the government.

Iran completely fails by all these measures. There's absolutely no government respect for these basic freedoms, and it is constitutionally impossible to abolish the theocratic form of government. The extent of Iranians' participation in politics, is largely limited to picking which preapproved candidate to maintain the system as Khamenei's figurehead. Whenever this system is challenged, arrest, torture and outright massacres often follow.

Saudis at least have wealth and 0% tax to compensate for the lack of representation. Iranians meanwhile are bled dry to fund Khamenei's cronyism and continuous exportation of the Islamic revolution.

[Love Mountain]

@Dr. Legend: Even in Khuzestan the percentage of Arabs is a mere 33%. Calling Iran imperialist for having Balochistan is like calling Spain imperialist for having Basques and Catalans in Spain.

The Saudi system is unsustainable and austerity coming, and serves primarily the royalty. Most of the money is expended in those parts of the country that are far from the Shiite oil producing part.
The Saudis also don't stop at anything to suppress revolts, including bombing them from the air, which you'll never hear any protest against, because hey: It's our friend.

Saudi Arabia is well aware of their limited oil wealth and the changing dynamics of this century. Hence why Bin Salman is aiming to reform the country through Saudi Vision 2030. I also have no idea why you are defending Iran. I sympathize with Iran, they are a victim of Western imperialism and a country that's suffered greatly under the hands of the Shah. However, they are also a country under the rule of a powerful theocratic system that severely limits the power of their "Democracy". While Iranian people may yearn for democracy they will be disappointed to find that a large part of the power lays with the religious political bodies in Iran. Not to mention that Iran is a repressive country towards their minorities so I have no idea why you are defending them. Even Azeris, who represent anywhere between a fourth to a third of Iran's population have their culture repressed and in some cases, forbidden. I'm also curious when Saudi Arabia bombed their own population, unless by "revolt" you mean the war in Yemen. Which isn't really a revolt. While their conduct in that war has been atrocious, not to mention the rather trigger happy nature of Saudi Arabia's capital punishment, it's completely different from bombing your own citizens.

The Iranian system however is a limited representative democracy that does enjoy the support of the vast majority of the Iranian people. It does not throw money out the window like the Saudis do, nor do they have royals reproducing like rabbits with multiple wives to pay for. They do, however, have a population of almost thrice that of the Saudis, and their economy has incurred significant damages because of sanctions and war.
They have more people to spend money on and less income to do it with. They nevertheless do stand with their government. Calling it regime is as ridiculous as calling it imperialist. It makes you sound disingenuous.

The Iranian system represents a robust theocratic system that makes religious authority extremely powerful. Saudi Arabia is, for all purposes, an absolute monarchy. Though Sharia law is enforced in Saudi Arabia (as it is in Iran), it could theorretically be abolished overnight should the king wish it so. While there are no doubts various court intrigues that Bin Salman has to navigate, he is an extremely young man and someone who will be ruling the country for the next few decades. He can very well turn out to be liberal and progressive and move the country towards a more progressive direction. Meanwhile Iran can very well stay socially backwards forever even if Iranian citizens wish the country to change for the better the whole time.

[conon394]

We should not even have to ask this question. It shows the depths to which our species has sunken. But I will indulge you. When I say money, I refer not to currency as a whole. Currency as a system is not inextricable from authority and tyranny. Concentrated capital, agglomerations of wealth, lordship over land and tenant systems are what led to money's control of our world, not the concept of money. The folly of the last few centuries has been man accepting the fact that this is how the world has always been and always will be.

Capitalism is a much easier thing to replace. We (the people) have no need of it. Only our masters do. Any other conclusions about capitalism (by the people, at least) are delusions planted by the state's education and media apparatuses. Why? Because we gain nothing from contributing our labor in such an unequal fashion. The answer, then, is decentralization, down to the town or even house/estate (as in commune, not manor) level if need be.

OK but you the last time that occurred "The answer, then, is decentralization, down to the town or even house/estate (as in commune, not manor) level" life was kind of sort and nasty. Commune life does not really support the discovery of antibiotics or a vaccine for polio or the internet you typing into.