Skip to main content



A MAP OF "AL-AHWAZ" (Formerly Southern Iran):

Notice how the map of the "al-Ahwazi" independence movement corresponds conveniently with the reported battle plans of the neo-cons for Khuzestan and the southern coast

Some here at DailyKOS know I've been concerned that the neo-cons plan to invade Iran, not all of Iran but just the oil-bearing province of Khuzestan and the southern coast adjacent to the shipping lanes.  This article reports that in 2003, the neo-con mantra was "REAL MEN GO TO KHUZESTAN", which the author then used as the title of the article.

Earlier Diary:Intel Official: Cheney Orders Violence Inside Khuzestan

First some history (Beirut Times, Zoltan Grossman):

In 1897, the British Empire backed Khuzestani Arab rulers to secede from Persia and become the de facto British protectorate of "Arabistan" (much as the British did in neighboring Kuwait). The entire southern zone of Persia was declared a British "sphere of influence" in 1907, and the following year a British adventurer discovered oil in "Arabistan," at Masjed Soleyman. The discovery created the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, later renamed British Petroleum (BP). In 1925, Reza Shah's forces retook "Arabistan," and renamed it Khuzestan, as he renamed "Persia" as Iran a decade later.

British troops occupied Khuzestan during World War II, but after the war Iranians grew more concerned that Westerners had a stranglehold on their oil wealth. In 1951, the Iranian nationalist leader Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry based mainly in Khuzestan (including Anglo-Iranian's holdings), drawing the wrath of Western powers. Two years later, a CIA-engineered coup ousted Mossadegh, and installed the new Shah Reza Pahlevi, who opened Khuzestan to a U.S.-British oil concession.

In 1978, Arab oil workers in Khuzestan went on strike against the Shah, and played a central role in the Iranian Revolution that toppled him the following year. They openly supported the revolution in its early months, when it included leftist and other secular parties (that were later crushed by the Islamic Republic). Encouraged by Western powers that were threatened by the revolution, Saddam Hussein launched a brutal invasion of Khuzestan in 1980, and occupied its western Arab oil region. He tried to engineer the secession of the province from Iran, and backed an Arab separatist rebel group (which also briefly seized the Iranian Embassy in London).

Yet in the Iran-Iraq War, most Iranian Arab Shi'ites fought on the side of Persian-ruled Iran, just as Iraqi Arab Shi'ites fought on the side of Saddam's Sunni-ruled Iraq. State territoriality trumped both ethnic and religious territoriality, in a massive slaughter complete with trench warfare and "human wave" attacks, aerial bombing and missile strikes, and the use of chemical weapons on both sides. Iranian forces pushed the Iraqis out of Khuzestan in 1982, but the province's cities and oil refineries were the most heavily damaged in the war, that finally ended in 1988. (The U.S. had cynically had supplied aid to bleed both sides, including a naval intervention to escort vessels carrying Iraqi oil, and the sale of missiles to the Iranians.)

The Al-Ahwazi movement complains about how Arabs are treated by the Persian Iranians in Khuzestan:

Ahwazi Arabs are among the world's most disadvantaged and persecuted ethnic groups. Ahwazis have traditionally farmed Khuzestan's fertile plains, but their way of life is being destroyed by an aggressive policy of land confiscation, forced migration and a long-term programme of permanently eliminating Arab influences from Khuzestan. The regime's very existence depends on ethnic cleansing in Khuzestan. The presence of Arabs, who have farmed the land for centuries, if not millennia, represents a major challenge to the regime's access to oil; historical Arab tribal lands contain up to 90 per cent of Iran's oil reserves and produce 10 per cent of OPEC's total output. The Iranian government has consistently refused to allocate just 1.5 per cent of oil revenues to Khuzestan, as demanded by the province's representatives in the Majlis (parliament). Arab demands for the redistribution of land and oil revenue have been met with a violent policy of Persianisation, resembling Milosevic's attempts to create a Greater Serbia. Persianisation entails government confiscation of Arab-owned land and 'ethnic restructuring', which typically involves the forced migration of Arabs out of Khuzestan and their replacement with 'loyal' ethnic groups, particularly ethnic Persians. Ahwazi Arabs are denied equal access to education and healthcare, while Khuzestan's provincial authorities are overwhelmingly dominated by non-Arab Iranians - despite the fact that Ahwazi Arabs are the largest ethnic group in the province. The Ahwazi Arab population endures hardship, poverty, illiteracy and unemployment at higher rates than the national average, despite being indigenous to a province that forms the foundations of the Iranian economy.

