Paul Klebnikov – the American editor of the Russian edition of Forbes Magazine – has just been shot dead in front of the magazine’s Moscow office. Police picked up two different caliber shells, indication of at least two assailants.
Who did it? The Russian Mafia comes to mind — Klebnikov was the author of a book on tycoon Boris Berezovsky. But he also wrote an article last year about the “Millionaire Mullahs” of Iran, which began this way:
A looming nuclear threat to the rest of the world, Iran is robbing its own people of prosperity. But the men at the top are getting extremely rich.
Later on, Klebnikov tells about Iran’s Mr. Big – Ayatollah Rafsanjani:
The 1979 revolution transformed the Rafsanjani clan into commercial pashas. One brother headed the country’s largest copper mine; another took control of the state-owned TV network; a brother-in-law became governor of Kerman province, while a cousin runs an outfit that dominates Iran’s $400 million pistachio export business; a nephew and one of Rafsanjani’s sons took key positions in the Ministry of Oil; another son heads the Tehran Metro construction project (an estimated $700 million spent so far). Today, operating through various foundations and front companies, the family is also believed to control one of Iran’s biggest oil engineering companies, a plant assembling Daewoo automobiles, and Iran’s best private airline (though the Rafsanjanis insist they do not own these assets).
Rest in Peace – Paul Klebnikov.
Roger -
It’s evident that there may have been a number of tough guys who may have wanted Paul dead – but if you want to talk about the Mullahs, all I can say is – Rafsanjani is a professional at Mafia style hits. One of the ways this guy has survived is through such assasinations..
Roger, you caught the UN Oil for food scandal before anyone else did. I bet you nailed this one too.
Oh my.
Of course the Bush Admin just talks about supporting the IRanians people and nailing the Mullahs – but it has materialized into any action..? So what exactly is the War On Terror about if we don’t go after the bloody fucking Terror Masters?? – can someone tell me.. Saddam was a little bitch compared to the Mullahs..
Two different calibers? Interesting…
In Moscow, there are lots of people who might want to off a business reporter. I don’t know how things are right now, but certainly a year or two mafia style hits were a pretty common thing.
It is interesting to hear the commercial ties of the Rafsanjani family. In a way it is reassuring. Ayatollah Rafsanjani suggesting that if Iran got a nuke, they’d use it on Israel, accepting the devastating counterstrike. That is not the likely behavior of a business/mob mogul. On the other hand, selling one to Al Qaeda could be profitable.
Hmmm…
Roger, you’re the international mystery writer… who dun it?
Nuclear Weapons is a game of BS.. The main issue is freedom and human rights in IRAN. John, you are so right on this one – the Mullahs would never launch anything themselves, but they would distribute for sure!!
flamingego
Bush cannot go after the Ayatollahs in the current political climate. With the CIA proving to be useless (thanks, Bill Clinton and Frank Church), does anyone trust our intelligence?
We can’t trust the exiles (sorry, guys) because exiles always have their own axes to grind. Look at the disinformation we got from Iraqi exiles.
With the current “Hate Bush” press, anything he did would be portrayed as foolish.
So until the election is over, the Ayatollahs are probably safe, unless they do something really dumb.
If Al Qaeda does the wrong thing, for example, rules could change quickly, in a very bloody way.
But barring a major change in the rules, nothing is going to happen unless Israel does it, or Bush decides it is so important that the political cost is worth it.
flamingego
I must disagree with you on nukes. Iran is trying to get nukes (I think they already have one or two), and we cannot allow Iran to have nukes. The reason is that once nukes are spread around, deterrence fails (as I have mentioned before). A terrorist delivered nuke can be very anonymous – all the evidence is vaporized. That means that anyone who wants to attack us can then do so and have the blame spread around – Iran with a false flag operation, China with false flag, Al Qaeda with a purchased nuke, etc.
It becomes impossible to defend ourselves, because we cannot use deterrence, and defence is essentially impossible (or so expensive and difficult as to dramatically mess up our economy).
So if Iran gets nukes, then Iran has to be neutralized. The nukes come first. Freedom and human rights come second.
John -
I urge you not to fall into the trap of associating the Iraqi exiles such as Chalabi with Iranian exile groups.. Two different stories there.. two completely different races.. Two completely different situations..
