Iran Now In Global Mirror

English: TEHRAN. With Ayatollah Sayed Ali Kham...
TEHRAN. Putin with Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Adapted from Nikolai Bobkin’s article journal-neo.org

Tehran was not congratulated by Washington on Rouhani’s victory in the presidential elections, demonstrating that they did not intend to soften their policy towards Iran. This is at best a language of despair and of malintent at worst. In contrast, the Brookings Institution said : “Under the circumstances when the authorities of the USA, China, Russia and European states are preparing for the next steps of the negotiations with Iran, new opportunities arise in connection with the predominantly moderate tendencies in the foreign policy of Tehran.” American politicians quickly appraised the electoral defeat of conservatives in immediate entourage of the head of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, as a motive for changing Washington’s stance towards Tehran. Thus, 118 US Congressmen on both sides of the aisle issued a letter of appeal to President Obama, calling for efforts to start direct negotiations with Iranian authorities. Further, 29 retired high-ranking diplomats and officials wrote to urge the US President into fresh multilateral and bilateral discussions with Iran after President Rouhani assumes charge.

There is cautious optimism in Europe as well about change of guard in Iran. Speaking at the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Commons, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague stated his nation’s willingness to improve ties with Tehran on step by step basis. London and Tehran have begun reflecting on restoring full functioning of their respective embassies in the other country. Iran made a friendly protocol step and congratulated Queen Elizabeth and  Prince William on the birth of an heir to the British throne.

It is not only the British who are willing to make adjustments in the relations with Iran. European economists prove openly and convincingly that their countries are missing out on many opportunities as a result of sanctions initiated by Washington. But American experts are unrelenting; they say, the situation around Iran will not change fundamentally merely because of a new president. Former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton, currently with American Enterprise Institute, is sure that Rouhani’s election is nothing but a trap that gives America a false sense of security and delays negotiations already on, even while Iran does nothing to halt its nuclear enrochment process. In his view, the difference between the new president and Ahmadinejad is only in the rhetoric; the latter expressed the goals publicly while Rouhani will act without unnecessary declarations. It is recalled, of course, that Rouhani led the Iranian delegation in 2003–2005 at the negotiations table on the nuclear issue. It is reported, he boasted to his Iranian colleagues about the ease with which he had been able to outsmart European diplomats. Allegedly, in 2004, in a speech he gave before Iranian legislators and professors, Rouhani said that Tehran had managed to gain time for its nuclear development.

Now however, Rouhani takes a pragmatic stance : “We will undertake two steps to lift the sanctions. Firstly, we are going to double the transparency of our nuclear programme. Secondly, we intend to build credibility between Iran and the international community.” It must be admitted that this sort of statements by Rouhani have been heard and received seriously. The representative of European Union for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton, encourages swift resumption of the negotiation process with the Iran. In Brussels, at non-public consultations of political directors of the “group of six”, participants suggested a turn to new phase in discussions on the Iranian nuclear dossier. The negotiation process, which is on hold since April, will resume after formation of the new government in Iran.

Political analysts though are wary of the US lead in the “group of six.” The US State Department aims at gaining major political concessions from the new Iranian president. They intend to further increase pressure on Tehran, in a bid to test Rouhani’s firmness. After the elections in Iran, the US imposed new sanctions – against Iran’s automotive industry. In the Security Council however, Russia did not accept claims against Iran and blocked imposition of new UN sanctions, alongwith China. Whilst Russia is convinced that the actions of the international community aimed at resolving issues related to Iran’s nuclear programme are undermined by unilateral sanctions, Washington has already threatened President Rouhani with new punitive measures of its own. The main argument is that, in the Islamic Republic, the president does not have the last say in foreign policy matters; it is the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei who holds the right to hammer last.

The US assessment rests on matters of fact. President Rouhani cannot radically reform and change Iran’s strategic policies on his own. He is elected as the head of only the executive branch of the government. The head of state in Iran is the supreme leader who has control over the armed forces, which function independently of the government, as well as over various religious and political oversight bodies, judicial power and the Parliament. Besides, Rouhani is closely linked to the community of religious clerics : he has been a member of the political entourage of the founder of Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini. He worked for decades at the side of the current supreme leader, Khamenei, and was his trustee. Their relationship rules out open political confrontation and the very possibility of systemic contradictions between them.

Ayatollah Khamenei brought discussions with US to a stop. He declares, Washington “does not deserve the Islamic Republic’s trust”; that is why there can be yet no talk of establishing diplomatic relations between the two states. Nevertheless, the leader of Iran does not rule out the possibility of a dialogue on certain issues of mutual interest, admitting : “…over the last years, I have not prohibited a dialogue on specific issues such as, for example, on Iraq”. It looks like the Iranian nuclear dossier is not a permissible topic for bilateral discussion. The format of the “group of six”, with participation of Russia and China, suits Tehran. Realising that the Americans cannot afford military aggression, the Iranian leadership follow and will continue to follow their commitment to conducting nuclear research.

The US sanctions, supported by EU, undoubtedly causes serious problems for the Iranian economy. At the same time, it should be admitted that they are not the only reason for Iran’s economic downturn, which in part is also the result of some not very successful experiments of the previous government. As of now, the steering wheel of the country’s strategic course remains with the supreme leader of Iran.

