Posted on 03/09/2015 7:05:04 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
>>>”“Backgammon is the national strategy game for Iran”
Persians are also renown for introducing chess to the West. The term checkmate, comes from the Persian Shah Mot (the King is dead).”<<<
Backgammon is very popular in Iran. But it’s a game of strategy and chance (probability).
I believe chess was originally brought over from India to Iran centuries ago, and then somewhat modified. Shah Mat (Mot) has been translated as the King is dead. However, “Mat” (Mot) in Persian actually means stunned or astonished, as in can’t move.
Hardliners vs Reformers (reformists) are all part of the Islamic Republic Regime. There are some differences in their “social policies”; in their foreign policy, the Supreme leader calls the shots, and both reformers and hardliners are very much part of the broader regime.
IOW, even the Supreme Leader has to operate within the strict parameters of the Regime. Complex checks & balances in place. This was done on purpose so that it’s much harder for the Regime itself to fall apart based on an individual’s (incl. the Supreme Leader) actions or decisions.
You’re right though to say the regime uses good & bad cop approach with the West.
>>>”Anyone know enough about Backgammon to know how this game might affect their “sophisticated multi-layer strategies?”<<<
Funnily, I play backgammon & chess. In backgammon, one can’t control or predict what the dice will give you or your opponent (chance/probability). Unless the dice is rigged. Though, depending on what you get after you throw the dice each time, there are moves you can make early on, and throughout, to give you an advantage and/or block your opponent.
Chess is pure strategy. You can pretty much anticipate or predict how your opponent will move based on your moves (if you’re good at it). Unlike backgammon, in chess you can force your opponent to move in a certain way.
The Iranians use a combination of strategy and tactics; though that isn’t exclusive to the Iranians. In a way, I’d say backgammon is more sophisticated in terms of sharpening your skills to win, because there is that element of chance/probability with the dice, which you can’t control.
I’d venture to say Sunnis and Shi’ites in Iraq are working well together in this case because their interests are currently aligned. Kurds (sunnis) aligned with Shi’ite Iran, during many wars too, incl. Iraq-Iran war. Syrian regime has worked well with Khomeinist regime too. Although Syrian regime is fairly secular vis a vis Khomeinist one. Their interests are aligned for now. On these points, I think it’s as simple as that.
Other factors are:
Najaf & Karbala, because the majority of Iraqis are actually Shi’ites too. But, I don’t think the mullahs regime in Iran ever wanted Maliki to ‘alienate’ the sunnis the way he did. It was a disappointment for them.
Moreover, Iraq is seen as an extension of Iran. If ISIS were to control Iraq, it will be a direct threat to Iran. So, they’re protecting the middle-ground, which also benefits those who don’t want to live under ISIS.
Soleimani is a pragmatist, first & foremost; in fact, the mullahs’ regime is largely comprised of pragmatists (first & foremost). Hardcore ideologues among them are very much a minority group. However, that doesn’t mean the mullahs’ regime is not ambitious in its power-play and expansion ideals. That is part & parcel of the foundation of the Islamic Republic Regime.
Last point & I think it’s significant is that the power struggle in Iraq since 2003 has been primarily between mullahs’ regime, Saudi Arabia & the latter’s satellites ie the Gulf States, for domination & influence in Iraq. Add to that the Iraqi Saddam supporters such as the Iraqi Baathists (who are now part of ISIS), and you get why the Iranian regime will fight tooth and nail to ensure Iraq is not controlled by ISIS et al.
I saw photos/videos of the citizens of Al-amn embracing the soldiers and commenting on how ISIS began moving out once the Iraqi troops began to get deeper into their community. Though they didn’t leave without a fight.
At times I try and imagine what it would be like to have an invading force take over my own community and then have it free’d from that domination. I’ve enjoyed a free country my entire life and never want to take it for granted......but under Obama I’ve had a taste of what it is to begin loosing my freedoms.....and not feeling safe in my own country. I’m afraid it’s going to get worse too.
Hopefully neither side will destroy Mosul nor Tikirt more than needed to win. But time will tell....
Very interesting post Beau...
Well I guess no one could control or predict what the dice gave us with regard to the sudden explosion of the ISIL phenomenon. THings have felt pretty out of control. So maybe Iran/Iraq are playing the right game in this situation.
