MEDIA ROOTS – Citizenship unites all of us around share rights and responsibilities, which guide our daily conduct.  We have the right to express ourselves and the responsibility to respect others, participate in the democratic process, and pursue happiness.  However, the increased militarization of state and local police forces has helped propagate a climate in which citizen journalists are victimized for taking on the role of the fourth estate.  To prosecute citizen journalists for undertaking their responsibilities is tragically inconsistent with our fundamental rights as U.S. citizens.

The plight of citizen journalists is one of many issues that the U.S. corporate media regularly ignores. Instead, it holds citizen reporting in contempt while it caters to the inane and vacuous in order to attract the advertising revenue associated with this lowest common denominator.  Consequently, the corporate media’s hollow reporting ostracizes critical thinkers and citizen journalists instead of confronting the difficult issues of our day.  The results are grim: U.S. corporate media actively represses political expression and social activism, while permitting militant police forces to grow relatively unhindered.

Paradoxically, police squash their own interests when suppressing citizen journalists, since these journalists are providing a public service for all U.S. citizens by providing much needed transparency. Despite numerous obstacles, citizen journalists have taken the reins in order to provide the United States with independent news, information, and raw coverage of current events.  Citizen journalists and concerned citizens (e.g. Luke Rudkowski, Tim Pool, Scott Campbell, and Jesse Myerson) arm themselves with open minds, modern technology, and determination en route to changing the oppressive status quo.  Abby Martin of RT raises awareness by richly documenting this struggle.

Christian Sorensen

 ***

Abby Martin reports on the attack on citizen journalists for RT TV

***

Photo by flickr user cikagajamie

MEDIA ROOTS — The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is the next looming threat to internet freedom, as the American government continues its relentless siege of the digital domain.  Coming on the heels of SOPA, PIPA and ACTA, CISPA sounds more like the final name in a quartet of lovable Disney characters as opposed to draconian internet legislation.  However, this latest incarnation appears to be the internet’s biggest foe to date.  If CISPA becomes law, the risk to civil liberties is greater than all the previous bills combined.

U.S. Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI) is the architect of CISPA, or H.R.3523.  Prior to his political calling, Rogers served as a Federal Bureau of Investigation special agent.  Currently, he serves as the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  This latest effort to undermine the internet focuses less on intellectual property and does not burden private companies with policing their information flow.  Rather, CISPA makes a broader and more sinister reach for power by simply forcing companies to comply with new government regulations, in the name of cyber security.  As Andrew Couts of digitaltrends.com aptly points out, “Whereas SOPA and PIPA were bad for many companies that do business on the Internet, and burdened them with the unholy task of policing the Web (or face repercussions), this bill makes life easier for them; it removes regulations and the risk of getting sued for handing over our information to the law. Not to mention doing what the bill says it’s going to do: protecting them from cyber threats.”

CISPA aims to grant non-civilian agencies unrestricted access to all digital information.  So, it stands, the National Security Agency will benefit the most from the legislation.  If this initiative succeeds, the NSA will have access to emails, social media, library records, online banking and credit card information.  In a letter sent by opposition groups and a number of Democratic lawmakers to CISPA sponsors Mike Rogers and C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersburger (D-MA) these alarming implications are made clear. The letter says, “Without specific limitations, CISPA would, for the first time, grant non-civilian federal agencies, such as the National Security Agency, unfettered access to information about Americans’ Internet activities and allow those agencies to use that information for virtually any purpose.” 

Supporters of the bill say it will allow private companies to easily share customer communications related to “significant” cyber and national security threats with government agencies.  As long as the information meets these two criteria, government agencies can use it on a wide scale.  In turn, private companies would be shielded from lawsuits filed by customers.  A number of Silicon Valley companies have already pledged their support for the bill including: Facebook, Microsoft, Symantec and IBM. 

However, a vocal opposition has developed in an attempt to beat back CISPA.  U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) has been CISPA’s most notable opponent, calling it “Big Brother writ large.”  RT (formerly known as Russia Today), a cable news station with an American audience of 50 million, was one of the first media outlets to decry CISPA and to use the phrase “worse than SOPA.”  CISPA is particularly dangerous because it would void current privacy laws and create channels for companies to share digital information with government agencies without the need for court orders. 

In addition to this attack on internet privacy, the bill contains numerous other disturbing implications.  One is the erosion of barriers between the private sector, government and military.  Also, like so many bills of the post 9/11 era, the language is ambiguous.  The language describing what can be spied on and how that information can be used is extremely vague.  Moreover, if a private company violates your privacy, the ensuing legal battle to prove liability is a Herculean task.  A complete summary of CISPA’s threats to cyber privacy can be found at Time’s Techland section.