The situation in Khuzestan can even be compared to apartheid, with the Ahwazis denied social mobility and cultural expression. In urban areas, Ahwazi Arabs live in shanty towns which resemble the townships of apartheid South Africa. In Ahwaz City, slums lack most of the everyday necessities, such as plumbing, electricity, telephone, pavements, street lighting, public transport, sewerage systems, schools, clinics, hospitals, shops and parks. The conditions in the slums stand in stark contrast to the non-Arab areas of Ahwaz City.

This appeared in the Asia Times on April 6:

Real men go to Khuzestan
By Pepe Escobar

TEHRAN - When it comes to Iran, the widespread belief is that the United States cannot possibly occupy the country - it's the size of France, Britain, Italy and Spain combined - and thus exercise the avowed White House goal of regime change.

The next best thing - from the point of view of armchair warriors - would be subversion from within. Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, in a widely distributed opinion piece a few months ago, stated that should the US attack Iran, ethnic minorities "might welcome the humiliation of their oppressors", that is, the Persians. Nonsense replays itself, as in the US supposedly being greeted as the "liberator" of Iraq.

In the overdrive run-up to the attack on Iraq in 2003, the ultimate neo-conservative mantra was "Real men go to Khuzestan." Indeed, some of of these "real men" may already have been there. The Iranian government is convinced US, British and/or Israeli special ops have been conducted on Iran's western and southeastern borders, at least since early 2005.

Significantly, the new US budget calls for additional funds to special operations and psy-ops (psychological operations) in Iran, in addition to the US$75 million the administration of President George W Bush wants to spend to advance "regime change". For their part, the US marines have commissioned Hicks and Associates, a subsidiary of Science Applications International Corp, one of the biggest US defense contractors and heavily involved in the Iraq invasion, to carry out in-depth research into Iranian ethnic groups.

The ultimate prize is Khuzestan province, where 90% of Iran's oil is located and which provides the country with 80% of its funds from oil production. In January, Tehran announced it had evidence of British special ops and bombings in Khuzestan, starting last year. Two Iranian Arabs were hanged in public for bombing a bank in the provincial capital Ahvaz in January. Three others were executed in a local prison.

At least 50 Arabs were accused as perpetrators of bombings that killed 21 people last April - after an "official" (but unconfirmed) letter was leaked with detailed plans for the ethnic cleansing of Arabs in Khuzestan. President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has already had to cancel three trips to Ahvaz at the last minute.

The province could not be more sensitive. Iran's second nuclear reactor will be built in Khuzestan. During an extended Nauroz - the Persian New Year - which in many cases goes on until early April - the Revolutionary Guards promote instructive Khuzestan tours to huge groups from all over the country, who are bused to battle sites of the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. As many as 2 million people a year may participate in these tours. During this period special permits are not issued for the foreign press.

John Bradley was one of the few foreign journalists to be allowed in Khuzestan last month. In a dirt-poor Arab village near Ahvaz, crossed by pipelines supplying crude oil to the huge Abadan refinery (450,000 barrels a day), Bradley saw Iranian Arabs complaining that "we are standing on all of the country's wealth, and yet we get no benefit from it". [1] Unemployment is rife, Farsi is the only language taught in local schools, and no Arab-language newspapers are allowed. The pipelines have already been bombed - last September. One month later, Tehran announced it had cracked a plot to bomb Abadan with five Katyusha rockets.

I think the neo-cons are crazy enough to want to prove they are "real men" and that they will "go to Khuzestan" with the phony Iranian bomb threat as an excuse, as in Iraq.  Even our own intelligence says Iran won't have a bomb for years.

It's really about the oil and the conquest of Khuzestan province in Iran will prove that once and for all.  Bush has to do it before 2008, so that means this year or next year.  

