Where is Afghanistan Headed?

 

Dear I would just say that Iran has already been involved in some nasty politics around the region and will soon end up in same situation because we have a saying in DARI (by that I don't mean Farsi) "ای کشته کی را کشته ای که کشته شدی" "Ay Kushta Ke ra Kushta he Ke Kushta Shudee" "Oh murdered, whom you murdered that you got murdered!"

 

 

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello Conservative   Marco explained, I think, why India is interested in making Afghanistan unstable, because Pakistan will suffer the consequenses. Now how Iran benifits from unstability, that is a bit more complicated.   A stable unified Afghanistan will make Pakistani influence in the region much stronger. Baluchis who are not in love with the current regime in Iran and have been rebelling for a while might tke the chance and demand unity with Pakistan since most Baluchis are there.   But what is even more clear is the role that a unified Afghanistan can play in any future central Asian pipeline. Iran is losing its oil fast and it is suspected that Central Asian countries have much more oil than currently thought. Now oil has to be exported and the only way other than Iran is Afghanistan.   Destabilising Afghanistan is a corner stone in strategic Iranian thinking and I would do exactly the same if I were from them. Just imagine how many billions will come if that line chose the shorter Iranian path.   Now your opposite argument is Iran is hurting from this chaos. The drug epidemic is reaching alarming rates but waite a second, Iran itself is benifiting from the drug trade, at least the regime is. Iraq was floded by cheap and high quality processed opium since the invasion. The drug problem in the south of the country has reached epidemic rates as well. In Saudi Arabia and Kuwaite there is enough evidence that Iranian intelligence is involved in the trade. Now I am not a conspiracy theory advocate but intelligence services around the world have been known to use drugs and I doubt that Iran is an exception.   Al-Jassas

 

Al-Jassas i am again bemused by what you have to say on the topic. Where exactly are you from and where do you get your 'information' from? What you said about Baluchis is just far off the mark that im in disbelief i even read that. There is no rebellion in Sistan-Baluchestan. There are incidents of terrorism against the state, but no insurgency or rebellion. You are confused. The Baluchi rebellion is taking place over in Pakistan. What Iran faces in Sistan-Baluchestan is opposition from an obscure group of terrorists calling themselves Jundullah. But there is nothing close to a rebellion in Iranian Baluchestan unlike what has been underway in Pakistan. Jundullah is an outfit that first claimed to be fighting for the rights of the 'Sunni minority' in Iran, then later claimed to be fighting for 'Baluch rights'. They again flip-flopped on their agenda and tried (unsuccessfully) to re-brand themselves as the 'Peoples Resistance Movement of Iran'. Their leader claimed he is fighting for 'regime change' and for a federal Iran, not for independence. What they are in reality tho, are a band of criminals with an extremist Salafi ideology that tries to mimic Al-Qaeda terrorism (video-taping beheadings of people they have kidnapped and so on). They have no support in Iran which is why they were forced out of the country and are now based and operate out of Pakistan, definitely under the protection of some foreign agency (the regime has hinted at either the Americans, Pakistanis or Saudi Arabians).

 

Now the only actual Baluchi rebellion taking place anywhere is in Pakistan, and that is where Baluchis are fighting for independence. You can even hear for yourself Baluchi rebels disowning having anything to do with Junduallah which should tell you something about where the real fight is taking place and by whom - http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2933362922795920800&ei=5klVSbrhAY-cjQLPubiRDA&q=dan+reports+america+over+there&emb=1

 

In relation to instability in Afghanistan, it might be in the interest of Indians to keep that country unstable long enough to undercut Pakistani influence there, but this is an agenda i doubt is shared by the Iranian government. Iran has no interest in foolish Indo-Pak squabbles and is not going to get involved in their disputes.

 

And there is no way that Iranian intelligence is complicit in the smuggling and distribution of drugs as a form of policy or money-making or whatever else. One of the few things the regime has been commended for by the UN is Iran's commitment to fighting against the international smuggling, production and distribution of drugs.

 

Marco explained, I think, why India is interested in making Afghanistan unstable, because Pakistan will suffer the consequenses. Now how Iran benifits from unstability, that is a bit more complicated.

 

A stable unified Afghanistan will make Pakistani influence in the region much stronger. Baluchis who are not in love with the current regime in Iran and have been rebelling for a while might tke the chance and demand unity with Pakistan since most Baluchis are there.