Despite widespread opposition to the legislation, the bill passed the House of Representatives on April 26, 2012.  Whereas SOPA and PIPA squared off Hollywood and Silicon Valley against one another, in a fight over piracy, CISPA goes beyond that and zeroes in on privacy.  As a result, there is much more widespread support for the bill in the tech-community.  Whereas SOPA, PIPA and ACTA would have placed the burden of cyber-policing onto companies, CISPA relieves them of this duty and places the onus government.  According to The Vigilant Citizen “Privacy and free speech are not exactly mutually exclusive. Loss of privacy threatens free speech, and the loss of free speech is inevitably a loss of privacy.” 

As the American government becomes more authoritarian and American people more paranoid, the battles fought over the privacy of the public digital domain will intensify.  Much like the government and the military-industrial complex dumping vast amounts of our America’s wealth into wars abroad, yielding questionable results, the government will continue its aim to control one of the last bastions of free speech.  Only time will tell how successful their surge will be.  Have the shut downs of SOPA, PIPA and ACTA taught Americans to remain vigilant and make their voices heard, or will CISPA prevail?

Learn more about what you can do here.

Adam Miezo for Media Roots, Edited by Eric Aragon

Photo by Rock1997

MEDIA ROOTS – While privacy is certainly the dominant concern surrounding the controversial use of drones in this country, the lack of technological barriers to entry is the grease on the slippery slope. However, despite privacy concerns, the defense industry will continue its voracious lobbying effort to make sure drone technology becomes increasingly accessible to corporate commercialization. Abby Martin of Media Roots and RT reports on the use of domestic drones in the US:

Abby Martin – Domestic Drones 101 for RT

4^th Amendment to the United States Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is reasonable to assert that in the course of your friendly local police department launching a drone over the neighborhood every chimney, window and blade of grass in the neighborhood becomes “the place to be searched.” Many court cases have discussed and ruled that privacy is not protected for incriminating activity that exists from a public vantage point. For the most part, these decisions were always considered with respect to the naked human eye. However, drones are electronic eyes that extend the reach of the human eye making the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects substantially more difficult by the day.

Kyllo v. United States

Federal agents from a public vantage point used a thermal-imaging device to search Danny Kyllo’s residence for heat emissions not visible to the naked eye. In 2001, the Supreme Court explained, “[to] explore the details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a search and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.”  The decision asserted Americans have an expected privacy that cannot be violated even by technology that does not enter the home. This decision contrasted with the lower courts assertion that the device could not “penetrate walls or windows to reveal conversations or human activities.” This oxy-moronic contrast acknowledges that walls and windows are off limits.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority decision and his words are prophetic. Justice Scalia specifically tailored a “firm but bright” line drawn by the Fourth Amendment as the entrance to the house. Justice Scalia described this interpretation as “the long view” of the Fourth Amendment to specifically protect against more sophisticated future technology. Dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens argued the line would be crossed as soon as this surveillance technology becomes available to the public. While Kyllo v. United States is not drone specific it lifts the veil on the inherent capacity of drones to violate privacy with their electronic eyes and the potential rapid assimilation of drone technology into the commercial and private market.

Drone Commercialization

Though chaperoning Susie on her first date and having a drone dive bomb a pizza onto your front porch are gallows humor, the feasibility and potential use of drones for commercial use is real and ongoing. The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) was instrumental in crafting legislative language directing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to expedite approval of police departments and universities to deploy drones under five pounds this year. Further, this language sets forth the plans for larger drones to fly the American skies in 2015.

Companies previously shy of entering the drone market due to FAA ambiguity on drones in American airspace are now all clamoring to get a piece of the evil seeping from Pandora’s box. Drone technology was born from war and the companies migrating from weapons of war to “softer” domestic applications still maintain an emphasis on spy and weapons capabilities. Once American police departments and universities are saturated with drones and their long term service contracts the technology will creep into more “innocuous” commercial applications. It is not hard to imagine this evolution ending with Billy, living in the year 2050, building a spy drone from a kit in the garage to spy on his neighbors.

Technological Barriers

This evolution of technology and the increasing accessibility to the average person takes on several dimensions of concern. It is easy to extrapolate Billy’s neighborhood spy drone wreaking havoc on nude sun bathers enjoying the privacy of their back yard or snapping a few photos through Mr. and Mrs. Jones window as they fail to close the blinds in their lust to embrace. A look into the future of drone technology we find hundreds of sovereign states across the world developing advanced war capable drones to launch against America or other states with which they disagree. It is important to understand that weapons proliferation is a collective response to technological monopoly.

