Tweet
USA not interested in national movement in Iranian Azerbaijan - Baku paper
Zerkalo, Baku
10 Jun 06
The Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo has said that Washington is not
interested in supporting the national movement of Iranian Azeris.
This is proved by the recent arrest of Iranian dissident Mahmudali
Cohraqanli in Turkey and the West's cold attitude to Azeri protests
in Iran, and therefore, it is naive to expect support from
Washington, it said. US policy has led to the radicalization of
ethnic Azeris in Iran, which means that they can start a jihad
against the United States and resort to acts of terror, Zerkalo said.
The following is an excerpt from report by Azerbaijani newspaper
Zerkalo on 10 June headlined Mahmud Cohraqanli has been arrested" and
subheaded " Washington has either started its own well-planned game
or has simply surrendered southern Azerbaijan to the Persian regime".
Subheadings have been inserted editorially:
The Turkish authorities yesterday arrested the leader of the National
Revival Movement of Southern Azerbaijan, Mahmudali Cohraqanli. One of
the best-known enemies of the Iranian regime was visiting Istanbul
where he arrived from the USA on 5 June.
[Passage omitted: Cohraqanli was arrested while giving an interview
to the Turkish newspaper Turkiye]
US pragmatism
Speaking about the attitude of the West and above all, the USA to
what is going in Iran, the well-known dissident said that Washington
is making mistakes by staking on other ethnic groups. "To all
appearances, the White House is not interested in the strengthening
of the Turkic world," he said.
It is hard to disagree with Cohraqanli's statement. The West really
showed a cold attitude towards the mass protests of Iranian
Azerbaijanis. But the USA has its own reasons for this. And to be
honest, so does Turkey. There is no need for emotions in big-time
politics and it cannot be based on slogans of false patriots.
Cohraqanli has spent more than a year trying to enlist US support for
southern Azerbaijan's struggle against the Tehran regime, but all in
vain.
On the one hand, the USA should rely on the Azerbaijanis to overthrow
the mullah regime because it is biggest ethnic group in Iran.
[Passage omitted: background details of Iranian events]
But the White House is not taking this as a basis. In any case, the
Unites States is not interested in the existence of another powerful
independent Turkic state, which could be a united Azerbaijan. Uncle
Sam always puts even the interests of its eternal ally Turkey, which
plays a major role in world politics, on the back burner, not to
mention those of Azerbaijan.
If before Washington saw Turkey as a sort of counter-balance first to
the USSR and then to Russia, now that the Kremlin has less levers of
pressure, the USA does not need Turkey so desperately. Nor is the USA
interested in Turkey's strengthening, which will inevitably happen if
Turks of northern and southern Azerbaijan unite. In a word, US
pragmatism is obvious: it is much better to return some puppet heir
to the shah's throne than to get a powerful Turkic state supported by
Turkey.
The arrest of Mahmudali Cohraqanli, which was certainly made with the
approval of the US government, is a logical part of this plan. The
mass disturbances of ethnic Azerbaijanis continued in Iran for almost
one month and the Western media kept silent about them. Then we
realized that it is naive to expect support from Washington. Poor
political experts, who shouted from the rooftops about the beginning
of a revolution in Iran, have only just realized that activists from
southern Azerbaijan [northern Iran] have backed themselves into a
tight corner. It is time to understand that a revolution cannot
happen spontaneously.
Revolution or what?
A revolution is not an emotion, but a political act, if you want. The
end and ways of achieving it are more important in politics. "Our
revolutionaries" had neither, not did they have any guarantees of
support from the great powers. It was not even clear who led the
developments in southern Azerbaijan or if anyone led them at all.
As for the Americans, they can also make a serious mistake. Refusing
to support the democratic movement in Azerbaijan, Washington's
analysts got what they deserved - a major part of the protest
electorate became disappointed in Western values and took a
pro-Islamic position. What about southern Azerbaijan? The situation
there is absolutely different. Suffice it to say that four of the
seven mujtahids are ethnic Azerbaijanis. Moreover, ethnic
Azerbaijanis are regarded as the most conservative Islamists in Iran.
Overall, US policy has led to the radicalization of ethnic
Azerbaijanis in Iran. The White House does not probably realize that
Iran is not Iraq and that Iranian Azerbaijanis are not residents of
Kirkuk [ethnic Turkomans of Iraq]. It cannot be ruled out that the
southern Azerbaijanis will get angry with US policy and vent their
fury on the USA.
Seizing the initiative in the Islamic movement from the Persians,
southern Azerbaijanis may put on a "martyr's belt" and start a jihad
against "infidels". And the USA might become the main target. That's
to say by manipulating with democratic values in its own interests,
the USA is forcing Azerbaijanis to speak to Uncle Sam in the language
of terror.
In this connection, we should note that it is Azerbaijanis who will
not allow the heir to the Iranian shah's throne to return to Iran
where our compatriots were disdainfully called "Turkish donkeys".
Probably, the authors of this nickname have forgotten that there are
about 12-15m Azerbaijanis in southern Azerbaijan while there are
about eight million of them in Tehran. The overall number of
Azerbaijanis in Iran is about 35-40 million. This is a powerful force
that is able to oppose any foreign enemy. Incidentally, Iran was run
by Azerbaijanis until 1936.
As for Cohraqanli's arrest, we would assume that he is unlikely be
handed over to the Iranian authorities. But this is a US hint that
Washington is carefully following developments in Iran and will not
allow any arbitrary development of events, and Ankara, as well as
Baku, should act under its wise leadership. Why Baku? Because after
Turkey, the dissident was going to visit Azerbaijan.
There is another version that seems quite implausible. It cannot be
ruled that the White House is using Cohraqanli's arrest to advertise
him, and when necessary, to present him as the leader of the national
liberation movement of southern Azerbaijan.