Did you ever see the photos of Beirut in the latter ‘70’s after all the fighting. Every bit as bad if not worse. Oh well, plenty of construction jobs if peace ever comes. Here, I found a link with hundreds of pictures. I don’t know, I think ruins in Kobani look slightly more repairable. What do you think?
https://www.google.com/search?q=beirut+war+destruction&num=50&newwindow=1&safe=off&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=LE8BVc7XOcKdNtSGgeAG&ved=0CB4QsAQ&biw=1600&bih=732
For wreckage in peace time take a look at these photos of the huge oil pipeline explosion in Qingdao, China, Nov. 2013 that killed 62 people. I have never seen any mention of this mile long disaster in the US media. Almost seems like a cover-up.
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&safe=off&biw=1600&bih=732&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=qingdao+pipeline+explosion&oq=Qingdao+pipeline&gs_l=img.1.0.0i24.482429.489561.0.492042.16.11.0.5.5.0.435.1227.1j5j4-1.7.0.msedr...0...1c.1.62.img..4.12.1246.Bj90jUxNmys
Muslim fundamentalists hold the power in Iran but are not the majority. If Carter had supported the Shah Iran would be a much different country these days.
>>>”Did you ever see the photos of Beirut in the latter ‘70’s after all the fighting. Every bit as bad if not worse.”<<<
I’m gonna say this; even if it’ll be viewed a controversial statement. In the latter part of 1970s, this is BEFORE mullahs regime in Iran came to power, quite a few Lebanese were distraught that Beirut, once the “Paris of that region”, as they called it, had been ruined. They wanted the Americans to stop their ‘interference’ in the Lebanon and that region. These Lebanese were Christians.
Not hinting or suggesting the Mullahs’ regime is a life-saviour for those Lebanese; they are clearly not. Only what we have witnessed in last 3 decades, and today, are simply a continuation of events which started long ago, and as such noted by those who once lived in mentioned places.
>>>”sudden explosion of the ISIL”<<<
Nothing of that type is “sudden”.
Don’t forget that Iran is the enemy of the US, and has been since the mullahs took over.
Iran sees Iraq as a buffer state, one which can be controlled by proxies (Maliki was the earlier example), and can be kept at heel by dependence on Iran.
ISIS has helped with this development, and therefore the rise of ISIS out of the entire jihadist milieu has been to Iran’s advantage. When Iraq’s US-trained armed forces either had their asses handed to them or ran in the face of the rumor of ISIS or actual attacks, Iran did nothing except state that other states should mind their own business.
Iraq has also managed to keep Syria’s Assad dictatorship propped up, but can operate in the country at will and with impunity, much as its hizbollah proxies have done in Lebanon.
Iran’s big showdown with Egypt will come, but probably not for a while yet (perhaps by the end of 2015, more likely in 2016).
>>>”Don’t forget that Iran is the enemy of the US, and has been since the mullahs took over.”<<<
>>>”When Iraq’s US-trained armed forces either had their asses handed to them or ran in the face of the rumor of ISIS or actual attacks,”<<<
“Rumors of ISIS”, I think not. Actual attacks? Definitely.
Those other quoted statements beg the questions:
Why Saddam known as a major enemy of “Iran” was removed, in the first place? (sorry, WMD won’t wash anymore)
Why on earth would anyone think that Saddam’s removal, and the drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq, which had to eventually happen (not to mention training the Iraqi troops), would not give Iranians a major advantage in Iraq?
>>>”Iran’s big showdown with Egypt will come, but probably not for a while yet (perhaps by the end of 2015, more likely in 2016).”<<<
Absolutely not. Unless it becomes part of someone else’s continuous policy to instigate that. My guess is the Iranian regime won’t play that game.
Novice backgammon & chess players :/
The rumor hit that ISIS was coming, Iraqi troops abandoned their arms and equipment, it’s a fact.
Saddam was an enemy of the US. So was and is Iran. The old saw “the enemy of your enemy is your friend” has always been BS; on occasion (e.g. WWII) an ally of convenience was chosen, it doesn’t have any impact on whether one or the other or both are enemies.