A look at nuclear technology reveals technological barriers to entry serve as a counter-balance to proliferation. Because nuclear technology is high science and the materials necessary are only accessible to advanced societies, humans are only able to delay nuclear proliferation. As nuclear technology and materials are shared amongst “friends,” the barriers to entry are demolished. The result of this proliferation today is the placement of social barriers to assign who is worthy of nuclear technology and who is not. These social barriers will only delay the inevitable. Drones being significantly less advanced technologically than nukes will rapidly proliferate beyond Western domination and the Earth may plummet into global drone warfare.

Chris Martin for Media Roots

***

SALON – In November 2010, a police lieutenant from Parma, Ohio, asked Vanguard Defense Industries if the Texas-based drone manufacturer could mount a “grenade launcher and/or 12-gauge shotgun” on its ShadowHawk drone for U.S. law enforcement agencies. The answer was yes.

Last month, police officers from 10 public safety departments around the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area gathered at an airfield in southern Maryland to view a demonstration of a camera-equipped aerial drone — first developed for military use — that flies at speeds up to 20 knots or hovers for as long as an hour.

In short, the business of marketing drones to law enforcement is booming. Now that Congress has ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to open up U.S. airspace to unmanned vehicles, the aerial surveillance technology first developed in the battle space of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan is fueling a burgeoning market in North America. And even though they’re moving from war zones to American markets, the language of combat and conflict remains an important part of their sales pitch — a fact that ought to concern citizens worried about the privacy implications of domestic drones.

*** 

Photo by Flickr user Jim n Texas

Syria and Iran

MEDIA ROOTS —Never before has the relationship between Iran and Syria been tested as it will be in the ensuing weeks and months. Syria’s story is rippling through the media as the situation on the ground changes by the hour. Right now, Iran and Syria stand confidently alongside Russia who is moving quickly to advance diplomacy and military assets into the region. Over millennia of shared history, Iran and Syria have been connected and disjoined. Currently, the Middle-East polarization brings them together to defend self-determination, individual and regional sovereignty and the right to a full nuclear fuel cycle. Media Roots contributor Chris Martin offers part two of this Media Roots original on the Iranian Neighborhood. In part one, Martin discussed the role of Israel and the permanent five.

Iran has strengthened it’s presence in Iraq–thanks to foreign imposed regime change, Iranian Shi’ite influence has penetrated Iraqi government institutions. Syria lies geographically west of Iraq and east of Israel, thus Syria and Iraq could be central theaters of war. Israel, America and Europe remain perched atop the slippery slope of war as Syria, Iran, Palestine, Southern Lebanon, Russia and China brace themselves for impact. The Western war hawk gazes upon Syria knowing Iran relies upon the geography of Syria as both a forward operating base and supply conduit.

Indeed the history between Syria and Iran spans back several millennia, but the current relationship emanates from the ashes of early 20^th century French and British imperialism. In 1920, Faisal I of the Hashemite family established the independent pan-Arab Kingdom of Syria to unify Sunni and Shia Muslims. European imperialists far from home had other uses in mind and the military muscle to clumsily occupy. Faisal I fled the French mandate assault, landing in the bosom of the British where he was summarily made the British King of Iraq. Together, France and Britain were carving up Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Israel into various slices of occupation. The cloak of international consensus and impetus was once again deployed in the form of a League of Nations to administer and control the Middle-East, “until such time as they are able to stand alone.”

A decade and a half of Syrian revolution ensued, culminating in the return of Faisal’s original appointment President Hashim al-Atassi under the treaty of independence. Short lived as French legislators refused support and the gyrations of World War II would find the Vichy French themselves occupied by Germany. Syrian nationalists with the “help” of the ever-present British forced the French to evacuate and gain independence in 1946. A two decade chain-reaction of military coups ensued, including a brief union with Egypt. Syria was boiling with internal struggle as the Baathist party entrenched itself and the Syrian Golan Heights were surrendered to Israel in the Six Day War of 1967.

In 1970, Alawite General Hafez al-Assad led the Corrective Revolution demanding a permanent constitution, women’s rights, liberalized economy, domestic inclusion of non-Baathist groups and alliances with Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Through the revolution, general al-Assad ascended to the Syrian Presidency where he ushered in a Syrian constitution in 1973. With oil discoveries, President al-Assad opened Syria to foreign investment and invested in industry, infrastructure, education and medicine, while consolidating central government power under Shia Alawite Baathist leadership.

The Soviets invested in the Syrian regime, helping them build dams and strengthen their military. Subsequently, the country became a regional symbol of independence from British and French imperialist designs. But the Alawite Shia running Syria faced an internal threat more grave than the floundering British and French imperialists: the Muslim Brotherhood, comprised of Sunni Muslims, began an assassination campaign against the ruling Shia Alawite Baathist. In February 1982, Assad ordered the Syrian Army to attack the Syrian town of Hama. More than 30,000 people were killed including thousands of Syrian soldiers and Muslim Brotherhood militants. As a result, Assad moved to tighten his inner circle as evidenced by hundreds of extrajudicial executions of opponents.

