Comments on: Iran Moves Into Afghanistan

By: Sean-Paul

Sean-Paul — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 01:45:43 +0000

I don’t think we disagree. I was drawing attention to the fact that the article clearly had weakness as to the state of Afghanis in Iran, and how Iranians and the Iranian gov are treating them. Other than that, as you note, we’re pretty much in line.

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 18:07:13 +0000

I don’t doubt what you’re saying at all – in fact, that’s something Nathan and I complain about regularly. However, I still don’t see how that relates to your complaint about the article – it’s about how Iran is approaching Afghanistan diplomatically (which is, as you said, verifiable), and how the locals, at least in the west and in Kabul, are responding (again, verifiable).

My own speculation was limited to saying Iran has an easier time of PR in Afghanistan than the U.S. does, which kind of goes without saying. And the stuff about visas was related merely to the volume of applications – an indication of demand – and not an official immigration policy.

I guess I’m just confused as to where we disagree.

By: Sean-Paul

Sean-Paul — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:17:30 +0000

It’s easy: what they write about what Iran does in Afghanistan and Iraq and Damascus is probably very reliable. What they write about things that go on inside Iran or decisions made in Iran I take issue with. They aren’t there. If you’ve been to Iran you understand that the gulf between the reporters on the ground there and the reporters reporting on Iran in places like Damascus, or Cyprus and elsewhere is way, way out of kilter with the reality on the ground. It’s really quite simple.

It’s one thing to say, “hey, I am reporting on Hezbollah” and you’re in Lebanon or Damascus. But if a reporter doesn’t go to Iran to follow the rest of the story up they aren’t getting the whole story. Would the regime lie to the reporter if they made it to Iran? Sure, but a good reporter would know how to report around that. Same goes with the Taliban.

You know the photo of the quote from the Q’uran in the NYTimes article? It would have been much more powerful had the author included a similar photo of a similar quote/street sign from inside Iran. They are everywhere. Literally every 20 miles or so. That would have made it even more convincing.

I guess my point is that once you’ve been to Iran and you read reporting on it, you are always jaundiced and skeptical about it if they aren’t reporting from Iran because as I have said ad naseum, the relaity in Iran is vastly different from what we’re told. It’s like night and day.

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 05:46:53 +0000

I don’t get it – the NYT article has major structural flaws (namely, the dateline of the authors) which call into doubt its reliability, yet the general thrust of the story, which is that Iran is solidifying its ties to western Afghanistan, is right? How can you have it both ways?

By: Sean-Paul

Sean-Paul — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 05:36:45 +0000

If it’s written by Nazila Fathi it’s usually pretty reliable reporting. I also think it is very important to realize that not one single NYTimes reporter reported this article from Iran. Look at the stringer’s listed below: Damascus and Baghdad. No one reported from Tehran. Clear sign, in my opinion, that the article has some structural problems.

On last thing: Herat has historically been a part of the Iranian sphere of influence, if not a part of Persia. I think most people who studied the area before we overthrew the Taliban figured something like this would happen. It’s not necessarily a bad thing as well. The Iran’s are a status quo power in Afghanistan, not a revolutionary one like they might be in Iraq.

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:38:15 +0000

Yes, it’s all so delightfully ironic. If you’re into Alanis Morissette.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 23:45:20 +0000

Perhaps you’re right, but I do get a kick out of how we have 150,000 soldiers in Iraq, the biggest embassy and CIA station in the world in Iraq, and yet blame the Iranians for meddling in Iraq’s own affairs. How dare they try to turn our puppet state into their puppet state.

Should we act surprised?

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 23:25:42 +0000

I should have clarified that Iran is making things as difficult as possible for the U.S. in Iraq—which is surely in their interest (they want their own Shiite puppet state with lots of oil). Iran’s ultimate role in Afghanistan, beyond the obvious fact of its growing, and thus far non-violent, influence is unclear.

By: jonathan p

jonathan p — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:53:03 +0000

“Those activities include making things as difficult as possible for the American troops.”

Hmmm….

How so? What does this statement mean? How are heroin patrols, infrastructure projects, medical and public health initiatives making things difficult for American troops?

Perhaps you mean to say that these projects make it more difficult for American troops to be the sole “good guys?”

Or … Perhaps you mean to say that Iran’s activities are making it more difficult for the U.S. to have its way with the Afghan people and “win their hearts and minds” over to our way of thinking about the world?

Either way, it seems to me that no one is making it more difficult for the American (read NATO?) troops than the U.S. government itself. Iran is simply doing what any neighboring country with cash and strategy would do. To imagine that Iran’s every step is all about the U.S. is rather narcissistic on our part.

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:01:32 +0000

Well, I got the information on visa applications from the NYT article. And you’re right – applications do not mean awards. But it is significant that applications to Iran are vastly dwarfing applications to western countries. All I’m pointing out is how interest on the part of local Afghanis may be indicative of something larger at play, which is a loss of confidence in the NATO mission.