Battle Plans

The Bush administration's attention has shifted to a small province in southwestern Iran that is unknown to most Americans. Never the less, Khuzestan will become the next front in the war on terror and the lynchpin for prevailing in the global resource war. If the Bush administration can sweep into the region (under the pretext disarming Iran's nuclear weapons programs) and put Iran's prodigious oil wealth under US control, the dream of monopolizing Middle East oil will have been achieved.

Not surprisingly, this was Saddam Hussein's strategy in 1980 when he initiated hostilities against Iran in a war that would last for eight years. Saddam was an American client at the time, so it is likely that he got the green-light for the invasion from the Reagan White House. Many of Reagan's high-ranking officials currently serve in the Bush administration; notably Rumsfeld and Cheney.

From the Beirut Times:

if ethnic tensions in Khuzestan province can be effectively exploited by the U.S. and Britain, they may feel that a more limited destabilization or invasion will put Iran's main oil province under Western control. In other words, the prospects of an invasion may loom larger, simply because Bush thinks it can be a "mission accomplished" with less effort than an all-out conquest of Iran. Bush and Blair use the prospects of civil war to justify their continuing occupation of Iraq (though their actions instead appear to be stimulating an Iraqi civil war). They are also not above stimulating a little ethnic strife to get their way next door in Iran.

Think of Khuzestan as a "Kuwait-Inside," with most of Iran's crude oil deposits contained within the small province. Like in Iraq, Nigeria or Colombia, much of the oil is under the lands of a historically aggrieved ethnic minority. The Arab Shi'ites living on the plains of western Khuzestan share both their ethnicity and faith with the majority Arab Shi'ites across the strategic Shatt al-Arab waterway in Iraq. Arabs make up only 3% of Iran's population, but a majority (or at least a plurality) of about 3 million in Khuzestan (which some Arabs call "Ahwaz" or "Arabistan").

To take all of Iran, it is estimated that 600,000 troops are needed.  But to take Khuzestan and the southern coast, many less are required as the Zagros Mountains make Khuzestan a natural fortress.  As long as some of the oil wealth is promised to the Arab militias there and they fight with Bushco for their "independence", the poll below asks how many US troops and forces would be need to conquer and occupy Khuzestan??

Originally posted to Sherlock Google on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 03:24 PM PDT.


How much force would be needed to Conquer and hold Khuzestan and Southern Iran and Protect the Straits of Hormuz? [NOT ALL OF IRAN-see maps]

59%28 votes
23%11 votes
10%5 votes
6%3 votes

| 47 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Please Recommend to Help Prevent This (9+ / 0-)

    From Coming to Pass!

    Tip Jar!

    •  Great job -- Tho defanging our pit vipers (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      will take more than tips or recommends.

      I've been clamoring to yank the AUMFs as a start -- hopefully, it'll further discredit them and slow them down a tad.

      ...what do you think?  What options do we have?

      I believe your estimate that this year or next year is accurate -- in fact, mine is by, on or before June 28.  If they miss that, then they'll likely do something on July 28 as the next "go" date, in order to get all their ducks lined up in whatever new config they need.

      I'm certain they won't wait until November.

      Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
        Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
      Tempest even in reason's seat.

      by GreyHawk on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 04:21:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Chilling (0+ / 0-)

      All too plausible.  Thanks for the lucid analysis.

      The whole horribly likely story is summed up in a few catchy bits I am excerpting from your very last citation (Beirut times via Zmag):

      Think of Khuzestan as a "Kuwait-Inside," with most of Iran's crude oil deposits contained within the small province


      much of the oil is under the lands of a historically aggrieved ethnic minority ...[who] share both their ethnicity and faith with the majority Arab Shi'ites [of Iraq]

      The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function -- Edward Teller.

      by lgmcp on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 04:30:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Too Much Iran Talk? (0+ / 0-)

      Is all this talk about exactly how and why Bush is going to invade Iran really productive?  Or is it the opposite, where truth will imitate fiction.  As far as I can see, we have oil, we have a government the U.S. doesn't like, and we have some neo-con wet dreams from several years ago.  I think we're blowing this out of proportion.

