Iranian Spokesperson claims Bahrain is Iran's 14th province

Politics International Politics
1

Sound like a familiar refrain? One we have heard before only regarding Kuwait as Iraq’s 19th province? Do these people go to the same schools for idiot fascists or something (lobbing, lobbing, easy easy)…

[quote]Countries Threatened with Extinction
By Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/8/2007

Quiz time: Which Middle Eastern country disappeared from the map not long ago for more than six months? Answer: Kuwait, which disappeared from August 1990 to February 1991, becoming Iraq’s 19th province. This brutal conquest by Saddam Hussein culminated intermittent Iraqi claims going back to the 1930s. Restoring Kuwait’s sovereignty required a huge American-led expeditionary force of more than half a million soldiers.

This history comes to mind because an Iranian spokesman recently enunciated a somewhat similar threat against Bahrain. Hossein Shariatmadari, an associate of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and editor of the daily newspaper Kayhan, published an op-ed on July 9 in which he claimed: "Bahrain is part of Iran’s soil, having been separated from it through an illegal conspiracy [spawned] by … Shah [Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, along with] the American and British governments." Referring to Bahrain’s majority Shiite population, Mr. Shariatmadari went on to claim, without any proof: “The principal demand of the Bahraini people today is to return this province … to its mother, Islamic Iran.”

These comments, the Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI) reports, “caused a storm in Bahrain,” with protesters outside the Iranian Embassy, severe statements by the government, alarmed resolutions by both houses of parliament, and even a fatwa prescribing death for Bahrainis who should endorse this Iranian irredentism. Other Persian Gulf states joined in with equally scathing statements.

The subject is a sensitive one. Tehran’s claims on Bahrain go back to 1958, when it declared the island to be Iran’s 14th province, even apportioning it two seats in the national parliament. Although the shah formally recognized Bahrain’s independence in 1970, claims such as Mr. Shariatmadari’s have surfaced episodically and are reminiscent of periodic Iraqi claims to Kuwait before 1990. So, Kuwait actually vanished down the Iraqi maw, and Bahrain could face a similar fate. Nor are they alone, as three other Middle East states are also threatened with extinction.

[/quote]

frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re … 9346516FF0

2

A “spokesman”, eh? Meanwhile your home grown presidential peanuts are threatening to bomb Mecca and Medina.

So what?

HG

3

Indeed, so what?

Don’t the stupid Yankees realise that the Iranians are just taking the piss? There’s no story here not unless the paranoid xenophobes in Washedupton make it one.

Big pooh in Freddies panties. Oh boo hoo.

BroonAhmedinejad

4

Xenophobe? He was that Greek historian or philosopher wasn’t he?

5

Yes that’s the one, and widely credited with scrawling the first “Yankee go home” on the parthenon. He was right then, and he’s still right now.

HG

6

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

:bravo: :bravo: :bravo:

7

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”] He was right then, and he’s still right now.

HG[/quote]

Also: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:

BroonAristotle

8

It’s only an op-ed.
Yet, wait: Shock & Horror!
It’s written by a spokesman. An Iranian spokesman. The plot Thickens. And, he’s an associate of The Fiend.
Shriek!
:noway:
It’s a fact that some in Iran have held some sort of mild claim to Bahrain for most of the last century, when the island was under British control, and Iran under British influence. Both the Shah regime and that of the Islamic Republic have pressed this issue at various times.

If anything, Saddam copied his claims on Kuwait from what the Iranians have been doing all along.
Same old game, nothing new under the sun here. A nation state will continue to press past historical claims, regardless of regime change or ideological indoctrination.

9

So, then, one would assume that the Bahrainis who have taken this matter very seriously are delusional and have nothing to worry about? I mean after all it was only a spokesperson for the Iranian government and his words were reported in “only” an oped. Right?

10

No.
Reminders of the 1981 attempted coup are surely quite relevant, as are that of the bombings in the 90’s.
Yet it’s still just flag waving propaganda, this 0p-Ed.
Not much to get too excited about.
Words, not deeds.

11

And anyway, how would the Iranians invade? Bahrain’s an island, no? History would suggest that it’s not in the Iranians interest to board civil airliners bound for crossing the sea when there’s a US fleet nearby.

HG

12

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Yes that’s the one, and widely credited with scrawling the first “Yankee go home” on the parthenon. He was right then, and he’s still right now.

HG[/quote]

Reminds me of Life of Brian

where Brian vandalises a wall with the words in Latin: Romans, go home. and the centurion corrects his declination or conjugation and makes him paint it a 100x.

And then, of course, there’s the Judaean Liberation Front, or was it the Liberation Front of Judaea? :wink:

Anyways to the OP, we can have another one country, 2 systems or Two Irans doctrine in the M.E. See how well that goes. Hell, let’s have a 2 [insert country] on every continent.

Dibs on 2 Canadas: Canada and the former state of Florida

  • based on the burgeoning population of Canadian retirees (who unfortunately aren’t around long enough to revolt, or who just care about drinking mohitos and playing golf).
13

[quote]While an editorial in Iran’s influential Kayhan daily laying territorial claims to Bahrain has sparked considerable tension in the region, the real target may lie in competition with the United States for influence in the Persian Gulf.

