Tag Archive for: Mullahs tactics

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson: What Do Iran’s Mullahs Want?

When dealing with the mullahs ruling Iran, what you see is not what you get, and what you hear is not what they mean. Transparency and honesty are not their strong suits. So, we need a first-rate sleuth to see through their smoke and mirrors and beyond their twisted tongues into their warped brains.

Who else but Sherlock Holmes can be our man to tell us what the mullahs really want?

The fact of the matter, as far as we can tell, is that the mullahs are waving a big menacing stick over the world’s head—their nuclear program and its ramifications.

The mullahs, however, say to the world (if you are ever foolish enough to trust the word of a people whose religion not only officially condones but recommends taqqeyh—lying—to achieve a higher purpose) they promise, on their Boy Scout’s honor, to limit their nuclear activity to peaceful endeavors under the United Nation’s watchdog.

From its past performance, rather than its absence of performance, we know that the UN watchdog is a true disgrace to dogs since all it does is eat, sleep, and look the other way. Furthermore, the dog has no teeth. The vet had to pull all its teeth before the dog became acceptable to the crafty cats that constitute the UN itself.

In return for their promise that you cannot even sell at a 100% discount, the mullahs demand that the world—led by the Big Dog, the United States of America, and the lesser dogs, the Europeans— give them an iron-clad security blanket.

The bargain that the Allah-fearing and peace-loving mullahs offer makes even the shrewdest Yankee trader strictly amateurish by comparison, one suspects.

“What is the problem? What do the mullahs mean by ‘security blanket,’ Holmes?” asks Dr. Watson.

“Simplicity itself, Watson,” answers Sherlock Holmes. “But first, as an exercise in detection, give me your own surmise on the matter. Do the mullahs want a security blanket to guard against the U.S. military attack, the rabid Iraqis who might break out of their cage in Baghdad again and bite them, or the Emirs of the Gulf States who are happily immersed up to their headgear, frolicking in their harems?” The master asks his pupil.

“Breathlessly, Holmes, I await your never-erring elucidation of the enigma,” says Holmes’ always-at-sea sidekick.

“Well then. We can safely rule out the butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein. He is no longer alive, and the murderous gang of Tikriti killers known as the Republican Guard is also gone. Saddam Hussein must have known that the Republican Guard could not stop the advance of the U.S. military on Baghdad. Saddam is replaced with a friendly regime toward their Shiite brothers in Iran. There is no more a threat from the Iraqis. Thanks to “Uncle Sam.” Remember how Saddam was paraded periodically at his trial and displayed on television for all the Iraqis who had suffered under his rule to get even with him by spitting on his image? An aside, my dear Watson, have you noticed that the Arabs have this nasty habit of spitting at anyone or anything they dislike? So, that rules out Saddam and Iraqi guards. Do you agree with Watson?” pontificates the master.

“I do,” replies Watson.

“As for the Emirs and Sheiks posing security threats to the mullahs, we hardly need to take that possibility seriously. These parasites, with their immense petrodollars, are busy having a blast. They may be dumb, but they are not stupid. They hardly want to mess around with the rabid, turbaned zealots across the Persian Gulf. They smugly feel safe, at least for now. And ‘now’ is the operative word for them. They will worry about ‘later,’ later. Life is too short, they surmise; they have little faith in Allah’s promised paradise with all the virgins, and they are busy making the most of the paradise they have on earth. Also, they are comforted in the knowledge that the Big Dog, also known as the Great Satan in some circles, is on the job with its huge force of armed to–the–teeth fighters protecting them so he can continue feeding his habit—imbibing oil. So, the Emirs keep pumping oil, frolic, and let the Big Dog do the worrying while they do what they really like to do,” explains Holmes, takes a long drag on his pipe, stares at the overhead rings of smoke, and says no more, to Watson’s consternation.

“Holmes, you did not complete your explanation, I dare say. Would you also explain the role of the E3, the European Three, in this melodrama,” Watson intones.

“Patience, Watson, patience. Well then. The E3 dogs have interjected themselves into the squabble. They have taken a page from the Prince’s Machiavellian Book of Statesmanship by pretending to be honest brokers while letting the Americans bleed both blood as well as money. The E3 feel that the more the Big Dog is busy fighting, the less it can eat, and more is left for them,” says the great man.

“Yes?” presses Watson.

“As for the Big Dog going after the mullahs, it is completely out of the question. Everyone is opposed to it. The Iraq misadventure has hopefully taught them an old lesson they seem to have had difficulty learning. The lesson is that it is a terrible mistake to go halfway across the world and invade a country unless you are able and willing to bulldoze the whole thing from one end to the other, with all the people, bar none, buried under the rubble. Recent military undertakings have been, by and large, busts—in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and even Afghanistan, where the indigenous people seem largely supportive of the effort,” says Holmes.

“Holmes, with all due respect, you are taxing my patience. Please spell it out without going on a great detour. Since you have eliminated all the suspects, why do the mullahs want a security blanket from the world powers, and why are they so insistent upon it?” Watson demands.

