Slashdot Mirror
Afghan Government Turns To Iran For Internet
Barlaam writes "Renesys describes new evidence that the Iranian national telecommunications provider, DCI, is selling (uncensored?) Internet connectivity to customers in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan. 'The Internet connectivity outreach that we now see in the global routing tables seems like continuing evidence of Iran's long-term strategy: aggressively pursuing bilateral infrastructure and investment projects with its neighbors, in ways that will increase Iran's regional influence after the Americans have moved on.'"
Gee, this won't hurt the US, will it?
I'm sure they don't censor criticism of the Iranian government (see Green Revolution).
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
I seriously doubt that the Iranian government and it's nationalized telecom company will be the only company with infrastructure investments in Iraq or Afghanistan. If there's money to be made, the global conglomerates will make it.
My blog
Could someone please trace the expenses back to see how much the US is paying for internet for Iraq and Afghanistan?
As I've learned from television, they're still buying their services from American companies. Oh sure, it's a bunch of Indian programmers doing the work, but they're getting a pittance of the money.
Who else should be providing Internet access and building local business ties but neighboring countries? In this case, Iran looks like they're being a good neighbor. It's time to move beyond this prejudice against Iran. They've been the victim of US (and British) Corporate interests for numerous decades ... and if they dare to object or fight back, or otherewise look after their own interests,
they get demonized.
Recall that the CIA overthrew the Shah to protect interests of what became British Petroleum (BP):
The Iranian government of the time was just trying to control its own oil. Naturally, the people of
Iran weren't keen on the CIA coup. And US/British Corporates weren't happy with pushback on their plans
to steal all that oil wealth. So here we are ... Iran does something innocuous and the western establishment
press still wants to find a way to blame them for something (what?) while spinning the West as blameless.
Maybe I should RTFA and stay on topic
You're not from around here are you?
Someone trying to make a buck off of providing alternate internet routes. How unusual.
As for the article itself, you have got to be kidding me - "aggressively pursuing"? Why not just post a photo of the cheque from the US State Department?
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
They might not be being a *good* neighbour - I mean, doing this is going to be in Iran's interest - but it's in the interest of Iraq and Afghanistan too to have internet feeds from multiple political entities. Regardless of how America is treating them now, it is not a good idea for Iraq or Afghanistan to be 100% reliant on them.
Investing in network connectivity with its neighbour is just crazy. They should be busy invading countries thousands of miles away.
the thing is.... teh interwebz turns the planet into a region... therefore, teh interwebz provide regional influence on Iran and not vice-versa. ohhh noes, the middle east is improving their communication infrastructure and not using expensive western-owned satellites to do so... terrorists win!
Or possibly FOX News?
Just because the United States has an embargo in Iran, doesn't mean everyone else in the world has to have one as well. Besides, the mullahs in Iran don't particularly like Afghanistan either, they almost went to war with the Taliban in 1998. I thought this site was for "news for nerds", not biased political pieces bordering on propaganda.
We in Iraq already have several links into the country coming from FLAG Cable, Iran , Turkey , Kuwait , Saudi , Jordan......besides the VSAT terminals which is still widely used here.
Turkey was the first to sell internet to iraq via fiber links since sometime ago....iran's link is rarely used here.
While I agree that the west has fucked with Iran a lot, the analysis the article makes isn't the crazy, anti-Iranian spin you're making it out to be. Iran absolutely wants to become the regional hegemon of the middle east, and this is a way to increase their ability to do so. Whether or not that's innocuous is up for debate. I lean on the side that feels Iran being a hegemon is ok as long as that means they give way to control by their democratized populace instead of being run by secret police and a theological council. But having a government that's run on a religious level calling shots over a sphere of influence is a step backwards to incorporating the middle east into the larger world.
You might not have an issue with the Ayatollah asserting his unilateral authority against the general will of the people (see the Green Revolution), but I do. Remember: the CIA-made puppet government was overturned by scholars and students acting in Iran and abroad, with the population expecting democracy afterwards. Then the theocrats gained power by thuggery (each street had a block captain to point the thug squads in the right direction) and the scholars started disappearing. I don't want those people making regional security calls Monroe-doctrine style
I am become
The Shiite muslims overthrew an externally-imposed government after the Iranian President was assassinated - possibly at the request of the US, but that information won't get released for 10 more years at the very best. I regard the state of affairs in Iran as basically part of a standard pattern that repeats throughout history - when a government is created through violence, it will maintain itself through violence and it will usually collapse through violence. This cycle will be repeated endlessly until enough people take the risk of being peaceful.