Zerkalo, Baku
10 Jun 06
The Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo has said that Washington is not
interested in supporting the national movement of Iranian Azeris.
This is proved by the recent arrest of Iranian dissident Mahmudali
Cohraqanli in Turkey and the West's cold attitude to Azeri protests
in Iran, and therefore, it is naive to expect support from
Washington, it said. US policy has led to the radicalization of
ethnic Azeris in Iran, which means that they can start a jihad
against the United States and resort to acts of terror, Zerkalo said.
The following is an excerpt from report by Azerbaijani newspaper
Zerkalo on 10 June headlined Mahmud Cohraqanli has been arrested" and
subheaded " Washington has either started its own well-planned game
or has simply surrendered southern Azerbaijan to the Persian regime".
Subheadings have been inserted editorially:
The Turkish authorities yesterday arrested the leader of the National
Revival Movement of Southern Azerbaijan, Mahmudali Cohraqanli. One of
the best-known enemies of the Iranian regime was visiting Istanbul
where he arrived from the USA on 5 June.
[Passage omitted: Cohraqanli was arrested while giving an interview
to the Turkish newspaper Turkiye]
US pragmatism
Speaking about the attitude of the West and above all, the USA to
what is going in Iran, the well-known dissident said that Washington
is making mistakes by staking on other ethnic groups. "To all
appearances, the White House is not interested in the strengthening
of the Turkic world," he said.
It is hard to disagree with Cohraqanli's statement. The West really
showed a cold attitude towards the mass protests of Iranian
Azerbaijanis. But the USA has its own reasons for this. And to be
honest, so does Turkey. There is no need for emotions in big-time
politics and it cannot be based on slogans of false patriots.
Cohraqanli has spent more than a year trying to enlist US support for
southern Azerbaijan's struggle against the Tehran regime, but all in
vain.
On the one hand, the USA should rely on the Azerbaijanis to overthrow
the mullah regime because it is biggest ethnic group in Iran.
[Passage omitted: background details of Iranian events]
But the White House is not taking this as a basis. In any case, the
Unites States is not interested in the existence of another powerful
independent Turkic state, which could be a united Azerbaijan. Uncle
Sam always puts even the interests of its eternal ally Turkey, which
plays a major role in world politics, on the back burner, not to
mention those of Azerbaijan.
If before Washington saw Turkey as a sort of counter-balance first to
the USSR and then to Russia, now that the Kremlin has less levers of
pressure, the USA does not need Turkey so desperately. Nor is the USA
interested in Turkey's strengthening, which will inevitably happen if
Turks of northern and southern Azerbaijan unite. In a word, US
pragmatism is obvious: it is much better to return some puppet heir
to the shah's throne than to get a powerful Turkic state supported by
Turkey.
The arrest of Mahmudali Cohraqanli, which was certainly made with the
approval of the US government, is a logical part of this plan. The
mass disturbances of ethnic Azerbaijanis continued in Iran for almost
one month and the Western media kept silent about them. Then we
realized that it is naive to expect support from Washington. Poor
political experts, who shouted from the rooftops about the beginning
of a revolution in Iran, have only just realized that activists from
southern Azerbaijan [northern Iran] have backed themselves into a
tight corner. It is time to understand that a revolution cannot
happen spontaneously.
Revolution or what?
A revolution is not an emotion, but a political act, if you want. The
end and ways of achieving it are more important in politics. "Our
revolutionaries" had neither, not did they have any guarantees of
support from the great powers. It was not even clear who led the
developments in southern Azerbaijan or if anyone led them at all.
As for the Americans, they can also make a serious mistake. Refusing
to support the democratic movement in Azerbaijan, Washington's
analysts got what they deserved - a major part of the protest
electorate became disappointed in Western values and took a
pro-Islamic position. What about southern Azerbaijan? The situation
there is absolutely different. Suffice it to say that four of the
seven mujtahids are ethnic Azerbaijanis. Moreover, ethnic
Azerbaijanis are regarded as the most conservative Islamists in Iran.
Overall, US policy has led to the radicalization of ethnic
Azerbaijanis in Iran. The White House does not probably realize that
Iran is not Iraq and that Iranian Azerbaijanis are not residents of
Kirkuk [ethnic Turkomans of Iraq]. It cannot be ruled out that the
southern Azerbaijanis will get angry with US policy and vent their
fury on the USA.
Seizing the initiative in the Islamic movement from the Persians,
southern Azerbaijanis may put on a "martyr's belt" and start a jihad
against "infidels". And the USA might become the main target. That's
to say by manipulating with democratic values in its own interests,
the USA is forcing Azerbaijanis to speak to Uncle Sam in the language
of terror.
In this connection, we should note that it is Azerbaijanis who will
not allow the heir to the Iranian shah's throne to return to Iran
where our compatriots were disdainfully called "Turkish donkeys".
Probably, the authors of this nickname have forgotten that there are
about 12-15m Azerbaijanis in southern Azerbaijan while there are
about eight million of them in Tehran. The overall number of
Azerbaijanis in Iran is about 35-40 million. This is a powerful force
that is able to oppose any foreign enemy. Incidentally, Iran was run
by Azerbaijanis until 1936.
As for Cohraqanli's arrest, we would assume that he is unlikely be
handed over to the Iranian authorities. But this is a US hint that
Washington is carefully following developments in Iran and will not
allow any arbitrary development of events, and Ankara, as well as
Baku, should act under its wise leadership. Why Baku? Because after
Turkey, the dissident was going to visit Azerbaijan.
There is another version that seems quite implausible. It cannot be
ruled that the White House is using Cohraqanli's arrest to advertise
him, and when necessary, to present him as the leader of the national
liberation movement of southern Azerbaijan.