Mullahs' mouthpiece mangles elephant idioms

I know Iran is in fairly dire economic straits, but if the mullahs want to wage an effective propaganda war against the West, the least they could do is fork out a few rials to supply their various mouthpieces with some dictionaries of English idioms. Because when you're trying to chastise your enemies in their native tongue, nothing blunts the impact of spittle-laden invective like getting your figures of speech mixed up.

In an editorial in today's English-language edition of the state-controlled Kayhan newspaper, under the headline 'The White Elephant', Kian Mokhtari writes:

Is there something wrong with the world's sense of what is happening in Iraq? Do we have to continue to ignore the white elephant of the illegal US occupation of Iraq and the resulting civilian deaths of around one million people, in the same way that we have stood by and watched Palestine ripped to pieces by the occupying Zionist regime?

The US is increasingly concentrating its firepower against the Iraqi forces opposed to the US-led occupation of their country while sending the Iraqi army out to fight Al-Qaeda operatives. The US is busy killing Iraqi patriots sick to death of US murder, rape and torture of Iraqi civilians, while Maliki's government has been lumbered with the task of funding the United State's so-called fight against terror.

'Illegal US occupation'… 'one million civilian deaths'… 'Palestine ripped to pieces'… 'murder, rape and torture'… the New York Times should sign this guy up under some international leader writer exchange programme. Ultimately, however, the polemic is diminished because the author made the schoolboy error of confusing his elephant expressions.

The phrase Mokhtari was grasping for was, of course, 'elephant in the room', 'elephant in the living room' or some variant on that saying, meaning something that's impossible to ignore (my personal favourite is the British 'elephant in the drawing room'). 'White elephant' describes something whose cost exceeds its usefulness to the point that it becomes a liability.

We shouldn't be too hard on Mr Mokhtari. His English is clearly very good, and it's not uncommon for English speakers to confuse the two expressions – there are warnings to that effect on the respective Wikipedia entries. And there are those who would argue that Iraq has become a white elephant for the US, although that's clearly not the context in which Mokhtari was using the phrase (similarly, many supporters of US efforts in Iraq would say that Iran is the elephant in the room in the context of the continuing instability in the country).

But the whole point of a hostile regime addressing its opponents in their own language is that it's supposed to have an unsettling and corrosive effect. It says 'we know you', ' we understand you', and 'we're not embarrassed to share our ideology with you'. And to political leaders it says 'we're so confident that your people will believe our propaganda and turn against you that we're appealing to them directly'.

And if, after the first line of what's supposed to be some paradigm-shifting rhetorical flourish, all the reader is thinking is: 'He meant elephant in the living room, not white elephant – idiot!', then it's hard for them to take what follows seriously – particularly when it's so over the top that it verges on the comical anyway.

At the moment the war between the US and Iran is one of words, rather than weapons. And if you can't get a simple phrase right, there's a danger that when you say perfectly sensible things like

Islamic Republic of Iran recently apprehended a group of terrorists responsible for the Shiraz mosque bombing atrocity. They had been trained by the UK, US and Zionist agents. Among items discovered in their hideouts were: poison gas and chemical agents to cause maximum human casualties at other venues on their to-do list.

people might not believe you.

Gates: Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station!

Twenty-five years after Ronald Reagan first announced his intention to develop a 'Star Wars' missile defence system, it finally became a reality yesterday when a US warship shot down a malfunctioning satellite 130 miles above the Earth. (Incidentally I was disappointed to see that the BBC called it a 'disabled' satellite – surely 'orbitally challenged' is the PC term here?)

The Pentagon had been playing down the significance of yesterday's operation for the past couple of weeks, but no sooner had the remains of USA 193 started to burn up on re-entry than Defense Secretary Robert Gates hailed the shoot-down as proof that the US missile defence system works.

And how it worked. For years critics of the system have claimed that carefully controlled tests proved nothing, and have insisted that system isn't feasible and is a waste of money - and perhaps the US was happy for its enemies to think that too. Well, we now have spectacular evidence to the contrary.

We can't be sure how much of a threat USA 193 really posed – was the missile strike absolutely necessary, or was the US just using the satellite story as cover so it could show off its anti-satellite and anti-missile capability to the world?

Either way, Russia and China are pissed off, which has to be a good thing, and China is demanding the US 'share information' about yesterday's strike. (How about this: you know the ship that launched the missile? Well that ship floats because it’s designed to displace an amount of water equal in weight to its own weight. Give that to your scientists and tell them to knock themselves out.)