(It is the main reason I mistrust the 2nd Amendment - you will never have enough people willing to take the risk of being peaceful when they perceive there to be a quick and easy way out of their problems. The only way out of the quagmire is neither quick nor easy and depends on the renunciation of force, not the use of it.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I agree it's not good for any nation to be 100% reliant on any other nation. I would far prefer all nations to have as many Internet feeds as they can sensibly afford - greater reliability through greater redundancy, shorter paths to destinations makes for better performance, and the avoidance of any particular political master prevents "unfortunate accidents" disconnecting sources that may conflict with one ideology or another. (Both the US and Iran have extensively used disinformation and psychological warfare, we have to assume other nations use these techniques as well, so the only possible way to get good information is to get maximal information.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
That's an interesting point of view on the 2nd amendment. Personally, even though I am am my self a gun owner and concealed carry permit holder, I find that most people would be too lazy to even attempt an armed revolution, and the ones that talk the most about it are in the least position, physically, to be able to withstand the demands of guerrilla warfare. Its mostly the Vietnam vet generation, like my dad, who have had too much beer and too many years behind them to make a decent revolution. They're the same old people bitching at these tea party rallies.
I think that the inaction is inevitable, but not because people are "willing to risk being peaceful" but because hardly anyone is stupid enough is willing to risk NOT being peaceful if they have to do it by themselves, because the "masses" that agree with them are in no shape to actually help them.
Look at the map. When you are a landlocked country you get your connectivity from your neighbors. I suppose they could run cable all the way over to western Afghanistan from Pakistan. Would you want to sole-source all your connectivity from Pakistan? The other choices aren't worth mentioning.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Indeed, there is a country with a religious police, which outlaws practicing any religion but Islam, regularly executes citizens for moral crimes, and is a monarchal theocracy that does not hold elections and is accused of widespread human rights violations. They are about to close an arms deal worth 60 billion dollars to buy a fleet of the world's most advanced jet fighters and helicopters and related equipment. Their mosques preach violence against the west, and indeed, they send foreign fighters to Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Yemen to train for militant jihad.
That country is Saudi Arabia. And their supplier is the United States.
Iran, on the other hand, has a broken democracy, does in fact protect the right of religions to practice (but not to proselytize), and even has 30,000 practicing Jews and 300,000 practicing Christians with hundreds of churches and synagogues openly operating. Though they are subject persecution by the government, they are guaranteed a small number of seats in their representative government. The Ba'hai faith are widely seen as more persecuted than Jews or Christians, since they are officially outlawed.
Saudi Arabia for some reason has better public relations than Iran, but something tells me there's a reason for that.
Judging from history, our bizarre ethos of "the enemy of the enemy is my friend" has come back to bite us many times. Maybe there will come a day when, after some terrorist act committed by Saudi citizens, our foreign policy will change to a more reasoned stance when dealing with the complexities of Middle Eastern politics.
Oh wait, I forgot. Never forget... to forget.
Seriously? You studied Kazakhstan for a semester and you don't know that the EU is far, far away?
There is no "Eastern EU" anywhere near Kazakhstan, the Ukraine is as far from joining the EU as ever (never). Are you regionally challenged? The EU is not synonymous with the continent of Europe.
As for your claim that Iran will become a hub for the "region" I doubt your map reading skills. Iran is insignificant to Russia, and China is even further away. Russia is a great deal more capable than Iran, guess who's delivering the nuclear reactor to Iran? What would Russia or China need Iran for? Russia has pipe lines to Europe as it is and transport channels from coast to coast (Baltic to Bering).
Incidentally Russia and Norway just saw the first [Norwegian freight] ships going the Northern passage route to Asia and China. It's shorter and better controlled than the pirated and dangerous waters of the Indian ocean.
You are probably right in the sense that Iran doesn't want any more wars, they do however want to remain in power and dominate the region. You can't blame them, the Sunni's have been attacking them for a long time. If they get their safety they might be less agressive. The country could become a great asset to the world.
Well, the regime in Iran does have its way with the Internet offered there, so I wouldn't exactly call it a great day for Afghanistan either. It is news for nerds everywhere that a country is locking down their Internet, it could encourage others to do the same.
On the other hand that might be exactly what the Afghan government wants; a censored Internet. It would suit them as well after all.
I have no hostility towards the nation of Persia, or the Persian people, I greatly admire their country and believe they will regain their rightful place in the world.
... most of the leaders spent 15-20 years fighting the Shaw and Iraq.
While I agree with most of your comment, out of curiosity, where did you learn "Shaw"? I mean Shah is the correct word, meaning King in Farsi. It's a short form for "Mohmmad Reza Shah" (while his father, the previous king is known primarily as "Reza Shah"). I see a lot of English speakers referring to him as Shaw which to my knowledge is a last name as in George B. Shaw.