Kayhan editor Hossein Shariatmadari has since admitted that his July 9 piece only reflected his personal opinion that the former Iranian monarchy’s recognition of Bahrain’s independence in 1971 was made under questionable circumstances.

In his editorial, Shariatmadari protested Bahrain’s support for the United Arab Emirates’ claim to three islands in the Persian Gulf that were part of the 1971 deal. Public opinion in Bahrain, “a province of Iran”, wrote Shariatmadari, is in favor of reunification with the “native land”.

It is significant that Shariatmadari is the appointed representative of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at Kayhan and one of his close advisers.

Historically, the Iranian monarchy abandoned its territorial claims to Bahrain and in an agreement with Britain recognized the independence of the former Persian colony, which had been a British protectorate since the late 18th century. The deal was struck in return for acknowledgement of Iranian sovereignty over three strategic eastern Persian Gulf islands.

But a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) statement has backed the claims of the UAE to the islands - Greater and Lesser Tunb and Abu Mussa. Bahrain, a GCC member along with Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, was a signatory to the statement.

As disquiet grew over the Kayhan editorial, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki visited Bahrain last Friday to meet with his counterpart Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa and offer assurances of Iran’s respect for the small Gulf country’s national sovereignty.[/quote]
atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IG19Ak07.html

Ah, so it’s the GCC which started this little merry-go-round, and Bahrain was repudiating the agreement which brought itself into existence. Funny how Mr. Pipes and MEMRI overlooked that, as well as the apology by the Iranian foreign minister.

14

MikeN:

No offense but I think I will take the reporter as a better source of the true cause of these statement and whoops! they seem to agree with Pipes. Maybe you missed this lead in your own quote? The lead is the part at the very beginning of an article.

So whadya think?

15

I see all this as relating to the “Shi’i crescent” thing. The Shi’i population of Bahrain is apparently two-thirds (edited from before–I had it confused with Kuwait) and, like their coreligionists in Saudi, they’re not too happy with their Sunni masters. I would personally like to see the Shi’is get what they want. I mean, why not?

For comparison’s sake, the island of Zanzibar (presently Tanzania) once belonged to the Kingdom of Muscat and Oman.

16

Does Tehran have an English-language newspaper yet?

17

Why? Need a job?

You know I was sure you were going to say something about the UK fleet and how the Iranians could get past on their way to Bahrain by threatening to steal all the iPods off the crew, or something like that.

HG

18

[quote=“fred smith”]MikeN:

No offense but I think I will take the reporter as a better source of the true cause of these statement and whoops! they seem to agree with Pipes. Maybe you missed this lead in your own quote? The lead is the part at the very beginning of an article.

So whadya think?[/quote]

What do I think? I think . . . sky . . . falling. Very danger. Must bomb Iran . . . .

"Cheney urging strikes on Iran
By Warren P. Strobel, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers
Thu, August 9, 2007

. . . The debate has been accompanied by a growing drumbeat of allegations about Iranian meddling in Iraq from U.S. military officers, administration officials and administration allies outside government and in the news media. . . . "

19

Oh, Cheney’s plans are not such a big deal. He just wanted to bomb a few Revolutionary Guard training camps, or some such. It really wouldn’t have done any damage.

By the way, do you know why Bahrain bans Google Earth? Because its royal family doesn’t want anybody to see how big their palaces are, or how much beachfront property they’ve appropriated extralegally. Venial sins, by Middle Eastern standards, but at least the bit about banning Google Earth is embarrasing…

20

It would undoubtedly be a big deal to the Iranian people. Imagine your reaction for example if Iran bombed a few military bases on U.S. soil.

Well, as they say, fools rush in . . . again and again.

For those who are paying attention:

"In the Debate Over Iran, More Calls for a Tougher U.S. Stance

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 9, 2007

Fourteen months after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered to talk to Iran, the failure of carrot-and-stick diplomacy to block Tehran’s nuclear and regional ambitions is producing a new drumbeat for bolder action, including the possible use of force.

The emerging debate – evident in an array of new reports, conferences and commentaries – is still in the early stages, but some of the language urging the Bush administration to be more aggressive during its final 17 months is reminiscent of arguments from think tanks and commentators that shaped the case for invading Iraq.

“A lot of people were willing to give diplomacy a chance, but at some point there have to be results,” said Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, an advocate of the Iraq war. “It’s been a year since Rice agreed to talk to the Iranians if they accepted U.N. terms, and it’s only bought them more time for their nuclear program.”

Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates are committed to economic sanctions and pressure through the United Nations. But proponents of tougher policy reflect the views of a small part of the Bush administration open to military options if Iran does not suspend a uranium-enrichment program that can be subverted for a nuclear bomb.

The drumbeats are also louder because of Iraq. Since May, the first formal talks between U.S. and Iranian envoys in 28 years have not deterred Iranian support for Iraqi Shiite militias targeting U.S. troops and the Green Zone. Explosives that U.S. officials say come from Iran accounted for one-third of U.S. combat deaths last month in Iraq, according to U.S. officials.

“Discussions about attacking Iran began with the nuclear issue, but it has now become a silver bullet to also deal with Iran’s activities with Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, and even to provoke a process of regime change,” said Augustus Richard Norton, a retired Army colonel now at Boston University. . . ."