Nation-building was intended to work. Trouble was, some nations aren’t really nations in the first place, and/or they don’t want to be built. Yugoslavia was built out of scrap parts after WWI, and other than their four years of WWII, it managed to hold together for the length of a human lifetime. It didn’t work in Iraq.
Iran has every intention of going after Egypt *again*, it will happen, wishful thinking notwithstanding.
The fighting in Beirut isn’t continuous, merely continual, and it ain’t over yet. :’)
There’s no cover-up of the Chinese pipeline explosion, unless one counts the media leftists who never publish anything that puts the commie regime in bad light. Mostly it’s a “who cares, it’s just China” attitude IMHO.
>>>”The rumor hit that ISIS was coming, Iraqi troops abandoned their arms and equipment, it’s a fact.”<<<
Your comment has a grain of truth to it. But I do remember what was, publicly, reported around early June 2014, when ISIS became publicly known. It wasn’t after ISIS had actually attacked in Iraq & drawn blood that Iraqi troops abandoned their posts. Rumors may have been part of it, AFTER the event though.
>>>”Saddam was an enemy of the US. So was and is Iran. The old saw “the enemy of your enemy is your friend” has always been BS;”<<<
Saddam got too big for his ‘shoes’.. Ok, at best the U.S. tolerated him or played him when it suited, and perhaps rightly so. Anyway, no disputes with you on your quoted comment.
>>>”Nation-building was intended to work.”<<<
“Intended”, maybe. Though, IMO, every war (or ‘nation building’ thereafter) is won or lost BEFORE it begins.
I should have thought the U.S. had the means & knowhow to more accurately ascertain what was, realistically, likely & unlikely after Saddam’s removal.
That includes 2 decades of atrocious deeds by the Mullahs’ Regime (by then), and Iran’s modern & past history with Iraq. Alas, there is always room for further grasping of the situation & the enemy (enemies).
>>>”Iran has every intention of going after Egypt *again*, it will happen, wishful thinking notwithstanding.”<<<
Guess, as usual, we’ll have to wait and see. But, as I said before, very much doubt the Iranian regime will play that game.
“BEFORE mullahs regime in Iran came to power, quite a few Lebanese were distraught that Beirut, once the “Paris of that region”, as they called it, had been ruined.”
The civil war in Lebanon which tore up beautiful Beirut, occurred largely because of the campaign of attacks by the PLO, which had arrived from Jordan. After they tried to take over Jordan, and were expelled in the bloody 1970-1 “Black September” crackdown, they moved to Lebanon and tried to take over there. They started a series of assassinations that soon had everyone suspecting everyone else (by design). Each major faction at one time allied with, and then betrayed, each other faction, at least once before it finally settled down.
Christians in Lebanon, like anyone else, had a variety of political opinions. Some communist/leftists or Arab Nationalist/Ba’atists were always against the West and the USA. So some of the anti-US talk from Maronites may have been based on political leanings.
The air was full of conspiracy theories (even more than usual in the Middle East) to explain the dangerous events they were facing, and the US as “puppetmaster” secretly pulling all the strings, is easier to believe than most of the stories that circulated. So some of the talk about US interference may hay been the result of misinformation or speculation.
Sometimes folks just say what they think will go over best with who they are talking to, or say what they think is safest to keep out of trouble. If Lebanese Sunnis, Shiites and Christians look and sound alike, it is safest to blame some other party, like the Americans, until you really trust who you are talking to.
The staff at the US embassy there had to be doing something though, as did the Soviets (the sponsors of the PLO), and the French, and the Israelis, and the Syrians. Even with good intentions, things don’t always work out well. Few things are messier and more complicated than domestic disturbances or civil wars. So there may have been some meddling that left a bad taste behind. You can’t please everyone.
>>>”Christians in Lebanon, like anyone else, had a variety of political opinions.”<<<
>>>”The air was full of conspiracy theories (even more than usual in the Middle East) to explain the dangerous events they were facing, and the US as “puppetmaster” secretly pulling all the strings, is easier to believe than most of the stories that circulated.”<<<
Totally agree. All sorts of people ultimately believe what they want to, and go to their ‘happy place’. End of the day, more importantly, we all deal with Perceptions; perceptions are very often facts for different people & harder to tell them ‘it ain’t and never was so’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.