Of course, unless either country is thinking about launching a pre-emptive missile strike against the United States, they don't really have any reason to worry. Their objection appears to be the FISA argument writ large - we know that no harm is being done, but we object to the principle. And they're bound to be piqued by another demonstration of American technological superiority.

More pressingly, yesterday could dramatically change the picture as far as Iran is concerned, to the extent that we may not need to worry about striking Iran's nuclear facilities after all. If the US was happy to make yesterday's shoot-down so public, who knows how much more they're keeping classified – by the time Iran gets the bomb and puts it on a delivery system the US will probably be able to intercept the thing, turn it around in orbit and send it back to Tehran.

The mullahs have in the past suggested that they don't care how much damage is inflicted on Iran in the event that it launches a nuke at Israeli and the Israelis retaliate. They figure that Israeli will be annihilated, while Iran will suffer millions of casualties but survive.

But if the US has developed, or is close to developing, the capability to shoot a ballistic missile out of the sky, the picture changes dramatically. If the mullahs decide to launch, they run a real risk of sustaining those millions of casualties while the Israelis escape without a scratch. Many commentators have said the mullahs 'can't be deterred', but maybe that just changed.

Cuffy Meigs and his commenters have some interesting analysis on yesterday's events, although the discussion does get a bit esoteric at times. Cuffy notes that the shoot-down caps the best year yet for the missile defence program. It seems the only thing that can stop it now is the Democrats.

Talking of which, I hope McCain makes a big show of hitching himself to the missile defence bandwagon, while the Democrats fret about an 'arms race in space' and 'sending out the wrong signals'. That said, yesterday's events should raise new concerns about an Obama presidency – if a man with a well-documented Messiah complex gets control of such a weapon there's no telling what he might do.

A final thought… Michael Goldfarb writes:

It is the greatest PR boost the program could have gotten short of actually striking down a North Korean missile inbound to Hollywood.

I disagree. The greatest PR boost the program could get was if they announced that they had the capability to shoot down a North Korean missile that was inbound to Hollywood, but they decided to let it hit. On Oscars night.

Iraqi Shias rain on Mahmoud's Palestinian parade

If you're hearing a lot of noisy parties in your neighbourhood, and the local store's all out of 'Death to Israel' placards and quick-lighting American flags, you know it must by al-Quds day - Iran's annual day of protests in support of the Palestinian people.

The BBC reports that tens of thousands of Iranians marched in central Tehran, while the authorities claimed that "millions" took part in protests across the country.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad marked the occasion by proclaiming that Iran would work until "all of Palestine is liberated", and in a none-to-subtle reference to the means by which he intends to achieve said liberation, described Iran's nuclear programme as a "great victory" for the country.

Unfortunately, Shias over the border in Iraq are unlikely to be celebrating al-Quds day with quite as much enthusiasm as their neighbours and co-religionists to whom they supposedly look for leadership. As AFP reported in a story I posted on last week:

Thousands of Palestinian refugees in Iraq have been ill-treated, with many of them abducted, tortured and murdered by armed Shiite Muslim groups, Amnesty International said in a report published Monday.

The London-based human rights group issued an urgent appeal to the Shiite-led Iraqi government, US-led coalition and international community to take concrete steps to protect the Palestinians.

The report explained that Palestinians are being targeted because Shiites think they received preferential treatment under Saddam Hussein, who like most Palestinians was a Sunni, or because they're suspected of supporting Sunni insurgents.

The report added:

Estimated at 34,000 in May 2006 by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Palestinians now number no more than 15,000 in Iraq, most of them in Baghdad but many in Mosul in the north and Basra in the south.

If I was the cynical type, I might conclude that al-Quds day isn't about the Palestinian people at all, but about a corrupt and brutal Iranian dictatorship whipping up hysteria over their perceived plight to divert attention from all-to-real repression at home.

The great al-Quds day massacre

We've been hearing a lot about US forces targeting al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters and their Sunni allies recently, so it's good to know that the Iranian-backed Shia militias haven't been forgotten.

US forces killed 25 militants suspected of links to Iran's Quds Force in a raid near Baquba early today - what a great way to mark al-Quds day, of which more in a later post. So much for all that Iranian training; any fighters who survived the encounter should send back their diplomas in protest.

As Bill Roggio reports, the US took the opportunity to repeat its thinly veiled warning to Moqtada al Sadr, to the effect that his militias can expect similar treatment if he decides to end his six-month 'suspension' of attacks.

More importantly, this raid also sends a clear message to Tehran: you keep arming, training and giving orders to these guys, and we'll keep killing them. And the more success the US enjoys against these groups, the more likely Iran will overplay its hand in trying to hit back, clearing the way for long-overdue strikes against Quds targets inside Iran.