Secondly – that’s a pretty sad state of affairs that you present. So it’s okay for Bush to talk about War ON Terror and freedom for the people of the Middle East and the greater world and also the “tough” fight against terrorism, but then “pussy out” when it comes to taking out the head of the SNAKE because of some left-wing media and the CIA’s incompetence?
Okay, I wonder what Bush will say when Kerry and Edwards ask him in Sept and October – “So George, you talked a big game about going after the terrorists and freeing the people of the Middle East, but when it came to Iran, a country of 70 million – in which the OVERWHELMING majority are prepared to rise up against the Mullahs (as long as they know “we are with them”) – a country that is also controlled by a regime of Mullahs who have over the years been the biggest “state – sponsor” of terrorism throughout the world, your administration failed to do anything of any significance, and only occasionally spoke but a few words of support for the Iranian people – and infrequently attacked the regime (at least in prime-time).?”
Oh and also “Why did you go after Saddam, a bitch in a box (granted he was a bad guy), and left the powerhouse of Mullahs to sit, drink their tea, expoit Iranians/Iran, etc.. etc..?”
Makes a lot of sense to me John..!
Fox is saying that he recently wrote an article on the 100 richest people in Russia, and they are implying a Russian mob hit.
Mullah Mafia is just as big as Russian Mob – they are all likely in cahoots with one another.
Flamingego,
Check the map Iraq,Iran Afghanistan the US has bases in the first and the last.If you wanted to invade Iran where would you start?
Russian Mafia?…..Iranian Millionaire Mullahs?….a more pertinent question is what was Mr. Klebnikov researching when he was murdered?
flamingego
I would very much like to see freedom and democracy in Iran.
But one must deal in the world of reality. First, there are different Iranian exile movements (for example, monarchists and non-monarchists). No doubt some are infiltrated or false flag organizations. Others are not. It means that the intelligence from these groups cannot be trusted – it is raw information, but intelligence is a game of trickery and our country has shown itself to be not very good at it.
Second, there is no way the US populace will tolerate any kind of action against Iran right now. Our forces are committed in Iraq (where there was also a serious threat, and an easier to destroy regime). We are in an election year and Bush can’t do anything if ends up unelected.
Also, I know of no strategy that will yield the desired results in Iran. I have heard none here – yes, people support resistance, but that’s a long ways from overthrowing the regime.
Finally, the unfortunate logic of nuclear weapons forces the prevention of nuclear weapon proliferation to be the very highest priority. That is just the way it works – I explained why. As we agree, Iran will not use a nuclear weapon directly, because the Rafsanjani doesn’t want his empire destroyed. But the possession of a nuke by Iran leads to destabilization – by the logic I used before. Furthermore, left alone Iran will have long range missiles with nuclear warheads very soon – they just buy them from North Korea (which is another whole discussion).
Hence the United States has a very strong need to stop the spread of nukes, by whatever means are necessary. Ideally, we would support an Iranian resistance to overthrow the government. I suspect that our special forces and CIA are working to explore that possibility. But succeeding at such an undertaking is difficult. Revolutions tend to be bloody (typically 5-10% of the population dies), time consuming, uncertain, and typically do not produce democracy.
So we can hope that we are able to trigger a revolution. But I find it unlikely to succeed.
Do you have a proposal of what should actually be done?
Note also that Israel is very nervous about all of this, which is another confusing issue.
ÔøΩ”With the current ‘Hate Bush’ press, anything he did would be portrayed as foolish.”ÔøΩ
ThatÔøΩs right, the liberal media will blast President Bush for whatever action he takes. He literally is in a no-win predicament.
How many people are aware that the Washington Post piece concerning the bovine excrement of Joseph Wilson?
ÔøΩ”Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.”ÔøΩ
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle
Am I being overly cynical to point out that the Washington Post published this startling article in its Saturday edition—a day when readership drops significantly? Also, it was apparently buried on page A9.
Humanitarian concerns, unfortunately, are all too often BS. Look at Amnesty & Human Rights Watch — chicken to call Sudan Genocide.