 

But what is even more clear is the role that a unified Afghanistan can play in any future central Asian pipeline. Iran is losing its oil fast and it is suspected that Central Asian countries have much more oil than currently thought. Now oil has to be exported and the only way other than Iran is Afghanistan.

 

Destabilising Afghanistan is a corner stone in strategic Iranian thinking and I would do exactly the same if I were from them. Just imagine how many billions will come if that line chose the shorter Iranian path.

 

Now your opposite argument is Iran is hurting from this chaos. The drug epidemic is reaching alarming rates but waite a second, Iran itself is benifiting from the drug trade, at least the regime is. Iraq was floded by cheap and high quality processed opium since the invasion. The drug problem in the south of the country has reached epidemic rates as well. In Saudi Arabia and Kuwaite there is enough evidence that Iranian intelligence is involved in the trade. Now I am not a conspiracy theory advocate but intelligence services around the world have been known to use drugs and I doubt that Iran is an exception.

 

Al-Jassas

Originally posted by Gharanai Dear Cons. I don't know how many Tajiks have you interacted with, 10s, 100s or 1000s ? But to enlight your knowledge there are millions of Tajiks living in Afghanistan so it does not matter what at most 1000s think what matters is what the majority thinks.   As far as you are worried for the Tajiks', Uzbeks' and Hazaras' future under Taleban extreamism then you should be more concerned about the 70.5 million poor Iranians who have been living under Extreamist rule since 1979 (the so called Islamic Revolution), so don't petty for Afghan Tajiks but for your own people who are living under that extreamism for almost 30 years.   And as far as you are worried about the effects of terrorism on Iran, then I would like to tell you that Iran was the mother of current terrorism in the reign. It was the Islamic Revolution of Iran which changed and influenced the mentality of Afghans and it was Iran who supported Hekmatyar and Ahmad Shah Masood during the 80s and 90s, and it was Hekmatyar and Ahmad Shah Masood who broke the country into pieces and distroyed the basic infrastructure of Afghanistan.   And it has always been Iran, whether it's in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq or Phallistine, who divide the muslims and use them to fight against each other in the names of Sunni and Shai.   So please don't lecture us regarding the terrorism, and as far as the norcotics are concerned I would simple tell you in a single line that; "When there is a demand, there is production!". So don't blame Afghanistan and instead try to stop your youth generation from using it.   Oh and not to forget, as far as the Afghan Refugees are concerned, I would simply enlight you that it's the UN who is paying Iranian Government for each single refugee in Iran as well as Pakistan and other countries. And Iran intead of giving that money to the needy people who by the mercy of Iran has lost their own homes and relatives and are now living in the camps, use that money to increase it war arseanl.

 
The regime in Iran has committed crimes and excesses since taking power. We all know that. That issue however, has no relation to what is being discussed on this topic. The regime, though extreme, is not comparable to the level barbarism, fanaticism and ethno-fascism of the Taliban.
 
The Tajiks i have interacted with are few. I do not claim to speak on their behalf and neither does it interest me to do so. But with that said i am not convinced of anything you say to the contrary about how disunited and explosive Afghanistan is. I am not convinced either that Iran bears any responsibility for the crises that is Afghanistan. Do you really expect anyone to believe that the Iranian regime had any desire or capability to influence events in Afghanistan just after the 1978 and 1979 revolutions and when Iran was locked into an 8 year war with Saddam's Iraq? One of the regimes motivations for its excesses and repression in Iran during the 1980s was because of its insecurity and the very real possibility of it being toppled internally by opposition; let alone being ousted by foreign threats from Saddam and the US. It is strange to hear from you that the chaos in Afghanistan is down to 'Iranian influence with changed the mentality of Afghans'. I know that this isnt true, so dont expect me to believe it. I am also sure that you know that this isnt true either, so dont argue just for the sake of arguing. The regime had not even fully consolidated itself and Iran was in no position to significantly influence events in Afghanistan during the 1980s.
 
You should not feel so insecure that i would back Tajik moves for self-determination. Just because i would back it doesn't mean that the Iranian regime would. I can only hope they would if a situation arises where the US attempts to re-impose the Taliban on the non-Pashtuns. Your defensive attitude and apparent assumption of the worst possible outcome of such a scenario (ie Tajik independence) is very revealing to me about what you must really think and know about how non-Pashtuns feel about living with the Pashtuns in a single state; Afghanistan. You missed the whole point of my original post and your attitude has only confirmed my initial suspicions about Afghanistan's lack of any sense of having a national identity or unity, which i think has been obvious for decades that it doesn't in fact have.