Nikolai Bobkin is an expert on the Near and Middle East security, candidate of military sciences, docent.

This article was written exclusively for New Eastern Outlook.

Northern Tehran City with Alborz Mountains in ...

Advertisements

The Abominy Of Khomeini’s Iran

English: Ruhollah Khomeini فارسی: امام خمینی (...
English: Ruhollah Khomeini فارسی: امام خمینی (احتمالاً هنگام معرفی دولت موقت) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Quotes on #Shia #Islam #Iran #Khomeini (the original) are from http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/iran-the-spiritual-manual-of-the-shia-supreme-leader-ayatollah-khomeini-sex-with-infants-and-animals/ …

  1. “A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate.”

  2. “A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels… However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm.”

  3. “The amount of mulct (blood money) is for a Moslem man, but the mulct of a Moslem woman will be half of these amounts.”

  4. “Moslem will not be retaliated for [killing an] infidel, unless a Moslem has a habit of killing infidels.”

  5. “Sexual intercourse with a cow, sheep or camel, makes the animal’s urine n dung unclean n drinking their milk will b unlawful.”

  6. “If sodomite marries mother, sister or daughter of a person n then sodomises that person, they do not become unlawful to him.”

  7. “Mother, sister n daughter of a boy who performed sodomy r unlawful to sodomite even if doer n giver of sodomy r both minors.”

  8. “There is no concern in [marriage] contract involving a person who marries his own cousin and fornicates with their mother…”

  9. “…if the penis enters a woman’s vagina or a man’s anus… both partners become impure…” #104 or #349, (Resaleh p.72)

  10.  “…even if my nephew becomes a Muslim, then all my property would go to him, not to my own children.” ~ Parviz Ravani, Zoroastrian MP

  11. A Moslem will inherit from an infidel but an infidel will not inherit from a Moslem…

  12. Every part of the body of a non-Moslem individual is impure…n all secretions of his body. #107 (Resaleh p.51)

  13. There r 11 things which r impure: urine, excrement…dogs, pigs, non-Moslem men n women…” #83 (from Resaleh p.48)

  14. If anyone… interprets the Law in a manner contrary to divine will, he has committed the sin of innovation.

  15.  …music engenders immorality, lust, licentiousness, and stifles courage, valor, and chivalrous spirit…”

  16. Whatever good there exists is thanks to the sword…! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword !

  17.  “#Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males…to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries…”
English: Mausoleum of Ayatullah Khomeini
English: Mausoleum of Ayatullah Khomeini (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Journal : Thoughts On Iran

Iranians need help, not war or sanctions, to oust their regime,” said Reza Pahlavi in Al Arabiya News in May last year.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/05/18/214828.html

Reza Shah Sadabad Palace (کاخ-موزه سبز (قصر سن...

There is no doubt about the Persian influence in Middle East and Central Asia region. It flows from history. Nothing that the West has in mind will change that.

Reza Pahlavi’s views comes across as sensible, sane and insightful, over the noises orchestrated in the media for a while now. He calls upon Israel to help the Iranian people in toppling the current regime instead of launching military attacks against the country to stop its nuclear program. Any misadventure on part of Israel and US – a war on Iran now – will cause a tension with Jewish people worse than it already is with. In fact, it would regress by milleniums, back to how it was during the reign of Cyrus the Great.

Besides, a war against Iran will not achieve the end… because the nuclear program will not really stop. It will only be delayed for a while, Reza says. The only real solution lies in overthrowing the present “Ayatollah” regime. I believe no one in the world would disagree with that.

The programme to waylay the current establishment does not pass through economic sanctions, but is best routed through standing by the Iranian people. People uprisings in recent past has reflected the public apathy for their government… but they are unarmed and know that violence would only bring out the regime’s superiority, its arms and massive cadres schooled by the regime and paid to serve their masters with dedication.

Civil disobedience is the more viable option. When diplomacy fails and war is an unfavorable option, only the Iranian people weigh upon the regime from inside, Reza suggests. Taking the regime’s “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity would also be in order, for best effect… a proposal that would require the Security Council’s recommendation since Iran was not a signatory to the Rome Statute, as was done to bring the former president of Ivory Coast on trial. The Ayatollah aides could then be indicted by the reformed justice system within Iran.

Admitting to plaints of the Shah regime’s several drawbacks, Reza stresses that it was not as bad for the people of Iran as the present one. He slams the Iranian establishment for discriminating against minorities and wished making the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the foundation for Iran’s new constitution. The diversity prevailing in Iran could be protected through decentralisation, he feels, by granting a measure of autonomy to each of the provinces, which would then be able to safeguard the rights of minorities and guarantee equality among all citizens. The ethnic groups could have the right to keep their language and further their respective culture.

The response of people on the Al Arabiya web page have been encouraging. A reader lists the three groups of people who would oppose Reza Pahlavi’s suggestions : the Mojahedin, the Fadayain and the Republic’s Ayatollah regime :

Apart from this minority, over 80% of the Iranian people support Reza Pahlavi or are neutral !” He remains a key political figure popular among the people of Iran.