“The ever-conniving mullahs dread the Iranian people. Granted that a small percentage of Iranians, known as the 3Fs—fools, fanatics, and frauds—support the mullahs. No totalitarian rule can survive without that population segment, for one reason or another, supporting it. Yet, time is not on the side of the mullahs. Through their mismanagement, thievery, and oppression of the masses, they have created explosive internal conditions. Any significant support of the presently splintered Iranian opposition will be the tipping point—a tipping point that would assuredly topple the mullahs,” says Holmes, and rewards himself with another long drag on his pipe.

“So, the mullahs want the powers that be, led by the Big Dog, to lend no support of any kind, moral or material, to the Iranian people?” asks Watson.

“Yes, Watson, that’s their life insurance. The mullahs like their lifestyle and want to bequeath it to their children. They are also long-term planners. They have maniacal messianic delusions of someday ruling the world. Presently, they will do all they can to imprison and kill with impunity the internal opposition and want the rest of the world to keep its nose out of their “family” business. In the meantime, they will, with greater peace of mind, pursue their quest for the nuclear bomb, by hook or crook and keep the fat UN watchdog happily in a slumberous state by throwing it a bone or two from time to time,” concludes the master sleuth.

“Holmes, that’s a cynical view of the world, I say,” pipes up Watson.

“It is a cynical world, my dear Watson,” retorts the master.

©2024. Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

Iran: Christian activist forced to strip, says Islamic regime uses sexual violence against female protestors

The idea is to humiliate and degrade them, and by raping them, to deny them a place in paradise, for in Islam it is entirely the woman’s responsibility to prevent a man from being tempted (hence the hijab, chador, niqab, burqa), and if he is tempted anyway, it’s her fault.

Exclusive: ‘Was forced to strip, govt uses sexual violence against female protesters,’ says Iranian Christian activist

by Annu Kaushik, Firstpost, October 17, 2022:

In 2020, Mary Mohammadi was taken to a detention center near Iran’s capital Tehran. Officials told her that her hair was visible.

In the basement of the all-female detention center, Mary was forced to strip.

“If my hair is a problem, is it not a problem to force me to take off all my clothes? Is this Islamic?,” Mary told Firstpost in an exclusive conversation.

The incident was part of the sexual violence that the regime has been using to suppress female protesters and activists, Mary said.

“During protests, security personnel touch female demonstrators inappropriately. They want to make women fearful of stepping out,” she said.

24-year-old Mary has been on the radar of Iranian officials for several reasons. Born to a Muslim family, she converted to Christianity in 2017.

Christian converts and other religious minorities like the Bahais are not recognised in Iran.

Over the last few years, Mary has faced persecution from the authorities in the form of arrests and interrogations due to her faith as well as activism.

The personnel who transferred her to the detention center in 2020 belonged to the morality police which is currently in the eye of the storm due to the death of Mahsa Amini which has triggered nationwide protests in Iran.

But it’s not just the morality police who target women for not wearing the mandatory hijab or a head scarf or wearing it improperly.

According to Mary “radical Muslims do it too.”

In 2019, Mary was on a bus in Tehran. It was a hot day and she had taken off her hijab. Suddenly a fully veiled woman approached Mary and asked her to cover her hair.

“When I refused, an argument ensued during which the woman attacked me & my face was left bloodied,” Mary said.

The activist somehow managed to take the woman to the police station. According to Mary, the officers dissuaded her from filing a complaint and even threatened her with arrest.

“They (police) were very kind to that woman. They let her go at 10 pm but kept me in custody till 3 am,” she added.

“Radical Muslims can even attack minorities in public because the regime is behind them,

“Islamic hijab is mandatory in Iran even for non-Muslims. I am a Christian but I must wear hijab,” she said.

Mary’s activism and faith also took a personal toll. Without giving any reason, her university barred her from appearing in exams.

But what was more hurtful for Mary was the treatment meted out to her by a former employer who was also a close friend.

“The gymnast training center where I worked was shut down during the COVID lockdown. I kept asking my employers when I can return and they told me and they are still closed,” Mary said.

One day, the activist turned up at the center unannounced and saw that it was fully operational.

Mary was not given her job back and believes that her employer and the university faced pressure from the authorities.

Constant threats that Mary said were from the authorities forced her to flee Iran in February 2022. The activist who is currently living in the US told Firstpost that in her home country security forces “continue to use sexual violence in the ongoing protests.”…

Read more.



Wisconsin Senate candidate praised Khamenei for supporting Black Lives Matter

Fighting Back: Teacher At Center of Fake ‘Hate Crime’ Brouhaha Sues Olympic Medalist for Defamation

France: School has Muslim association but banned Catholic chaplaincy in 2020

UK: Editor of Muslim news site says ‘Secular democracy has failed in the UK. Time for an Islamic state?’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Obama Using Iranian Style Tactics to Silence Opponents of Nuke Deal

amir taheriAmir Taheri is veteran Iranian journalist and editor of Kayhan who fled Iran after the Khomeinist Revolution in 1979. He has been a gadfly attacking myopic views of Iran’s Supreme Leader and what passes for the Mullacracy.  His wide ranging columns have been frequently published in UK, EU and US media, the later including the New York Post.   His latest column of note published in the London-based, Asharq al-Awsat ,English language edition, reveals how Obama has  adopted the multi-dimensional Shia tactics  of the Mullahs to attack the opposition to the Iran Nuclear pact, , “When Obama Adopts the Mullahs’ Style”.   Taheri warns us:

Those who are sucked into big adversarial situations in history always run a number of risks. However, the biggest risk, I believe, is to have an evil adversary and end up looking, behaving and even thinking like them. If that happens to anyone, they could be sure that even if they win many battles, they would end up losing the war. In contrast, one might be lucky enough to end up resembling an adversary that is better than oneself.