President Hafez al-Assad subsequently developed a state sponsored cult of personality campaign, which was adopted by his son and successor–Bashar al-Assad. University of Damascus graduate, army doctor, military academy graduate –Bashar al-Assad took charge of the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. In 2000, Bashar al-Assad ascended to the Syrian Presidency where he tentatively remains today. Bashar al Assad’s Syria is now at the tipping point of international military intervention and regime change as Iran and Russia stand ready to aid the Syrian ally.

Syria and Iran’s Multi-dimensional Relationship

In the first dimension, you find Syria more than 70% Sunni Muslim and Iran more than 90% Shia Muslim. This religious divide is currently irrelevant as the minority Syrian Alawite (>15% total population) share Shia Islam with Iran and cling to power. It can be said that Iran has the hearts and minds of Syria’s ruling Shia minority but only the disdain of the Syrian Sunni masses.

In the second dimension, Syria has always been an Iranian tentacle to influence Lebanon. This opaque relationship has yielded a battle hardened and entrenched Hezbollah fighting force in South Lebanon, which is heavily dependent upon Iranian hardware, training and intelligence. Conversely, over reaching Syrian-Iranian influence in Lebanon opened the door for international condemnation as the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri was blamed on Syria, precipitating the Cedar Revolution and the epic withdrawal of Syrian troops.

In the third dimension, Syria supported Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. It was the only Arab State to support Iran, which reaped the rewards of Iranian adoration but marked the beginning of strained Syrian regional and international relationships. The founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, openly expressed his desire to export the Islamic revolution to all Muslim countries. Other Arab states poured their support behind Iraq, fearing Iran would destabilize their own constituency.

In yet another dimension, Syria participated in the wars against Israel in 1948 and 1967, losing more than 500 square miles of territory to Israel known as the Golan Heights. This festering open-sore attracts and internally justifies the Iranian anti-Zionist agenda. The Golan Heights volcanic plateau has been extensively settled by Israel and strategically provides Israel with one-third of its water. In 1981, Israel extended its civil law to the occupied territory and this was condemned by United Nations Resolution 497 as an illegal violation of Syrian sovereignty.

Today, the international community is in a tug-of-war over Syria. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insists the Syrian protests are the machinations of America and Israel. This sentiment is shared across the Iranian power structure as both Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and Parliament have condemned the Syrian uprising as an ongoing American attempt at regime change. Conversely, Iran is anonymously accused of supplying Syria with equipment to put down protests, including techniques on Internet surveillance, drone aircraft and lethal material for riot control. Other reports identify Iran Quds force 3^rd in command, Mohsen Chizari, as the individual in charge of training Syrian security services and Iranian snipers are allegedly deployed in Syria to assist the crackdown on protests.

Media manipulation is in full bloom as the battle for public support is waged. Iran insists Syria is being destabilized to serve the Zionist agenda, while the West insists Syria is experiencing an internal revolt ignited by the cinders of the Arab spring. Media aligned with both sides fervently pushes their version of reality. The central banking cabal is whipping the politicians, diplomats and their media slaves to move the international war machine. What emanates from the stinking bowels of media spin is conditioning for the masses. In small pulsating doses the Western mass is coaxed and lulled into support for action against one side of a “civil war.” A civil war induced and now purportedly saved by foreign intervention. As with all human wars the bankers stand to gain, while humanity loses collective dignity, individual life and another opportunity to cooperate.

The Middle-East endures two continuing ailments. The clash of Shia and Sunni Islam across the Middle-East is at the core of regional disunity, which allows opportunity for imperialist penetration of regional sovereignty. The stale imperialist mandates that created the British-Israeli outpost and the borders across the region are toxic. Iran has always considered Syria as a forward theater for placing the building blocks of war and shares the blame for regional trans-national manipulation. Religious tolerance and respect of sovereignty remains the moral and ethical high road and the key to peace in the Middle-East.

Turkey and Iran

Until recently, the rise of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip improved ties with Iran. Turkey’s increasingly hard line against Israel and Syria has paralyzed the expansion of trust with Iran. Now Iran is walking a diplomatic tight-rope, favoring the Turkish position against Israel but blaming Syrian civil unrest on Turkish collusion with Zionist and Western imperialist powers. Perhaps most damaging to Turkish-Iranian relations is the decision of Turkey to host a NATO missile shield capable of limiting an Iranian counter-attack, should Israel attack Iranian nuclear facilities. The relationship between Turkey and Iran runs through Syria and Israel and untangling the diplomacy to find neutrality and peace will be monumentally difficult and remains fragile by the hour.