A Parsi representative of the pre-Islamic people of Iran points out that there was no other country he knew of with as extreme a chasm between the people and their government. The Iranian people were cultured, fairly well educated, tolerant, hospitable, hard working and enterprising. In contrast, he lambasts, “these scum bags” have taken the people of Iran to Arbestan of 1400 years ago and have left a legacy of widespread poverty, high unemployment, total lack of respect for women and human rights, an oppressive judiciary as practiced in the seventh century, prostitution through poverty, six million drug addicts and corruption galore. The Iranian people have nothing against anyone except the mullahs and their ways.

Another reader lauds the Shah leadership while castigating the brutality of the ruling clerics. He says, the Shah brought modernity into Iran. He encouraged liberal education both at home and abroad, had social programs and policies to help women… while the Islamists were committing acts of violence across the country and blaming the Shah for cracking down on their brutality. These sub-humans are doing the same…now.

A reader in the West compares Reza Pahlavi with Nelson Mandela, which seems a stretch. But more fair on the balance, he adds, ” Though I cannot agree with everything Mr. Pahlavi says, the important point is that the people of Iran know his love for the country. He is seeking a better life for all Iranians, much like his father did. We had a very good life back during the Shah’s reign. I was young and don’t remember much but I would want Shahzadah Reza Pahlavi back in Iran and back in power….”

Of course, at the head of a democratic government, the reader adds.

Perhaps he is informed of the disconnect the Pahlavis developed with their own people while catering to Western interests, taking to their ways, and pushing the country with unacceptable fait accompli.

Shah-i-Zinda

Journal : Alternate History

Region : Syria, East Turkey, North Iraq & North-West Iran

Era        : 1500 BC – 1300 BC

Source  : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni

The Let us begin with a page in history 3500 years ago.

Mitanni (Hittite cuneiform KUR URUMi-ta-an-ni, also MittaniMi-it-ta-ni)

or Hanigalbat was an Indo-Aryan-ruled Hurrian-speaking state in northern Syria

and south-east  Anatolia from ca. 1500 BC – 1300 BC.

Founded by an Indo-Aryan ruling class governing a predominately Hurrian population, Mitanni came to be a regional power after the Hittite destruction of Amorite Babylon, and a series of ineffectual Assyrian kings created a power vacuum in Mesopotamia.

At the beginning of its history, Mitanni’s major rival was Egypt under the Thutmosids. However, with the ascent of the Hittite empire, Mitanni and Egypt made an alliance to protect their mutual interests from the threat of Hittite domination. At the height of its power, during the 14th Century BC, it had outposts centered around its capital, Washukanni, whose location has been determined by archaeologists to be on the headwaters of the Khabur River. Eventually, Mitanni succumbed to Hittite and later Assyrian attacks, and was reduced to the status of a province of the Middle Assyrian Empire.

Mittani’s sphere of influence shows in Hurrian place and personal names and spread of a distinct pottery type over Syria and the Levant.

Geography : The Mitanni controlled trade routes down the Khabur to Mari and up the Euphrates from there to  Charchamesh. For a time they also controlled the Assyrian territories of the upper Tigris and its head-waters at NinevehArbilAssur and Nuzi. Their allies included Kizuwatna in southeastern Anatolia, Mukish stretching between Ugarit and Quatna, west of the Orontes to the sea, and the Niya who controlled the east bank of the Orontes from Alalah down through AleppoEbla and Hama to Qatna and Kadesh. To the east, they had good relations with the Kassites

The land of Mitanni in northern Syria extended from the Taurus mountains to its west and as far east as Nuzi (modern  Kirkuk) and the river Tigris in the east. In the south, it extended from Aleppo across (Nuhashshe) to Mari on the Euphrates in the east. Its centre was in the Khabur River valley, with two capitals : Taite and Washshukanni (which means “beautiful source” or “springhead” in Kurdish),  called  Taidu  and  Ushshukana respectively in Assyrian sources. The whole area allows agriculture without artificial irrigation; cattle, sheep and goats were raised. It is very similar to Assyria in climate, and was settled by both indigenous Hurrian and Amoritic-speaking (Amurru) populations.

Name :  “This kingdom was known as the Maryannu, Nahrin or Mitanni to the EgyptiansHurri to the Hittites and Hanigalbat to the Assyrians. All three names were equivalent and interchangeable”, asserted Michael C. Astour. Hittite annals mention a people called Hurri (Ḫu-ur-ri), located in northeastern Syria. The Assyro-Akkadian version of the text renders “Hurri” as Hanigalbat. Tushratta, who styles himself “king of Mitanni” in his Akkadian Amarna letters, refers to his kingdom as Hanigalbat.

The name Mitanni is first found in the “memoirs” of the Syrian wars (ca. 1480 BC) of the official astronomer and clockmaker, Amememhet, who returned from the “foreign country called Me-ta-ni” at the time of Thutmose I. The expedition to the Naharina announced by Thutmosis I at the beginning of his reign may have actually taken place during the long previous reign of Amenhotep I.