  •  Sherlock..great diary..and recommend (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp, kraant

    Perhaps the title needs a massage. Do you think the United Arab Emirates, only a hop, skip and a jump away, might have to choose which way its going.

    I recall they already had or are having a spat with Iran over some islands in the area.

  •  The only thing we can be sureof is that None of (0+ / 0-)

    these real men will be neo con chicken shit yellow bellied war hawks

  •  Hey look (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    it's right next to Iraq, and it's already colored yellow.  Why it's obvious it should be part of Iraq (a wholly owned subsidarary of Halliburton)

  •  The danger of this trick (0+ / 0-)

    Be a pity if the Iranians ever figure out that arming a Kurdish independence movement plays favorably to their interests.

    Confidence is high. I repeat: Confidence is high.

    by cskendrick on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 04:29:35 PM PDT

  •  Fine post, Sherlock (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

     I fear that the only thing that's going to stop an outright invasion of Khuzestan is Bushco having their legs cut out from under them. Whether that's retraction of the AUMF, a dramatic drop in the polls due to Fitz' indictments and fruition of the other investigations or millions in the streets in reaction, if somethings doesn't effectively cripple the on-going action, they'll attack, probably sooner than later, given the increasing threats at home.

     So, Sherlock, how would the Iranians defend: do they already have troops, armour and back-ups, set in place, with a defense plan activiated? Can we really take out their air force en masse? Their sea batteries around the Straits?

     What if they decide to send, say, 250,000 troops straight at Baghdad as a counter ploy to tie up our forces? What if they join with southern Iraqi Shites and try to create a pincer movement?

     The Iranians aren't toothless. And there will be a rather incredible death toll if this comes to pass.

    •  Chess is a Persian game... (0+ / 0-)

      and I'm sure that the Iranians would play to their strenghts and US weakness: in terms of conventional warfare the US would probably deal fairly easily with Iran's Army and Navy and certainly their aged Airforce. What Teheran would likely do in an all-out conflict with Washington would be insurgencies and terrorism in all occupied territories and even in the US and Europe itself. Iran's secret service is regarded as one of the best in the world and you can bet they would put all sorts of plans into motion that would make Al Qaeda look amateur. They have spent, I am sure, the time since Saddams toppling well; creating networks and arming groups within Iraq for a possible showdown with the Americans there. Inside of Iran's Arab community the US would probably only get a mixed support, at best. Remember that even a fellow Arab like Saddam couldn't rally much support within Iran.
      In short, an invasion of parts of Iran would play out much like it did in Iraq: great, initial US success that leaves the world in awe. Then, the Iranians will go to work with the same tenacity that shocked and ultimately saw of Saddam in the 80s.

  •  While real men fight. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Republicans give orders from under their desks.

    "... Just so long as I'm the dictator." - GWB, 12/18/00

    by Bob Love on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 05:14:28 PM PDT

  •  Well if they do invade (0+ / 0-)

    They had better come up with the whole 600k troops this time, and not try and do it on the cheap.

    Still, all the Iranians have to do is fall back to the mountains where the terrain gives some advantage to the defenders, and throw the bulk of their army into Afghanistan. Destroying whatever US and NATO forces that are stuck there would be a nice little propaganda victory.  

    Iran has a decent sized army and they will be fighting for the life of their nation if you think that they put up a hell of a resistance to Iraq it will be nothing in comparison to engaging the great satan.

    I would expect a full usage of every tool at their disposal including chemical weapons.  Our possible losses would be such a high number that even if we got off cheap by half the war would become politically untenable at home from moment one.

  •  I voted for the 600,000 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades

    not because I think it will require that many to take Khuzestan, but because it will take that many to hold it.

    Bushco is not likely to treat the Arabs any better than Iraq does, but does not know the territory any where near as well.  I could be wrong, but Bushco has tended to try to get away with anything they can.

    The straits of Hormuz will have to be extensively defended to keep traffic flowing.  If we take the territory bordering the straits then Iran will have little to loose if there is environmental damage from sinking a tanker.

    Live Free or Die-words to live by

    by ForFreedom on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 05:31:39 PM PDT

Click here for the mobile view of the site