John Kerry’s anti-Vietnam war policy was ALSO in support of genocide; nobody’s perfect. The Vietnam choice was 1) stay and fight and die, or 2) leave and let commies win and Pol Pot Kill, in Fields. Most Leftists chose (2), but refuse to accept any responsibility for the results of that choice.
Similarly, today, the choice will be 1) invade Iran, or 2) let Iran get nukes.
Nukes are not a BS issue.
The US prolly can still do (1) after the Nov elections.
Roger, please try to make this an election issue. Kerry will prolly come out in favor of invasion before letting the mullahs get nukes, in violation of their prior agreements.
John Moore
I would very much like to see freedom and democracy in Iran.
Would you really? Come on, be truthful with me – do you really care about the Iranian people? I would sacrafice so much to one day walk on a country of mine that i have yet to set foot on. I love the earth and I love two countries more than any in the world. America, the land of my birth, the land of freedom, and opporunity. Iran, the land of ancient civilizations, the hotbed of much of civilizations advancements and discoveries, the home of the first declaration of human rights, and the land where a people continue to be repressed by a regime that is not maintained merely in a vaccuum of their own genious and effective strategy, but rather, they are allowed to remain in power by those countries of the world who benefit from their continued reign!
I ask, please, before you go and say that you really want to see Iran free, please go and meet some Iranians and get to know them.. Become friends with a variety of Iranians.. Then come back and speak your mind, and maybe then you will sound more sincere.
But one must deal in the world of reality. First, there are different Iranian exile movements (for example, monarchists and non-monarchists). No doubt some are infiltrated or false flag organizations. Others are not. It means that the intelligence from these groups cannot be trusted – it is raw information, but intelligence is a game of trickery and our country has shown itself to be not very good at it.
There is no intelligence the Iranian opposition is trying to provide the US or World Governments with. As far as I have seen, essentially the opposition has been urging all factions to minimize our arguments, unite with one common goal (regime-change and freedom in Iran) and consciously recognize the fact that the regime wants all Iranian groups to argue – because through argument we will find that it is impossible to achieve our objectives. The opposition isn’t providing US with any information that the World Community, State-Dept, and other groups haven’t already told the world.
Second, there is no way the US populace will tolerate any kind of action against Iran right now.
You’re assuming we’re talking about military action.. This is an incorrect assumption. Military action is not needed – although some forces should be mobilizied –> contingency plans and the like, but this is not what is needed to take out such a regime. Don’t you get it? It’s not a matter of removing the regime that’s hard. It’s a matter of how a ‘Free Iran’ changes the political landscape in the region and the political/power landscape throughout the world.
Our forces are committed in Iraq (where there was also a serious threat, and an easier to destroy regime). We are in an election year and Bush can’t do anything if ends up unelected.
Okay, if you want to bank on Bush getting elected because you think he can present what has happened in Iraq as some major accomplishment – you keep on thinking that way. But I will tell you, I believe removing Saddam from power was an important move, however – we have fumbled the ball and misplayed so many fucking times it’s incredible – almost mind boggling. We dismantle an army (revolutionary guard) in Iraq that is highly trained. And then we attempt to re-train a bunch of Iraqis who have no police/army skills whatsoever. I propose we should’ve arrested, interrogated, tried, and then given all generals and high-ranking officers who were complicit in Saddam’s crimes to the Iraqi people so they could be dealt with, but was it really necessary to dissolve the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard? Absolutely not!
Secondly, why have we allowed insurgents to enter the country? Meaning – why did we not secure the borders with Iran and Syria to the best extent possible as our first order of business in Iraq. If you want to sit there and tell me we did, then go ahead. But the fact remains – that thousands upon thousands of agents have been streaming in through the borders since the fall of Saddam, and now it is a situation that is highly unpredictable because of these insurgents and agents from the outside – especially those from the Islamic Republic of Iran who’s #1 goal and commands are to twist and turn the politix in Iraq into a situation that results in a system and nation very similary to the Islamic Republic next door.. VERY DANGEROUS – Why haven’t we destroyed the Islamic Regime’s agent named Sadr? Are we just going to let these fuckers run around Iraq and not take them out? What’s really going on?
Also, I know of no strategy that will yield the desired results in Iran. I have heard none here – yes, people support resistance, but that’s a long ways from overthrowing the regime.