People :  Though difficult to ascertain, a treatise on the training of chariot horses by Kikkuli contains a number of Indo-Aryan glosses. Kammenhuber (1968) suggested that this vocabulary was derived from the still undivided Indo-Iranian language, but Mayrhofer (1974) has shown that specifically Indo-Aryan features are present.

The names of the Mitanni aristocracy frequently are of Indo-Aryan origin, but it is specifically their deities which show Indo-Aryan roots (MitraVarunaIndraNasatya). A Hurrian passage in the Amarna letters – usually composed in Akkadian, the lingua franca of the day – indicates that the royal family of Mitanni was by then speaking Hurrian as well.

In the 14th century BC numerous city-states in northern Syria and Canaan were ruled by persons with Hurrian and some Indo-Aryan names. If this can be taken to mean that the population of these states was Hurrian as well, then it is possible that these entities were a part of a larger polity with a shared Hurrian identity. 

History :  No native sources for the history of Mitanni (i.e. Hanilgalbat) have been found so far. The account is mainly based on Assyrian, Hittite and Egyptian sources, as well as inscriptions from nearby places in Syria. Often it is not even possible to establish synchronicity between the rulers of different countries and cities, let alone give uncontested absolute dates. The definition and history of Mitanni is further beset by a lack of differentiation between linguistic, ethnic and political groups.

Summary :  It is believed that the warring Hurrian tribes and city states became united under one dynasty after the collapse of Babylon due to the Hittite sack by Mursili I and the Kassite invasion. The Hittite conquest of Aleppo (Yamhad), the weak middle Assyrian kings who succeeded Puzur-Ashur III, and the internal strifes of the Hittites had created a power vacuum in upper Mesopotamia. This led to the formation of the kingdom of Mitanni.

 King Barattarna of Mitanni expanded the kingdom west to Halab (Aleppo) and made the Canaanite king Idrimi of Alalakh his vassal. The state of Kizzuwatna in the west also shifted its allegiance to Mitanni, and Assyria in the east had become largely a Mitannian vassal state by the mid-15th century BC. The nation grew stronger during the reign of Shaushtatar but the Hurrians were keen to keep the Hittites inside the Anatolian highland. Kizzuwatna in the west and Ishuwa in the north were important allies against the hostile Hittites.

After a few successful clashes with the Pharaohs over the control of Syria, Mitanni sought peace with Egypt and an alliance was formed. During the reign of Shuttarna in the early 14th century BC the relationship was very amicable, and he sent his daughter Gilu-Hepa to Egypt for a marriage with Pharaoh Amenhotep III. Mitanni was now at its peak of power.

However by the reign of Eriba-Adad I (1390 BC – 1366 BC) Mitanni influence over Assyria was on the wane. Eriba-Adad I became involved in a dynastic battle between Tushratta and his brother Artatama II and after this his son Shuttarna II, who called himself king of the Hurri while seeking support from the Assyrians. A pro-Hurri / Assyria faction appeared at the royal Mitanni court. Eriba-Adad I had thus loosened Mitanni influence over Assyria, and in turn had now made Assyria an influence over Mitanni affairs. King Ashur-Uballit I (1365 BC – 1330 BC) of Assyria attacked Shuttarna and annexed Mittani territory in the middle of the 14th Century BC, making Assyria once more a great power.

Upon death of Shuttarna, Mitanni was ravaged by a war of succession. Eventually Tushratta, a son of Shuttarna, ascended the throne, but the kingdom had been weakened considerably and both the Hittite and Assyrian threats increased. At the same time, the diplomatic relationship with Egypt went cold, with Egyptians fearing the growing power of the Hittites and Assyrians. The Hittite king  Suppiluliuma I invaded the Mitanni vassal states in northern Syria and replaced them with loyal subjects.

In the capital Washukanni a new power struggle broke out. The Hittites and the Assyrians supported different pretenders to the throne. Finally a Hittite army conquered the capital Washukkanni and installed Shattiwaza, the son of Tushratta, as their vassal king of Mitanni in the late 14th century BC. The kingdom had by now been reduced to the Khabur Valley. The Assyrians had not given up their claim on Mitanni, and Shalmaneser I in the 13th century BC annexed the kingdom.

Shaushtatar Shaushtatar, king of Mitanni, sacked the Assyrian capital of Ashur some time in the 15th century during the reign of Nur-ili, and took the silver and golden doors of the royal palace to Washshukanni. This is known from a later Hittite document, the Suppililiuma-Shattiwaza treaty. After the sack of Assur, Assyria may have paid tribute to Mitanni up to the time of Eriba-Adad I (1390 BC – 1366 BC). There is no trace of that in the Assyrian king lists; therefore it is probable that Ashur was ruled by a native Assyrian dynasty owing sporadic allegiance to the house of Shaushtatar. While a sometime vassal of Mitanni, the temple of Sin and Shamash was built in Ashur.

The Canaanite states of AleppoNuzi, and Arrapha seem to have been incorporated into Mitanni under Shaushtatar. The palace of the crown prince, the governor of Arrapha has been excavated. A letter from Shaushtatar was discovered in the house of Shilwe-Teshup. His seal shows heroes and winged geniuses fighting lions and other animals, as well as a winged sun. This style, with a multitude of figures distributed over the whole of the available space, is taken as typically Hurrian. A second seal, belonging to Shuttarna I, but used by Shaushtatar, found in Alalakh, shows a more traditional Assyro-Akkadian style.

