Viswanathan K's Thoughts

I was hesitant to write on the Iran-Israel war because everything would change dramatically if the US entered the arena. And who knew whether and when the US might join the war? Now with Trump announcing a 2 week period after which he will decide, it might be “safe” to write one… (Of course, as Iran rightly fears, the US may be lying about that to lull Iran into a bit of relative security, but I’ll ignore that possibility and write this anyway).   Personally, I don’t think Trump greenlighted Israel’s attack for a couple of reasons. First , if this was part of the US plan, why the 2 week wait period? They’d have had a plan ready. Second , the US would have lined up its ducks, By that, I mean their intelligence agency would have said (lied?) that Iran was close to having a nuke, whereas their spy chief, Tulsi Gabbard said the opposite . Yes, Trump said she was wrong but that just supports my point – you wouldn’t have these kinds of contradictory statements if the Israeli attack w...

While Khomeini had acquired power, he feared the US would betray him, try and reinstate the Shah, says the history-by-the-hour book on Iran . So Iran asked the US to extradite the Shah to stand trial in Iran; which the US refused. In response, Iranians stormed the US embassy and took Americans hostage: “They figured that as long as they were holding American hostages, the US would have to think twice about regime change.” The US had expected a Gandhi-like peacemaker; instead they got chants of “Death to America”.   After an aborted rescue attempt, the US turned to Saddam Hussein in Iraq to attack Iran. Hard though it is to imagine today, Saddam was a hero to the West, and to the Arab world! Iranians were furious and stuck behind Khomeini – their fury and thus willingness to die for the country meant that Saddam’s better trained troops couldn’t win quickly. This bought enough time for Iran’s trained forces to step in, and war would continue for a decade.   The long ...

I read this excellent history-by-the-hour book on Iran , from its independence onwards. It is full of flip-flops; so brace yourself for a rollercoaster ride.   Unlike India, the British never let go off Iran at independence – yes, because of oil. The Anglo-Iranian company was minting money for Britain, and left little for the Iranians. In 1952, its Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, transferred its ownership to the Iranian government. A furious Britain enforced a naval embargo on Iran. They also tried to get US support, but President Truman refused. His successor, Eisenhower flipped American policy and agreed to support Britain. Via the usual method – fomenting a regime change.   Meanwhile, the British blockade hurt Iran, and the masses became increasingly unhappy with Mosaddegh . The Shah of Iran, working with the CIA, dismissed Mosaddegh. But the people hated the Shah even more, and they came out in support of Mosaddegh. The Shah fled to Italy. The CIA began to pla...

As the dust begins to settle on the assassination of Iranian military commander, Qaseem Soleimani, the Americans seem to have won by a knock out. The US took out a very powerful Iranian. The Iranian ballistic missiles, on the other hand, didn’t kill even a single American. In the fog of war, the Iranians now admit to accidentally shooting down that civilian airliner in Teheran. On the other hand, Iran could still be playing the long game. They could aggravate the mess that is Iraq via action and inaction. They could ease off the anti-ISIS effort, and play the very dangerous game of allowing ISIS to rise enough to continue attacking the West but without allowing ISIS to become a threat to either Iran itself or its ally, Syria. Iran might also choose to launch very damaging cyber-attacks against Saudi Arabia, like they’ve done so successfully in the past. Tyler Cowen looks at a different aspect to all this, namely the role of fake news : “There is a lot of talk about the e...

In the US, you can’t be President for more than two terms. And so, towards the end of the second term, every US President starts focusing on his “legacy”, or what posterity will remember him for (if at all). Thus, they try and do something grand, and something visible globally. Obama, of course, won the Nobel Peace Prize right after becoming President simply because for not being George W. Bush. Obama knew how ridiculous that prize was and so rightly doesn’t that count that as his legacy. Instead, his attempt at leaving a legacy seems to be to change the US’s equation with its long term enemies. First Cuba, and now Iran. And in Iran’s case, if he has indeed succeeded in setting a system in place to prevent them from going nuclear, that would be a huge bonus (at least from an American perspective). Such attempts at creating a legacy makes sense for a US President. After all, it’s not like he will do much else after his second term, right? Except if he is Jimmy Carter. Carter ...

This line by Lord Palmerston is very famous: “England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only eternal and perpetual interests.” Those lines, of course, hold true for all other nations too. While cynical, it would seem to be the basic concept of every nation’s foreign policy. That is why Michael Totten’s line provoked such ridicule on the Net: “Foreign Policy 101 dictates that you reward your friends and punish your enemies.” Andrew Sullivan tore into it, and for good measure dragged George W. Bush’s administration into it! “It’s a spectacularly dumb statement, reflective of neoconservative tribalism rather than sensible foreign policy. You can tell it’s of neocon provenance because if its crudeness and simplicity. It’s the kind of idiotic thinking that (Bush’s vice-president) Cheney holds to.” The Saudis seem to have forgotten this basic principle and assumed that the US was their BFF (Best Friends Forever). No wonder they were so ...

Title got your attention? Iranian authorities decided to come up with their own version of Google Earth, the 3D version. Now that you’ve stopped laughing, surely you must be wondering why? Easy: Because Google Earth “belongs to the ominous triangle of the U.S., England and the Zionists”, as per an Iranian minister. Oh, and it will be an Islamic version, of course. Whatever that means. This news was a great topic for commenters on Slashdot . Here’s the set of comments I loved. One guy explained the intent of this project: “They have long wanted to wipe Israel off the face of the map and this is how they will do it. Just make their own maps and pretend they don't exist.” And ended with the hope: “Now if only they would do support virtual terrorism instead of real terrorism.” An “expert” on the Quran pointed out that the great book says the earth is flat. Would the map reflect that? To which came the smartass answer: “No, It'll be round, just wearing a bu...

How India chooses to handle the bomb attack on the Israeli embassy official’s wife is a very complicated topic. Israel has already blamed Iran for this and similar attacks in Georgia and Indonesia. Are they right? Possibly. On the other hand, would Iran risk staging an attack in a friendly country like India, now its largest oil buyer? Then again, is Iran banking on the fact that India would have no choice but to continue its relations with Iran since it won’t be able to find any alternative source for oil so fast? A farcial investigation would not be acceptable to Israel. Or probably to the Jewish lobby in the US. It would also give a stick to the US sections that never liked India’s relations with Iran. The handling of 26/11 and the fact that Kasab still lives conveys so much to the Israelis as to how this investigation will be conducted. Which is why the Israelis want to be part of the investigation. For the Congress government, the timing of the attack couldn’t be worse. Any in...