In 2005, the Turkish Prime Minister visited Israel to advance economic ties. In 2007, this visit was reciprocated by Israeli President Shimon Peres visiting Turkey to set a precedent as the first Israeli leader to address the parliament of a predominately Muslim nation. A series of ensuing events significantly soured the relationship between Turkey and Israel, much to the pleasure of Iran.

The 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza atrocity leaving 1,300 Palestinian human beings dead placed the Israeli President on the defensive, who reminded Turkey that if rockets had hit Istanbul they would have reacted similarly. Turkey’s Prime Minister fired back under duress that Israeli actions in Gaza were barbaric.  He shouted, “I find it very sad that people applaud what you (Peres) have said because you know how to kill people.”

In hindsight, an ominous premonition as Israel would conduct a bloody maritime raid on an international flotilla attempting to bring humanitarian supplies to the blockaded and besieged Palestinians. On May 31, 2010 a ship named Mavi Marmara was stormed by Israeli commandos leaving eight Turkish citizens dead. The raid was condemned as “disproportionate” and “brutal” by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Turkey recalled its ambassador to Israel and summoned the Israeli ambassador to explain the “state sponsored terrorism.”

Turkey’s Prime Minster furthered the alignment with Iran when he described Israel as “the main threat to regional peace,” and called for Israeli nuclear facilities to come under International Atomic Energy Agency inspection. He and the Brazilian President Lula da Silva met in Tehran to secure Iranian uranium enrichment outsourcing contracts to alleviate sanctions on Iran. The Turkish-Iranian dovetail concerning the Israel-Palestine issue was summarized by Turkey’s Foreign minister saying, “Enough is enough. The longer the Palestinian-Israeli issue remained unresolved, the greater the price peoples of the region, including Turkey, pay. Israelis should decide on what they want… Israel has failed to convey any positive message…but continues to build new settlements and make provocative statements…the existing status quo cannot exist anymore. Palestinians deserve their own state.”

Recep Tayyip Erdrogan 

This non-collaborative alignment with Iran against Israel is starkly contrasted by Turkey’s rapidly disintegrating relationship with Iran’s number one regional ally –Syria. What started out as Turkish objections to Syrian methods of quelling civil unrest, complaints about the flow of refugees into Turkey and the killing of Syrian refugees on Turkish soil is now teetering on all out war. Syria shot down a Turkish F-4 Phantom reconnaissance aircraft just last week.

The Syrian air defense system near the city of Latakia is also the site of an Iranian funded Syrian military installation. This military facility is close in proximity to the Russian naval base at Tartus and the entire area hosts the NATO missile shield. However, no collusion between Syria and Iran has been reported in the downing of the Turkish F-4 aircraft. The unarmed aircraft did violate Syrian airspace and did crash in Syrian territorial waters, yet Turkey is adamant in clarifying the attack occurred over international waters. Syria is acknowledging justified responsibility noting the aircraft crossed into Syrian airspace and was not known to be Turkish.

Syrian foreign ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi said, “Syria was merely exercising its right and sovereign duty and defense…There is no enmity between Syria and Turkey, but political tension (exists) between the two countries…What happened was an accident and not an assault as some like to say, because the plane was shot while it was in Syrian airspace and flew over Syrian territorial waters.” Turkey’s Foreign Minister has asked for Iranian support in convincing Syria to apologize and compensate the country of Turkey. Since Turkey’s official accusation of Syrian aggression, their relationship has deteriorated.

Turkey’s decision to host a NATO radar system to track missiles launched from Iran was regarded by Iran as a breach of trust. Iran views the missile shield as a Western effort to protect Israel should Iran decide to retaliate for Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei suggested Turkey should rethink its Syrian policies and the NATO defense shield, but Turkey continues to insist the missile defense system secures Europe and Turkey consistent with NATO goals. In November 2011, the head of the Iranian Guard’s aerospace division threatened to strike the NATO missile shield in Turkey if other countries attacked Iran. Indeed, Turkey and Iran are currently enduring the most strain between the two countries in modern history.

The relationship between Turkey and Iran depends upon their individual relationships with their neighbors. It is hard to imagine Turkey abandoning NATO to fight a war against Israel and equally as hard to imagine Iran sitting idly by should Turkey strike Syria. What is horribly conceivable is Iran lashing out against Turkey should the entire region descend into the madness of war. Thus, Turkey-Iran relations are ominous.

Saudi Arabia and Iran

The relationship between Shi’ite dominated Iran and Sunni dominated Saudi Arabia has always been strained by sectarian differences. Clerics from both countries denounce the others beliefs. Sunni Muslims believe that a group of Muhammad’s prominent companions gathered after his death and elected Muhammad’s father-in-law, Abu Bakr Siddique, as the first of four Caliphs of Islam. Shia Muslims believe Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law Ali ibn Abi Talib is the rightful successor to Muhammad. Volatile discourse, tense diplomacy and even violence have been the result of interaction between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.