The military superiority of Mitanni was probably based on the use of two-wheeled war-chariots, driven by the ‘Marjannu’ people. A text on the training of war-horses, written by a certain “Kikkuli the Mitannian” has been found in the archives recovered at Hattusa. More speculative is the attribution of the introduction of the chariot in Mesopotamia to early Mitanni.

During the reign of Egyptian Pharaoh Amenhotep II, Mitanni seems to have regained influence in the middle Orontes valley that had been conquered by Thutmose III. Amenhotep fought in Syria in 1425, presumably against Mitanni as well, but did not reach the Euphrates.

Artatama I and Shuttarna II  Later on, Egypt and Mitanni became allies, and King Shuttarna II himself was received at the Egyptian court. Amicable letters, sumptuous gifts, and letters asking for sumptuous gifts were exchanged. Mitanni was especially interested in Egyptian gold. This culminated in a number of royal marriages: the daughter of King Artatama I was married to Thutmose IV. Kilu-Hepa, or Gilukhipa, the daughter of Shuttarna II, was married to Pharaoh Amenhotep III, who ruled in the early 14th century BC. In a later royal marriage Tadu-Hepa, or Tadukhipa, the daughter of Tushratta, was sent to Egypt.

When Amenhotep III fell ill, the king of Mitanni sent him a statue of the goddess Shaushka (Ishtar) of Nineveh that was reputed to cure diseases. A more or less permanent border between Egypt and Mitanni seems to have existed near Qatna on the Orontes River; Ugarit was part of Egyptian territory.

The reason Mitanni sought peace with Egypt may have been trouble with the Hittites. A Hittite king called Tudhaliya conducted campaigns against Kizzuwatna, ArzawaIshuwa, Aleppo, and maybe against Mitanni itself. Kizzuwatna may have fallen to the Hittites at that time.

Artashumara and Tushratta

Cuneiform tablet containing a letter from Tushratta of Mitanni to Amenhotep III 

Artashumara followed his father Shuttarna II on the throne, but was murdered by a certain UD-hi, or Uthi. It is uncertain what intrigues followed, but UD-hi then placed Tushratta, another son of Shuttarna, on the throne. Probably, he was quite young at the time and was intended to serve as a figurehead only. However, he managed to dispose of the murderer, possibly with the help of his Egyptian father-in-law, but this is sheer speculation.

The Egyptians may have suspected the mighty days of Mitanni were about to end. In order to protect their Syrian border zone the new Pharaoh Akhenaten instead received envoys from the resurgent powers of the Hittites and Assyria. From the Amarna letters we know how Tushratta’s desperate claim for a gold statue from Akhenaten developed into a major diplomatic crisis.

The unrest weakened the Mitannian control of their vassal states, and Aziru of Amurru seized the opportunity and made a secret deal with the Hittite king Suppiluliuma IKizzuwatna, which had seceded from the Hittites, was reconquered by Suppiluliuma. In what has been called his first Syrian campaign, Suppiluliuma then invaded the western Euphrates valley, and conquered the Amurru and Nuhashshe in Mitanni.

According to the later Suppiluliuma-Shattiwaza treaty, Suppiluliuma had made a treaty with Artatama II, a rival of Tushratta. Nothing is known of this Artatama’s previous life or connection, if any, to the royal family. He is called “king of the Hurri”, while Tushratta went by the title “King of Mitanni”. This must have disagreed with Tushratta. Suppiluliuma began to plunder the lands on the west bank of the Euphrates, and annexed Mount Lebanon. Tushratta threatened to raid beyond the Euphrates if even a single lamb or kid was stolen. By the reign of Eriba-Adad I (1390 BC – 1366 BC) Mitanni influence over Assyria was on the wane. Eriba-Adad I became involved in a dynastic battle between Tushratta and his brother Artatama II and after this his son Shuttarna II, who called himself king of the Hurri while seeking support from the Assyrians. A pro-Hurri/Assyria faction appeared at the royal Mitanni court. Eriba-Adad I had thus loosened Mitanni influence over Assyria, and in turn had now made Assyria an influence over Mitanni affairs.

Suppiluliuma then recounts how the land of Ishuwa on the upper Euphrates had seceded in the time of his grandfather. Attempts to conquer it had failed. In the time of his father, other cities had rebelled. Suppiluliuma claims to have defeated them, but the survivors had fled to the territory of Ishuwa, that must have been part of Mitanni. A clause to return fugitives is part of many treaties between sovereign states and between rulers and vassal states, so perhaps the harbouring of fugitives by Ishuwa formed the pretext for the Hittite invasion.

A Hittite army crossed the border, entered Ishuwa and returned the fugitives (or deserters or exile governments) to Hittite rule. “I freed the lands that I captured; they dwelt in their places. All the people whom I released rejoined their peoples, and Hatti incorporated their territories.”