Uhh, it’s called political pressure against nations that support the regime.. Declaring an open and concrete US Policy of regime change in Iran. Increasing funds to opposition (Web Sites and Satellite TV). Educating the population about the real situation in the Middle East rather than feeding Americans this constant dose of Bullshit media propoganda – RIGHT/LEFT garbage!
Finally, the unfortunate logic of nuclear weapons forces the prevention of nuclear weapon proliferation to be the very highest priority. That is just the way it works – I explained why. As we agree, Iran will not use a nuclear weapon directly, because the Rafsanjani doesn’t want his empire destroyed. But the possession of a nuke by Iran leads to destabilization – by the logic I used before. Furthermore, left alone Iran will have long range missiles with nuclear warheads very soon – they just buy them from North Korea (which is another whole discussion).
Let me rephrase what’ve you ‘ve written. Iran (Islamic Republic of Iran) will not use a nuclear weapon directly, because Jack Straq, Jascque Chirac, Vladamir Putin, and the rest of the them don’t want their big business partner removed from power.
Hence the United States has a very strong need to stop the spread of nukes, by whatever means are necessary. Ideally, we would support an Iranian resistance to overthrow the government. I suspect that our special forces and CIA are working to explore that possibility. But succeeding at such an undertaking is difficult. Revolutions tend to be bloody (typically 5-10% of the population dies), time consuming, uncertain, and typically do not produce democracy.
Bloodless revolution is possible – as long as the US and other nations actually act in accordance with human rights and the proper method for dealing with the regime. If there is a bloody revolution – it is because external countries intended it to be bloody – because peaceful overthrow would be too dangerous to these other nations.
So we can hope that we are able to trigger a revolution. But I find it unlikely to succeed.
Iran will be free! Freedom must be the natural evolution of all.. We cannot rest while dictatorship and deception creep upon us in hopes they will overtake. We must be vigilent and consistently push freedom forward so that we don’t all end up bonded in chains. Eventhough we have freedom as Americans – our freedom is in jeapordy, not just from Islamofascists, but from people and groups everywhere – who hide in the shadows, and see no future in human freedom but rather in our enslavement.
Note also that Israel is very nervous about all of this, which is another confusing issue.
US should make sure Israel doesn’t do shit. If Israel needs help or is very worried about something. Let US take care of it. Israel acting on it’s own and doing something with regard to bombings in Iran will totally fuck things up.
flamingego,
There has never been a “bloodless” revolution against a totalitarian regime that I can recall.
If the overthrow were as easy as you assert, it would already be happening. The mullahs imprison and execute the most ardent protestors, en masse. Iran is a “bloody” situation now.
And, if as John Moore speculates (the Iranians have several nukes already), the last actions of Raf and his mullah gang immediately prior to the overthrow, would be to use them – against Iraq, Isreal, KSA, U.S., depending on their current delivery capabilities.
Given imminent overthrow, and the death sentence that implies for them, the mullahs might very well use their weapons on their own people.
flamingego
I sympathize. Really I do. But if Bush isn’t re-elected you won’t have a chance. Kerry will deal with the mullahs and that won’t help you one tiny bit.
Iraq had to be dealt with first. Attempting any changes in the region with Saddam poised at our backs was not an option.
In fact you should have learned something from our troubles in Iraq. If you think the Iraq borders weren’t secured well enough, they were easier to secure than Iran’s would be. Do you believe that the militant Sunni’s would be any happier with the prospect of a free and democratic Iran than with the same in Iraq?
flamingego
Yes, I care about the Iranian people as I care about all people. You assume I don’t know any Iranians, but that isn’t true. I have a coworker who is the only member of his family to live in the United States. He wants freedom there too. I would like to go there (and to Iraq).
But I will say this directly: I want security for the US more than I want freedom in other lands.
To your other issues…
Yes, I want George Bush to win the election, and you should too. John Kerry is deeply flawed. I am a member of a Vietnam Veteran’s group which is fighting to get out the truth about him. Believe me, however many mistakes Bush made, he is much better than John Kerry.