In the early 20th century Iran and Saudi Arabia jousted diplomatically over various Persian Gulf islands, settling peacefully on ownership and waterway rights. The relationship shifted as Iran’s military began to modernize and then radically changed as the Islamic Revolution of Iran went into full swing in 1979. In 1987, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini declared that “these vile and ungodly Wahhabis, are like daggers which have always pierced the heart of the Muslims from the back,” and announced that Mecca was in the hands of “a band of heretics.” This was ensued by attacks on Shi’ite holy sites and Hajj pilgrims in Saudi Arabia and attacks on Saudi diplomats in Tehran.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 shifted the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Both were opposed to the use of force to resolve regional conflict, Iran even backed United Nations sanctions against Iraq. In 1991, the stage was set for restoration of diplomatic ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The resumption of diplomatic ties witnessed several visits of high level dignitaries, yet every time the relationship began to warm incidents with shades of false-flag would intervene.

Following the thaw of 1991 the Hajj pilgrimage was expanded for Iranians visiting Mecca, for a period of five years the relationship took incremental steps in a positive direction. On June 23, 1996 American military barracks in Dhahran were bombed, killing military personnel and wounding hundreds of civilians. America immediately blamed Iran but was unable to provide proof significant enough to stunt the budding Iranian-Saudi relationship.

In 1997, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference witnessed regional Arab partners warming to Iran, which was followed by a Saudi delegation visiting Iran and Iranian President Khattami visiting Saudi Arabia. This led to a series of cooperative agreements that culminated in the Saudi-Iranian security agreement of 2001. While Saudi Arabia and America have been allies for sixty years, Saudi Arabia claims to walk a neutral line when it comes to American policy regarding Iran. In 2007, the controversial Iranian President Ahmadinejad accepted the invitation of King Abdullah to visit Saudi Arabia and the trip signaled a strengthening relationship.

This all came crashing down in 2009 when in the shadow of Secretary of State Clinton, Saudi Foreign Minister al-Faisal stated, “the threat posed by Iran demanded a more immediate solution than sanctions.” A statement quickly denounced by Iranian officials, but one that set the Saudi-Iranian relationship back twenty years. In late 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder accused Iran of planning to assassinate the Saudi-Arabian ambassador to the United States. To date, very little public information is available on this allegation and it appears on the surface to be consistent with the American agenda to keep Saudi Arabia and Iran at arms length.

Two weeks ago, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries met to resolve the differences between Iran and Saudi-Arabia with respect to oil production. Iran would like lower production and higher prices, while Saudi-Arabia would like to serve the tightening of Western oil sanctions by increasing production to stagnate or drop prices. A compromise was reached by agreeing to maintain the status quo of 30 million barrels a day. Saudi-Arabia shares the Persian Gulf with Iran and could be attacked by Iran should Iran perceive Saudi collusion with the Western agenda. Yet, Saudi-Arabia is well armed by America and will likely support any power opposing Iran.

Palestine and Iran

Palestine-Iran relations have shifted on several occasions. Before the Iranian revolution of 1979, the Shah of Iran was engrossed in maintaining good diplomatic relations with Britain, America and Israel. During this time the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) maintained training camps in Lebanon to train Iranian opposition. Only days after the 1979 revolution occurred, PLO chief Yasser Arafat visited Iran and was handed the keys to the former Israeli embassy.

A tenuous relationship was then formed between Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini and Yasser Arafat. Khomeini opposed the PLO pan-Arab agenda and was rebuffed by Arafat when he asked that the PLO be modeled after the Islamic revolution. The relationship was severely strained when Arafat supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and disintegrated when Arafat renounced terrorism and called for peace talks with Israel in 1988.

In 2000, Middle-East peace talks held at Camp David in America collapsed. This restored Iranian support of Palestine as evidenced in 2002, when Israel seized a ship carrying 50 tons of weapons from Iran to Gaza, Palestine. In 2004, Yasser Arafat died and a year later Israel withdrew its occupation of Gaza, which ushered in a democratically elected Hamas government. Foreign aid for Palestine quickly diminished and Iran stepped in with substantial aid to avoid Hamas bankruptcy.

The current relationship between Iran and Palestine depends upon which Palestine is being discussed. In January 2006, the Hamas party won democratic legislative elections over the long standing Palestinian Fatah party. The sovereign election results have never been challenged and are internationally accepted as legitimate. However, Israel, America, Canada and Europe all froze financial assistance declaring Hamas a terrorist organization. Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, survivor of a 1987 Israeli assassination, and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas would meet in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in February 2007 to form the Palestinian national unity government.