The Hittite army then marched through various districts towards Washukanni. Suppiluliuma claims to have plundered the area, and to have brought loot, captives, cattle, sheep and horses back to Hatti. He also claims that Tushratta fled, though obviously he failed to capture the capital. While the campaign weakened Mitanni, it did not endanger its existence.

In a second campaign, the Hittites again crossed the Euphrates and subdued  HalabMukishNiyaArahatiApina, and Qatna, as well as some cities whose names have not been preserved. The booty from Arahati included charioteers, who were brought to Hatti together with all their possessions. While it was common practice to incorporate enemy soldiers in the army, this might point to a Hittite attempt to counter the most potent weapon of Mitanni, the war-chariots, by building up or strengthening their own chariot forces.

All in all, Suppiluliuma claims to have conquered the lands “from Mount Lebanon and from the far bank of the Euphrates”. But Hittite governors or vassal rulers are mentioned only for some cities and kingdoms. While the Hittites made some territorial gains in western Syria, it seems unlikely that they established a permanent rule east of the Euphrates.

Shattiwaza / Kurtiwaza  A son of Tushratta conspired with his subjects, and killed his father in order to become king. His brother Shattiwaza was forced to flee. In the unrest that followed, the Assyrians asserted themselves under Ashur-uballit I, and he invaded the country; and the pretender Artatama / Atratama II gained ascendancy, followed by his son Shuttarna. Suppiluliuma claims that “the entire land of Mittanni went to ruin, and the land of Assyria and the land of Alshi divided it between them”, but this sounds more like wishful thinking, although Assyria annexed Mitanni territory the kingdom survived. Shuttarna wisely maintained good relations with Assyria, and returned to it the palace doors of Ashur, that had been taken by Shaushtatar. Such booty formed a powerful political symbol in ancient Mesopotamia.

The fugitive Shattiwaza may have gone to Babylon first, but eventually ended up at the court of the Hittite king, who married him to one of his daughters. The treaty between Suppiluliuma of Hatti and Shattiwaza of Mitanni has been preserved and is one of the main sources on this period. After the conclusion of the Suppiluliuma-Shattiwaza treaty, Piyashshili, a son of Suppiluliuma, led a Hittite army into Mitanni. According to Hittite sources, Piyashshili and Shattiwaza crossed the Euphrates at Carchemish, then marched against Irridu in Hurrian territory. They sent messengers from the west bank of the Euphrates and seemed to have expected a friendly welcome, but the people were loyal to their new ruler, influenced, as Suppiluliuma claims, by the riches of Tushratta. “Why are you coming? If you are coming for battle, come, but you shall not return to the land of the Great King!” they taunted. Shuttarna had sent men to strengthen the troops and chariots of the district of Irridu, but the Hittite army won the battle, and the people of Irridu sued for peace.

Meanwhile, an Assyrian army “led by a single charioteer” marched on the capital Washshukanni. It seems that Shuttarna had sought Assyrian aid in the face of the Hittite threat. Possibly the force sent did not meet his expectations, or he changed his mind. In any case, the Assyrian army was refused entrance, and set instead to besiege the capital. This seems to have turned the mood against Shuttarna; perhaps the majority of the inhabitants of Washshukanni decided they were better off with the Hittite Empire than with their former subjects. Anyway, a messenger was sent to Piyashshili and Shattiwaza at Irridu, who delivered his message in public, at the city gate. Piyashshili and Shattiwaza marched on Washukanni, and the cities of Harran and Pakarripa seem to have surrendered to them.

While at Pakarripa, a desolate country where the troops suffered hunger, they received word of an Assyrian advance, but the enemy never materialised. The allies pursued the retreating Assyrian troops to Nilap_ini but could not force a confrontation. The Assyrians seem to have retreated home in the face of the superior force of the Hittites.

Shattiwaza became king of Mitanni, but after Suppililiuma had taken Carchemish and the land west of the Euphrates, that were governed by his son Piyashshili, Mitanni was restricted to the Khabur River and Balikh River valleys, and became more and more dependent on their allies in Hattarsus. Some scholars speak of a Hittite puppet kingdom, a buffer-state against the powerful Assyria.

Assyria under Ashur-uballit I began to infringe on Mitanni as well. Its vassal state of Nuzi east of the Tigris was conquered and destroyed. According to the Hittitologist Trevor R. Bryce, Mitanni (or Hanigalbat as it was known) was permanently lost to Assyria during the reign of Mursili III of the Hittites, who was defeated by the Assyrians in the process. Its loss was a major blow to Hittite prestige in the ancient world and undermined the young king’s authority over his kingdom.

Shattuara I  The royal inscriptions of the Assyrian king Adad-nirari I (c. 1307–1275) relate how the vassal King Shattuara of Mitanni rebelled and committed hostile acts against Assyria. How this Shattuara was related to the dynasty of Partatama is unclear. Some scholars think that he was the second son of Artatama II, and the brother of Shattiwazza’s one-time rival Shuttarna. Adad-nirari claims to have captured King Shattuara and brought him to Ashur, where he took an oath as a vassal. Afterwards, he was allowed to return to Mitanni, where he paid Adad-nirari regular tribute. This must have happened during the reign of the Hittite King Mursili II, but there is no exact date.