A bad night for freedom

While a few commentators are suggesting that Ahmadinejad was put in his place by Columbia President Lee Bollinger tonight, I just can't see it. Those who think he's mad and dangerous will have heard nothing to change their minds, while those on the extreme left who see him as an ally in their war against President Bush will if anything be emboldened. As John Bolton pointed out, it’s not like we don’t know what Ahmadinejad’s positions are; the issue is whether you legitimise those positions by giving him a platform.

For Ahmadinejad to have been in any way phased by Bollinger's attack would have required that he have a conception of right and wrong that relates in some way to ours. This, after all, is a man who fantasises about one day initiating a nuclear exchange that might take hundreds of thousands of lives. It’s fair to say that even the most forgiving members of the international community are going to be pretty upset if and when he does it, and if Ahmadinejad has made his peace with suffering the consequences, assuming that he emerges from his bunker unscathed, then he’s unlikely to be troubled by an attack that was reminiscent of Frasier Crane at his eloquent, pompous best.

The fact that as many students applauded Ahmadinejad as applauded Bollinger helped to create the impression of a moral victory for the Iranian leader; how disheartening those pictures will be for the millions of Iranians who look to America to help bring about change in their county. It's a sad fact that there are a lot of disturbed young people who, to paraphrase the suicide bombers they so admire, hate Bush more than they love life – and I'm not talking about their own lives of course, but the lives of Iranian dissidents, American troops and ordinary people from Baghdad to Tel Aviv.

Ahmadinejad’s remarks are unlikely to change many minds in the US and Europe as to how we should deal with Iran. As Hugh Hewitt points out, in the best piece I've read on tonight's events, what should really be concerning those who fear Ahmadinejad is the way that his visit will be reported in Iran and the Middle East:

Meanwhile the networks catering to the jihadists will be slicing and dicing the fanatic's remarks; he will earn the admiration of radicals across the Arab world for standing up to the Americans; and the repressed people of Iran, especially the students who cannot speak out, the press that is muzzled, and the gays who don't exist will get all of Ahmadinejad and little if any of Bollinger. What will they conclude? Even a cursory examination of The Looming Tower or Inside The Jihad or any of many other serious books on the Islamist war against the West dwells on the crucial role of propaganda in pushing the extremist message, both Salafist and Shia versions. Today's fiasco has nothing to do with what Bollinger said, a name little known or long remembered anywhere outside of the upper West Side. It is about the platform Columbia provided this thug who is actively engaged in the killing of American soldiers and Marines while plotting the extermination of Israel.

The cause of freedom in the Arab World has been damaged tonight, and that may in turn have implications for the security of the West. It’s not a disaster, but it’s a setback. We can only be grateful that Ahmadinejad didn’t get to deliver his sly sermon at Ground Zero.

I'll want a big-screen TV for this show…

From The Times, via Theo Spark:

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

These stories often turn out to be more hype than substance, but we can hope. The report doesn't get into specifics, but presumably, after taking out the air defences they'll start with the IED factories and the Quds force.

More hangings in Iran

The Wall Street Journal reports on the latest wave of executions. Seems I was way too conservative with my numbers in my post on Wednesday.

Ahmadinejad: You're grounded!

Those mullahs just can't stand to see anyone having a good time. Reuters reports that Iranian police detained 230 people and seized alcohol and drugs in a raid on a 'satanic' underground rock concert. It's apparently part of an annual crackdown that goes on at this time of year – a sort of 'summer of virtuousness'.

The report says DJs, rock groups and rap artists performed at the event. Although Iranian officials didn't elaborate on the nature of the 'satanic' material being performed, by their standards The Carpenters would probably be off limits. Alcohol, drugs and CDs were seized, but what clearly tipped the authorities over the edge were reports of 'unrelated men and women dancing, drinking and mixing' and women wearing 'inappropriate' dresses.

This is all good stuff. Iran has a young, restless and pro-western population which, in the long run, is probably a better bet for regime change in Iran than sanctions or military action (although I'm all for targeted strikes on those elements that are causing trouble in Iraq). Maybe we should start supplying the Resistance with air drops of Linkin Park, Ryan Adams and MIKA CDs, and cases of Bud Light.

Death and carpets in Iran

The BBC reports that Iran has sentenced two ethnic Kurdish journalists to hang for being 'enemies of God'. Iran has already executed over 100 people this year, and they're probably being modest with that figure. But it's not all bad news adds the Beeb – those Iranians make a lovely carpet, and it's big enough to roll a few hundred bodies up in to boot!