A quick look at the map shows a language bias of Farsi in the population. Iranians are some of the most prolific producers of web content in that region of the world. And virtually all of that is in Farsi. I don't know the details of how routing algorithms work, but if a majority of users in these regions browse Iranian web sites wouldn't that skew the routing tables towards routers in Iran?
They should have gotten the Comcast Super Combo Deal and save a bundle.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
not to forget that with very few adjustments to your first paragraph, you'd suddenly be talking about china
not to forget that with very few adjustments to your first paragraph, you'd suddenly be talking about america
not to forget that with very few adjustments to your first paragraph, you'd suddenly be talking about the roman empire
not to forget that with very few adjustments to your first paragraph, you'd suddenly be talking about something completely different.
your point?
Time to block Iran then.
I tell ya what I could do without from the /. RSS feed: ads for Liz Cheney's "Keep America Safe" BS.
Yeah, after the US economy collapses and the union disintegrates.
Break the UN charter, break the UNSC resolutions, break the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, export terrorism, send elite troops dressed in civilian clothes into Iraq to kill civilians, and yeah, you'll find yourself getting your ass kicked, exactly like you should.
fixed
"The Internet connectivity outreach that we now see in the global routing tables seems like continuing evidence of Iran's long-term strategy: aggressively pursuing bilateral infrastructure and investment projects with its neighbors...."
The Horrors!!!!
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
War it Cyrus or Xerxes?
Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
Recall that the CIA overthrew the Shah
Why do people get modded +5 for making glaring factual errors like this?
Just think high speed data transfers, GB/s speeds, fiber optics leaping into the 21st century, and yet, their women are still stuck in the 12th century. They only seem good for one use only, god...er I mean allah help them if they produce more girls than boys. Backward countries that want, no demand equality with the rest of the world as long as it doesn't include gender. What an idea!
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
It may or may not be innocuous, but is it in any way surprising? As of now, they seem to be the only reasonably stable polity in that belt, apart from Saudi Arabia. It's a no-brainer that they would try to exert their influence over their neighbours. In pretty much the same way, and with about the same amount of justification, as you rightly mention, as the Monroe doctrine.
And is it in any way wrong for Afghanistan (and possibly Iraq) to seek better relations with their neighbours, no matter how extremist that neighbour might be? Indeed, the more extremist, the more incentive to appease them.
Not saying that any of it is right, but neither was the CIA-backed coup in Iran... It's all just one travesty after another...
This cycle will be repeated endlessly until enough people take the risk of being peaceful.
How many of your neighbors have the Westerners invaded? I bet you wouldn't be so peaceful if you saw a Russian tank rolling down your street one morning.
The CIA didn't overthrow the Shah, they were the ones that put him in power.
Britain and the US overthrow Mohammad Mosaddegh, a democratically elected president I might add, because he nationalised the oil industry and kicked out the likes of BP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh#Overthrow_of_Mosaddegh
the Saudi's are buying over $60 billion dollars of weapons from the US and creating 75000 US jobs, why? to protect itself from Iran and it's nuclear threat? That's what they tell you on the news, it's to protect another country from Iran's nuclear threat... just like it did in the late 70s early 80s, only this time the weapons are outdated and over priced F15s, the western economies can't survive with out these kind of deals, plus it's easier to have your competition fight amongst themselves than for them to team up and compete against you.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is nothing more than a puppet of the west, he was put there to create artificial instability in the region, to divide and conquer, to create hate between Sunni and Shaia Muslims and to create hate between members of the same sect. this will lead them to sell outdated weapons to the region's countries, under the guise to protect themselves from an artificial enemy, while the true enemy sits in a corner and laughs.
Thank you for a very insightful comment. I was wondering about that last part: "Never forget ...to forget" ? I know it's ironic i just dont understand what you mean.
When people start saying stuff like this about any country, just stating so called facts they saw on TV and read in the mainstream media, I ask them, have you ever been to that country?
I have lived in Saudi Arabia for 26 years, I have seen great change, the people are nice and most are moderates, they don't hate everyone, I can do a lot of stuff that people think I would get stoned or beheaded for.
The problem is with all countries and all cultures, is that moderates are not as loud as extremists, you won't see a group of people going to protest because they are happy. you only see and hear extremist protesting weather from the left or right and the 24 media will turn 10 people protesting into something like a million people marching.
The $60 billion deal is to buy some F15s.... which are what? over 30 years old now? it will save 75000 US jobs too. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11288683
read up on history and look at every side, maybe then you'd know why there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi, who created the fear? who created the hate? who funded those afghan mujahidin? and why? this all started in early 80s.
The only reason Saudi Arabia has better PR is not because of Al-Waleed, it's because their rulers accepted the deal that was cut to them buy the west.