The newly elected Hamas party would place Ismail Haniyeh as Prime Minister of the Palestinian unity government. On June 7, 2007 the Battle of Gaza was unleashed as Hamas asserted military control over the Gaza strip and forced Fatah out. Fatah leader and Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, declared a state of emergency and dissolved the national unity government. Fatah leader Abbas dismissed the democratically elected Haniyeh and appointed Salam Fayyad to head a new “independent” government that has no Fatah or Hamas members but is supported by Fatah, Israel and America.

Under Palestinian law, the President may dismiss a sitting Prime Minister, but can only appoint a replacement with the approval of the Palestinian Legislative Council. The law clearly states the outgoing Prime Minster, Ismail Haniyeh, heads a caretaker government. The Palestinian Legislative Council never approved the appointment of Salam Fayyad and several prominent Palestinian constitutional lawyers have publicly declared the appointment of Fayyad illegal. Fragmentation of the Palestinian unity government across party lines evolved into geographical separation, as Hamas continues to govern the Gaza strip and Fatah controls the West Bank. Currently, the two regimes are referred to as the Palestinian National Authority and each considers itself as the legitimate Palestinian government. The stench of modern imperialism is thick in the air as America nakedly facilitates and condones an illegal regime change–in lieu of democracy.

Iran was keen to support this new usurper of Western imperialism and Hamas became a favored son. Fatah remains on Western life support and is legally illegitimate and increasingly insignificant without popular Palestinian support. In a recent interview, a Hamas political leader named Salah Barawil surprisingly said, “If there is a war between [the] two powers, Hamas will not be a part of such a war…Hamas is not part of military alliances in the region. Our strategy is to defend our rights.” Hamas formerly based out of Damascus, Syria has trimmed its “proxy” status with Iran given the deterioration of Syria. Iran has since retaliated by cutting off funding to Hamas.

Also, Iran has no relationship with the Western sponsored West Bank Fatah party and as mentioned, has severed its ties with the Gaza based Hamas party. This about face on Hamas’ part benefits Israel in any potential regional war as Hamas and Fatah are the closest in proximity to Israel and are expected to serve the Iranian master. Hamas has continued to defy the Iranian and Syrian axis by refusing to hold rallies supporting the beleaguered Syrian Assad regime. In February 2012, Hamas and Fatah reluctantly signed the Hamas-Fatah Doha agreement. The plan called for joint elections in May 2012, which have yet to materialize.

Of all the nations mentioned in this article Palestine is the most important, because the Middle-East region pivots according to the circumstances on the ground in Palestine. The fate of Palestine is in the hands of a world that does not universally recognize its sovereignty, and the area surrounding Jerusalem has been in flux for more than three-millennia. Iran views Israel as the occupier of Palestine and rejects a two state solution, and President Ahmadinejad has called for a referendum for the Palestinian population to determine the type of government of any future Palestinian state, while reiterating that establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel would “never mean an endorsement of the Israeli occupation.”

Lebanon and Iran

Lebanese history predates recorded history – spanning back 7000 years. The Phoenicians maintained their maritime culture in the East Mediterranean for 2500 years from roughly 3000 – 539 BC. Attacked and ruled by Macedonia, Persia, Egypt and many others Lebanon’s geographical location has placed it in the crossfire of war for millennia. As a result Lebanon enjoys significant religious diversity. Largely a Maronite Christian territory it also includes many Greek Orthodox, Druze, Shia and Sunni Muslim citizens.

Ruled by the Ottoman Empire for four centuries, Lebanon on the heels of World War I became part of the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon. France formed the Lebanese Republic in 1926 as a democratic republic with a parliamentary system. Lebanon gained independence in 1943 when France was attacked and occupied by Germany. The remaining French command, referred to as the Vichy French Army, allied with the Germans and allowed Germany to attack regional British interests during the Anglo-Iraqi war. This led to an attack of the French mandate by Britain and allies, most notably the Australians.

From this independence came Lebanon’s unwritten National Pact. The National Pact required Maronites to not seek western intervention and accept Lebanon as an Arab affiliated country; likewise the Muslims were required to abandon the desire to unite with Syria. Further it divided the seats of power among the various religious groups; the President would always be Maronite, the Prime Minister would be Sunni Muslim, the President of the National Assembly would be Shia Muslim, the Deputy Speaker of the Parliament and Deputy Prime Minister would be Greek Orthodox and the Chief of the General Staff would be Druze.

A period of relative tranquility and prosperity was realized from the withdrawal of French troops in 1946 to the beginning of the Lebanese civil war in 1975. From 1975 to 1990 over 200,000 Lebanese civilians died, upwards of a million were wounded and another million fled the country and conflict. Adding fuel to the fire and changing the Lebanese demographic dramatically, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees fled Palestine as the Israeli occupation deepened. These refugees were armed by the PLO and were significant enough in number to wield a veto in Lebanese politics. This sparked an internal arms race among all Lebanese factions.