 

Iran will continue to watch and try to influence events in the current Afghan war - this is out of your hands and mine and i am only stating what is a fact here. As far as my personal views go, you can disagree that is no problem for me. But dont thin that spreading lies about Iran as a counter-point is going to change my views. Im sure we're all old enough here to shoot them down and they cant phase me or any other Iranian on this forum.

 

Regards,

 

Al-Jassas i am highly bemused by this post of yours. I am not sure whether you were serious or not when you made it. It reads like some kind of April fools joke. There are far too many errors and just plain fallacies in your response for me to engage you in this debate. If there is anyone here under the influence of 'propaganda' it is you quite clearly. Either that or you just dont know what you're talking about, but chose to talk anyway.

 

 

Obviously you haven't been into Afghanistan and the only news source is Iranian propaganda.

 

Almost 90% of Tajiks are sunni in Afghanistan and many Tajiks actually support the Taliban and some of the strongest Taliban bases currently are in Tajik Territory. The Tajiks that I know, they operate a restaurant that I go to frequently, say that and they are not fans of either the current government not Ahmad Shah Masud. They were not happy with the Taliban either but here is the thing, they support them because they are not puppet, not to Iran and not to the US. They were at least Afghans.

 

Same thing lesser extent applies to Hazara. They too don't love the Taliban but they hate Americans and foreigners even more. Currently most of Bamyan is believe it or not under Taliban control and shia locals support them. This is unusual considering how far from their base Bamyan is located. 

 

It is Iran/India that doesn't want any stability to be achieved in Afghanistan not Taliban or other power to unify Afghanistan. It was Iran that encouraged and supported Hikmatyar to turn over the 92 deal and occupy Kabul and distroy it when it became apparent that the deal worked. I think Marco's post is a good way to start.

 

Finally, define the meaning of "Iranian" control over Afghanistan and Baluchistan? Paying tribute is not control, having nominal authority is not control either. Better still define Iran and what does that mean? Is it what the Qajars ruled which excludes much of Khuzestan and parts of Azerbaijan and nearly all of Sistan? Or is it what the Safavids ruled which exludes even Khurasan? The last time a dynasty in what is now called Iran ruled over Herat was back during the 11th century, since then Afghan dynsaties have been ruling the city and they pretty much consider themselves Afghans not Iranian.

 

Al-Jassas

 

 

 

Dear Conservative (or what ever your name is behind that label),

First of all I would like to let you know that with all the interference of IRAN in Afghan affairs, Al Hamdulellah still majority of AFGHANS (Tajik, Hazara, Pashtun, Baloch, Uzbek and rest), along with all their crisis and problems, along with the occupation of foriegn troops and along with the poor quality of life are still happy to live side by side to each other and anyone who tries to break our unity and try to use us against each other will end up in the breaking of their own countries (1919-British Empire, 1989 Soviet Union).

 

And by the way what would you like to say about the Balochs, Kurds and Aazaris of Iran whom never ever wanted to live under the Iranian flag?????

 

...then id support any push for self-determination amongst the non-Pashtuns and that is something i hope the Iranian government would back too.

 

Don't you think that you should first consider your own country's maters first then start worrying about your nieghbors?

 

And by the way in case you decided to give them their rights then please GIVE US BALOCHESTAN as we have had a very cordial and sencere relation with them through out our history and beside that all we will find a way to open waters.

 

I think the leader after Karzai is not going to take the country in a really different direction, whoever it may be.  Unless ofcourse it is a homegrown leader.  I think if the Military becomes strong enough and reaches 140,000 status as they wish it would, the military might have enough power  and support to secure the country and then we can have the chance for more people to step up to the plate within Afghanistan to lead the country to a new era.

 

The biggest problem right now is security.  It hampers commerce, development, aid, and and the government from doing their job.  After that it should be shutting down Taliban's money making infrastructure, the poppy fields and giving farmers a better alternative.  Apparently Pomegranate, Francensence yield more money per hectare than poppy, but farmers are lacking the government aid to convert their fields and properly water them.  If they don't have enough water, they will go back to poppy which can withstand droughts.

 

If security is brought, they should focus on the south for development aid because the South has traditionally been Afghanistan's breadbasket. This is where most of the wheat was grown, grain, alfalfa, and many fruits and vegetables.  Primarily in the region of Lashkargah and the Argandab river valley.