 Wasashatta  Despite Assyrian strength, Shattuara’s son Wasashatta attempted to rebel. He sought Hittite help, but that kingdom was preoccupied with internal struggles, possibly connected with the usurpation of Hattusili III, who had driven his nephew Urhi-Teshup into exile. The Hittites took Wasashatta’s money but did not help, as Adad-nirari’s inscriptions gleefully note.

The Assyrians expanded further, and conquered the royal city of Taidu, and took WashshukannuAmasakkuKahatShuru,NabulaHurra and Shuduhu as well. They conquered Irridu, destroyed it utterly and sowed salt over it. The wife, sons and daughters of Wasashatta were taken to Ashur, together with much booty and other prisoners. As Wasashatta himself is not mentioned, he must have escaped capture. There are letters of Wasashatta in the Hittite archives. Some scholars think he became ruler of a reduced Mitanni state called Shubria.

While Adad-nirari I conquered the Mitanni heartland between the Balikh and the Khabur from the  Hittites, he does not seem to have crossed the Euphrates, and Carchemish remained part of the Hittite kingdom. With his victory over Mitanni, Adad-nirari claimed the title of Great King (sharru rabû) in letters to the Hittite rulers.

 Shattuara II  In the reign of Shalmaneser I (1270s–1240s), King Shattuara of Mitanni, a son or nephew of Wasahatta, rebelled against the Assyrian yoke with the help of the Hittites and the nomadic  Ahlamu (Arameans) around 1250 BC. His army was well prepared; they had occupied all the mountain passes and waterholes, so that the Assyrian army suffered from thirst during their advance.

Nevertheless, Shalmaneser I won a crushing victory for Assyria over the Hittites and Mitanni. He claims to have slain 14,400 men; the rest were blinded and carried away. His inscriptions mention the conquest of nine fortified temples; 180 Hurrian cities were “turned into rubble mounds”, and Shalmaneser “…slaughtered like sheep the armies of the Hittites and the Ahlamu, his allies…”. The cities from Taidu to Irridu were captured, as well as all of mount Kashiar to Eluhat and the fortresses of Sudu and Harranu to Carchemish on the Euphrates. Another inscription mentions the construction of a temple to the Assyrian god Adad / Hadad in Kahat, a city of Mitanni that must have been occupied as well.

Hanigalbat as an Assyrian Province  A part of the population was deported and served as cheap labour. Administrative documents mention barley allotted to “uprooted men”, deportees from Mitanni. For example, the Assyrian governor of the city NahurMeli-Sah received barley to be distributed to deported persons from Shuduhu “as seed, food for their oxen and for themselves”. The Assyrians built a line of frontier fortifications against the Hittites on the Balikh River.

Mitanni was now ruled by the Assyrian grand-vizier Ili-ippada, a member of the Royal family, who took the title of king (sharru) of Hanilgalbat. He resided in the newly built Assyrian administrative centre at Tell Sabi Abyad, governed by the Assyrian steward Tammitte. Assyrians maintained not only military and political control, but seem to have dominated trade as well, as no Hurrian or Mitanni names appear in private records of Shalmaneser’s time.

Under the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I (c. 1243–1207) there were again numerous deportations from Hanilgalbat (east Mitanni) to Ashur, probably in connection with the construction of a new palace. As the royal inscriptions mention an invasion of Hanilgalbat by a Hittite king, there may have been a new rebellion, or at least native support of a Hittite invasion. The Mitanni towns may have been sacked at this time, as destruction levels have been found in some excavations that cannot be dated with precision, however. Tell Sabi Abyad, seat of the Assyrian government in Mitanni in the times of Shalmaneser, was deserted between 1200 and 1150 B.C.

In the time of Ashur-nirari III (ca. 1200 BC, the beginning of Bronze Age collapse), the Phrygians and others invaded and destroyed the Hittite Empire, already weakened by defeats against Assyria. Some parts of Assyrian ruled Hanilgalbat was temporarily lost to the Phrygians also; however the Assyrians defeated the Phrygians and regained these colonies. The Hurrians still held Katmuhu and Paphu. In the transitional period to the Early Iron Age, Mitanni was settled by invading Semitic Aramaean tribes.

Indo-Aryan superstrate Some theonyms, proper names and other terminology of the Mitanni exhibit close similarities to Indo-Aryan, suggesting that an Indo-Aryan elite imposed itself over the Hurrian population in the course of the Indo-Aryan expansion. In a treaty between theHittites and the Mitanni, the deities  MitraVarunaIndra, and Nasatya (Ashvins) are invoked. Kikkuli‘s horse training text includes technical terms such as aika (eka, one), tera (tri, three), panza (pancha, five), satta (sapta, seven), na (nava, nine),  vartana (vartana, turn, round in the horse race). The numeral aika “one” is of particular importance because it places the superstrate in the vicinity of Indo-Aryan proper as opposed to Indo-Iranian or early Iranian (which has “aiva”) in general.