The first thing that struck me was how [Obama’s] discourse echoed that of the mullahs. He started by building a metaphysical heaven-and-hell duality about a very this-worldly issue. He warned that the choice was between accepting his deal (Heaven) and war (Hell). The beauty of life, however, lies in the fact that it is full of endless possibilities, including doing nothing when doing anything else could cause more harm.

Here are telling examples of why Taheri believes that Obama has crossed the line by aping the evil intentions of Iran’s Mullahs.

Taqiyya – religiously sanctioned dissimilitude

He imitated the mullahs by practicing “taqiyyah” (dissimulation). He diligently avoided delving into the details of a convoluted “deal” every part of which is designed to deceive. He also hid the fact that his much advertised “deal” has not been officially accepted by the Iranian state.

Mohajah –Drawing Adversaries into battle where even if they win, they lose

He practiced another mullahs’ trick known as “mohajah” which means drawing your adversary into the simulacrum of a battle which, even if they won, would offer them nothing but the simulacrum of a victory. Having already committed his administration through his sponsorship of a United Nations’ Security Council resolution endorsing the “deal”, Obama pretended that his fight with the Congress might end up conjuring some meaning.

Takhrib – Attacking your adversary but not their arguments

Another mullahs’ tactic he used is known as “takhrib” which means attacking the person of your adversary rather than responding to their argument. Those who opposed the “deal”, he kept saying, were the same warmongers that provoked the invasion of Iraq and the “Death to America” crowd in Iran. The message was simple: Those are bad guys, so what they say about this good deal does not count!

He was repeating a favorite dictum the mullahs say: Do not see what is said, see who is saying it!

The Study of Men (Ilm Al-Rejal) and the Study of Pedigrees (Ilm al-Ansab).

Prove that someone is a good man with a good pedigree and you could take his narrative (hadith) on the most complex of subjects at face value. On the contrary, he who is proven to be a bad man with an inferior pedigree should be dismissed with disdain even if he said the most sensible thing.

Obama forgot that among the warmongers who pushed for the invasion of Iraq were two of his closest associates, Joe Biden, his vice president, and John Kerry, his secretary of state, along with the entire Democratic Party contingent in the Congress.

On the Iranian side, he forgot that President Hassan Rouhani and his patron former President Hashemi Rafsanjani built their entire career on “Death to America” slogans. Rouhani and his “moderate” ministers till have to walk on an American flag as they enter their offices every day.

The official Iran Daily ran an editorial the other day in support of Obama’s “campaign for the deal.”

“Obama is the nightmare of the Republicans because he wants to destroy the America they love,” it said. “His success will be a success for all those who want peace.” In other words, the Tehran editorialist was echoing Obama’s Manichaean jibe.

Siahkari  (blackening) of the adversary for harboring a hidden agenda.

Name-calling and accusing critics of harboring hidden agendas is another tactic of the mullahs known as “siahkari” (blackening) of the adversary.

Fasl al-khitab (end of the discussion).

Another mullah concept, used by Obama, is that of “End of Discussion” (fasl al-khitab) once the big cheese has spoken. That may work in the Khomeinist dictatorship; it is not worthy of a mature democracy like the United States.

Taheri’s conclusions.

I am embarrassed to talk of myself, but I have been more of “Long Live America” crowd than the “Death to America” one. And, yet I think the Vienna deal is bad for Iran, bad for America and bad for the world.

I also think that it is possible to forge a deal that is good for Iran, good for the US and good for the world.

I have also never asked the US or anybody else to invade Iran or any other country. I have also never been a Republican if only because I am not a US citizen, and never studied, worked or resided there.

I could assure Obama that, as far as I can gauge public opinion, the majority of Iranians have a good opinion of America and a bad opinion of the “deal”.

This is, perhaps, why, like Obama, the Rafsanjani faction, of whom Rouhani is part, is trying to avoid the issue being debated even in their own ersatz parliament. This is also why Iranian papers critical of the deal are closed down or publicly warned. Rather than depending on the Khomeinist lobby in Washington, or even assertions by people like myself, Obama should conduct his own enquiries to gauge Iranian public opinion. He might well find out that he is making an alliance with a faction that does not represent majority opinion in Iran. His “deal” may disappoint if not anger a majority of Iranians who are still strongly pro-America.

Rouhani’s Cabinet is full of individuals who held the American diplomats hostage in Tehran for 444 days. Yet, they support Obama. Those who oppose the “deal”, however, include many Iranians who genuinely desire the closest of ties with the US.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.