As to what you list as mistakes, they are all debatable. For example, allowing in Iranian infiltrators may allow us to gain intelligence, as we capture them, and even send our own special forces back in their place. We have killed a lot of jihadis, and I’d rather have the battle in Iraq than in the US. As for the dissolution of the army, it dissolved itself. In the face of hostile fire, most of the soldiers simply deserted their units. There are plenty of criticisms one can make of the Iraq campaign, but that is true of any war – hence the term “fog of war” and the saying that “no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.”
Uhh, it’s called political pressure against nations that support the regime.. Declaring an open and concrete US Policy of regime change in Iran. Increasing funds to opposition (Web Sites and Satellite TV). Educating the population about the real situation in the Middle East rather than feeding Americans this constant dose of Bullshit media propoganda – RIGHT/LEFT garbage!
I’m all in favor of this, but the last part is simply impossible. This “left/right” garbage is America – as painted by the Main Stream Media. You can ask them to put our your message, but good luck! They are way to busy attacking Bush to pay attention to anything else.
Bloodless revolution is possible – as long as the US and other nations actually act in accordance with human rights and the proper method for dealing with the regime. If there is a bloody revolution – it is because external countries intended it to be bloody – because peaceful overthrow would be too dangerous to these other nations.
That is a very strong assertion. You need to back it up with stronger arguments, because frankly I do not believe it. You say you have never been to Iran – how good are YOUR sources of information?
US should make sure Israel doesn’t do shit. If Israel needs help or is very worried about something. Let US take care of it. Israel acting on it’s own and doing something with regard to bombings in Iran will totally fuck things up.
Israel has its own intelligence service and a right to self defense. They certainly don’t want to do anything – they’d rather have someone else do it. Israel has a history of trading with pre-revolution Iran and would like it as an ally again. But as I have said, and you tend to ignore, nuclear proliferation is the most important issue. Maybe not to you, but to the US and Israel and some other interesting parties.
I think you are arguing too much with emotion. You have a strong desire, with which I sympathize. But you must also analyze the interests of others in this situation. And if you are going to advocate a bloodless revolution, you need to explain how that will work.
I signed the petition in favor of democracy in Iran. I want democracy there, and it may turn out that the way to deal with the nuclear threat is to invade Iran and allow democracy to form. But I hope not, as it would be bloody for us and bloddy for Iran.
I don’t know the solution to the problem of the Ayatollahs. So far, you haven’t convinced me that you do either.
Are you in America? Do you speak fluent Farsi? Are you of the age to join the US military or CIA?
The Iranian angle is completely off base. Those behind the killing are certainly Russian, and the list of potential suspects is very long.
The harsh fact of life in Russia that most western journalists– and western politicians like former VP Al Gore– choose to ignore is that the Russian state has been criminalized.
And which agency of the Russian state is by far the best organized and the most competent? Easily the FSB (successor to the KGB). Neither the ministries nor the Duma nor the courts nor the military has any real coherence, direction, or reserve of talent.
It is the FSB that can get things done in Russia, and it stands to reason that senior FSB operatives are the ones who enable goods to move in and out of the country, who lean on regional governors to transfer monies to the federal government, who decide which media outlets to shut down and which “oligarchs” (Russian for “thief”) to dress down or shut down.
As evil as Berezovsky is, he’s probably right: this road may well lead to Putin’s puppetmasters in the FSB.
Flamingego:
If you think that Kerry will ask President Bush that question I think you have seriously misread Kerry. If he asked that question then he would have to propose a concrete proposal himself and he doesn’t do that. The most you will get out of Kerry is a blurry statement about how he is for a more Democratic Iran but thay it must be done thru the UN and how he will wake up every day thinking about a more peacefull world. If he is feeling really bold he might say he is for regime change . Of course he was for regime change in Iraq but he would never do anything about it. Kerry believes that if you wish hard enough these foul regimes in the Middle East will change but as far as the US taking any concrete steps don’t hold your breath.Kerry and the Democrats are basically replaying the Fortress America isolationalist routine of the 30′s.They will be very good about holding fundraisers for the victims of these regimes, heck they will even buy the books of the emigres that flee these countries but they will never lift a finger to change the facts on the ground. President Bush has made plenty of errors in the War on Terror but at least he knows that it is a war and that counting on the UN and France is not a option.