As the Lebanese civil war came to a close in 1990, Lebanon would again enjoy a period of relative tranquility and prosperity. Reconstruction of the country was done in such a way that it serves as a model for any country devastated by a civil war catastrophe. As reconstruction was coming to a close and tourism reached peaks never before seen, a war between the Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel broke out in 2006.

Southern Lebanon borders Israel and is the main stomping ground of the Shia Muslim political and military party –Hezbollah. Some allege Hezbollah was created by Iran as a proxy force positioned on the Israeli border. Having emerged in 1982 during the Lebanese civil war, Hezbollah fighters received training and equipment from the Iranian revolutionary guard.

In February 2005, the Prime Minister of Lebanon was assassinated and investigations pointed towards Syria. This led to significant political and military flux known as the Cedar Revolution, culminating in the withdrawal of 14,000 Syrian troops from Lebanon. Four members of Hezbollah were indicted by a United Nations tribunal for involvement in the assassination, while Hezbollah maintains the Israeli Mossad carried out the assassination to dislodge Syria from Lebanon. Several other anti-Syrian politicians and investigators were assassinated in the ensuing months and the incidents remain an open wound.

On July 12, 2006 Hezbollah killed and kidnapped Israeli soldiers to be used as leverage for prisoner exchange. Israel reacted sternly with artillery and airstrikes on civilian infrastructure and Hezbollah countered with thousands of Katyusha rockets fired deep into Israeli territory. Hezbollah dug in with hardened positions on the Lebanese side of the border and fought a guerilla war against Israeli infantry with some “success.” Hezbollah has rearmed since hostilities ceased, expanding its arsenal of rockets with the help of Syria and Iran. Most of its rocket arsenal is either Iranian or Russian and Syria is widely regarded as the main supplier if only the main supply route.

In 2008, after a quasi-successful defense of Lebanon’s southern border in the 2006 conflict, Hezbollah would control eleven of thirty Lebanese cabinet seats. In August 2008, Lebanon’s new cabinet unanimously approved Hezbollah’s right to exist as an armed organization headed by its Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah. Despite the integration of Hezbollah into the Lebanese government many Western powers still label Hezbollah as a terrorist group.

Iran via Syria and the Lebanese Hezbollah remain on the northern border of Israel ready to defend should Lebanon come under attack. It is the assertion of many military and diplomatic experts that this border area will become a major battlefield should Israel launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has also backed off from statements suggesting Hezbollah would support Iran in the event of an Israeli attack. In a Beirut, Lebanon newspaper Nasrallah said, “There is speculation about what would happen if Israel bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities…I tell you that the Iranian leadership will not ask Hezbollah to do anything. On that day, we will sit, think and decide what we will do.” This may be a feint in reaction to Israel’s warning that it will strike Hezbollah if Iran attacks Israel.

Iran and Lebanon are partially allied; to the extent Hezbollah entirely controls the South of Lebanon. The Lebanese Hezbollah continues to maintain close relations with both Iran and Syria. Many Lebanese were displeased with the excessive Israeli destruction of their newly rebuilt country and will not support Hezbollah or Iran. It is quite likely that Lebanon’s partial allegiance with Iran will suck the country back into its familiar state of civil war. The implications of an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities will engulf the entire region and Lebanon will be the first to suffer.

The entire region remains a tinder box waiting for an ample spark. If the Syrian downing of a Turkish jet won’t ignite the region, certainly an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will set off a catastrophic fire. On June 28, 2012 America will increase sanctions to include Iranian oil clients and the European Union is set to embargo Iranian oil on July 1, 2012. Iran is keeping one foot in the door insisting on rapid lifting of existing international sanctions and recognition of Iran’s right to domestically enrich uranium. Western powers insist on the complete opposite and the gluttony of war seems imminent.

The story of the Iranian Neighborhood keeps revisiting a central thread. European imperialism in the Iranian neighborhood saturates relationships with decades of malcontent. France and Britain are predominately responsible for the creation of modern, Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. America has to decide if it desires to keep watering the roots of terrorism by supporting failed European imperialist endeavors. America is a war machine with a foreign policy hi-jacked by civilian think tanks, the central banking cabal and perverted war-mongering corporate dollars. America should practice some independence and distance itself from Euro-imperialism.

Part three of this three part feature on the Iranian Neighborhood will take a look at the neighborhood through snapshots of allegiance with contiguous countries such as Jordan, Egypt, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Kuwait. Join us again at Media Roots for the exclusive conclusion of this in depth analysis of the Iranian Neighborhood.

Chris Martin for Media Roots

Photo provided by Juan Cole