This all is done for profit of a small group of people. My life and yours is worthless to them, and the more we hate each other the more profit they make out of us.
Most of the 9/11 hijackers and the funding for them was from Saudi Arabia. He was being sarcastic about an act of terrorism from there influencing our policy towards the country.
I agree with much of what you said, but the point is that decrying the moral state of Iran is nonsense when our top allies are just as, if not far more, immoral. Since Saudi Arabia is a client state, we arm them and turn a blind eye to their anti-democratic totalitarianism and theocratic injustices. Since Iran isn't a client state that has submitted to US authority, they are critiqued for the very same transgressions. That's my point.
I'm open to different viewpoints - it's a great way to learn - and I have to say that your posting is an excellent one to learn from. Thank you.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
He means the September 11 attackers were all Saudi citizens. If you had lived in the U.S. or followed its politics following 9-11, you would have heard "Never forget" a lot.
No question our relationship with Saudi Arabia is an alliance of convenience. The big difference though is that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and Saudi Arabia isn't. If that ever changes...
Neighbors? Let's see. I'm from England. That makes my neighbors Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall (it has it's own parliament, so yes it counts), Norway, Denmark and France. Now, children, can anyone tell me which of these has NEVER invaded one or more of the others?
Would I be peaceful if I saw a Russian tank rolling down my street? For starters, I probably wouldn't care. NO country has ever successfully invaded England except when requested to do so by the majority in England. (Strange but true.) Thus, if there was a successful invasion by Russia, it could only be by the democratic will of the nation. As a believer in democracy, I will NOT dictate to my countrymen what I believe to be the right choice for the nation. If the majority wish a foreign takeover, then it is their right to make that choice and I would be utterly in the wrong to oppose it.
Would it be helpful for me to not be peaceful? Well, the Russians defeated the German invasion by throwing themselves at tanks and lobbing petrol bombs down the hatches. The death toll on the Russian side alone ran into the tens of millions as a result. You will also notice that Russia (a country riddled with violence at the best of times) also took a steep turn downwards at that time, becoming infinitely more rabid than it had been before. Those tens of millions who died "saved" Russia from what? They stopped a Fascist dictatorship but only at the cost of creating a Communist dictatorship every bit as large and unpleasant as the one they stopped.
This achieved what?
C'mon, you seem to have an answer, so what is it? What did these (unquestionably brave and heroic) Stalingraders die for, in the end, that they could not have created by living? And had the Russian Revolution been one of peace, rather than bloody conflict and nihilism, would Russia not have been the better-able to stop Germany long before it ever got to Stalingrad? If the autocrats and the populace had worked together, rather than in endless cycle of destruction, modern Communism would never have happened.
Even World War II was merely a byproduct of the senseless destruction of World War I and the mindless destruction wrecked by the Treaty of Versailles. If the nations had been less bent on revenge and more bent on preventing future conflict, Hitler would never have happened at all. In more modern times, the Rwandan massacre was the product of the French colonialists creating divisions and antagonism. That massacre has resulted in subsequent revenge massacres. This is unlikely to stop any time soon.
Now look at a different conflict, that in Northern Ireland. The cycle of violence was largely broken by both sides, resulting in peace that would not have been imagined possible in our lifetimes a mere 20 years ago. Sure, there's some groups still stirring up trouble. You can't stop a flywheel instantly. But so long as nobody works to put energy into that flywheel, the energy coming out will die out. The epiphany by both sides that they could actually work together AND achieve their goals has resulted in something that no amount of wars has ever achieved.
Did the US invasions of Grenada or Haiti produce anything comparable to Stormont? What about those of Iraq or Afghanistan? No?
Ok, what about other conflicts? ETA declared a ceasefire. Not sure if it was entirely sincere, but they did it and the Spanish government ignored it. Result, the violence did not end. One side fighting rather than two didn't change a damn thing. What would have happened if the Spanish government had opted instead for a Stormont-like deal and decriminalized the Basquist politicians? I don't know. I don't pretend to know. What I do know is that they didn't and their decision didn't work - and that like decisions throughout history have never worked. Insanity is doing the same thing, expecting different results.
Maybe Spain wasn't capable of cohesive peace that time round, that had the government done something different it wouldn't have altered the outcome that much. I don't have the in
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
ic thanks for the explanation!
Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and Saudi Arabia isn't.
[Citation needed]
Nice response.
Iran is being kicked at every turn by the western media and it's bullshit.
They are not the US or UK, get over it.
Don't rant if you can't get the basic facts straight. The CIA didn't overthrow the Shah. The CIA installed the Shah and the people overthrew him. Read a history book before babbling narrow sighted history lessons and sweeping generalizations.