Another text has babru (babhru, brown), parita (palita, grey), and pinkara (pingala, red). Their chief festival was the celebration of the solstice (vishuva) which was common in most cultures in the ancient world. The Mitanni warriors were called marya, the term for warrior in Sanskrit as well; note mišta-nnu (= miẓḍha,~ Sanskrit mīḍha) “payment (for catching a fugitive)” (M. Mayrhofer, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen< Heidelberg 1986-2000; Vol. II 358).

Sanskrit interpretations of Mitanni royal names render Artashumara (artaššumara) as Arta-smara “who thinks of Arta/Ṛta” (Mayrhofer II 780), Biridashva (biridašṷa, biriiašṷa) as Prītāśva “whose horse is dear” (Mayrhofer II 182), Priyamazda (priiamazda) as Priyamedha “whose wisdom is dear” (Mayrhofer II 189, II378), Citrarata as citraratha “whose chariot is shining” (Mayrhofer I 553), Indaruda / Endaruta as Indrota “helped by Indra” (Mayrhofer I 134), Shativaza (šattiṷaza) as Sātivāja “winning the race price” (Mayrhofer II 540, 696), Šubandhu as Subandhu ‘having good relatives” (a name in Palestine, Mayrhofer II 209, 735), Tushratta (tṷišeratta, tušratta, etc.) as *tṷaiašaratha, Vedic Tvastr “whose chariot is vehement” (Mayrhofer, Etym. Wb., I 686, I 736).

   In the next Parts, we will take up evidence of Indo-Aryan movement

from Armenian region to Russia and beyond, through Siberia to Japan.

Nefertiti (14th Century BC), wife of King Amenhotep IV of Egypt, was probably born in Mitanni. His reign was distinguished by a religious revolution, strongly supported by Nefertiti, that renounced the established pantheon of gods in favour of a single, supreme deity, Aton. Aton, represented by a sun disc, was revered as the source of life and the bounties of nature.

Journal : May 20, 2012 : Thoughts On Iran

” Iranians need help, not war or sanctions, to oust their regime,” says Reza Pahlavi in Al Arabiya News today @ http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/05/18/214828.html

There is no doubt about the Persian influence in Middle East and Central Asian regions. It flows from history. Nothing that the West has in mind will change that.

Reza Pahlavi’s views comes across as sensible, sane and insightful, over the noises orchestrated in the media for a while now. He calls upon Israel to help the Iranian people in toppling the current regime instead of launching military attacks against the country to stop its nuclear program. And he’s spot on in his assessment of any misadventure on part of Israel and US : a war on Iran now will cause a tension with Jewish people worse than it already is. In fact, it would regress by milleniums, back to how it was during the reign of Cyrus the Great.

Besides, a war against Iran will not achieve the end… because the nuclear program will not really stop. It will only be delayed for a while, Reza says. The only real solution lies in overthrowing the present “Ayatollah” regime. I believe no one in the world would disagree with that.

The programme to waylay the current establishment does not pass through economic sanctions, but is best routed through standing by the Iranian people. People uprisings in recent past has reflected the public apathy for their government… but they are unarmed and know that violence would only bring out the regime’s superiority, its arms and massive cadres schooled and paid to serve their masters with dedication. Civil disobedience is the more viable option. When diplomacy fails and war is an unfavorable option, only the Iranian people weigh upon the regime from inside, Reza suggests. Taking the regime’s “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity would also be in order, for best effect… a proposal that would require the Security Council’s recommendation since Iran was not a signatory to the Rome Statute, as was done to bring the former president of Ivory Coast on trial. The Ayatollah aides could then be indicted by the reformed justice system within Iran.

Admitting to plaints of the Shah regime’s several drawbacks, Reza stresses that it was not as bad for the people of Iran as the present one. He slams the Iranian establishment for discriminating against minorities and wished making the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the foundation for Iran’s new constitution. The diversity prevailing in Iran could be protected through decentralisation, he feels, by granting a measure of autonomy to each of the provinces, which would then be able to safeguard the rights of minorities and guarantee equality among all citizens. The ethnic groups could have the right to keep their language and further their respective culture.

The response of people on the Al Arabiya web page have been encouraging. A reader lists the three groups of people who would oppose Reza Pahlavi’s suggestions : the Mojahedin, the Fadayain and the Republic’s Ayatollah regime. ” Apart from this minority, over 80% of the Iranian people support Reza Pahlavi or are neutral !” He remains a key political figure popular among the people of Iran.

A Parsi representative of pre-Islamic people of Iran points out that there was no other country he knew of with as extreme a chasm between the people and their government. The Iranian people were cultured, fairly well educated, tolerant, hospitable, hard working and enterprising. In contrast, he lambasts, “these scum bags” have taken the people of Iran to Arbestan of 1400 years ago and have left a legacy of widespread poverty, high unemployment, total lack of respect for women and human rights, oppressive judiciary as practiced in the seventh century, prostitution through poverty, six million drug addicts and corruption galore. The Iranian people have nothing against anyone except the mullahs and their ways.

Another reader lauds the Shah leadership while castigating the brutality of the ruling clerics. He says, the Shah brought modernity into Iran. He encouraged liberal education both at home and abroad, had social programs and policies to help women… while the Islamists were committing acts of violence across the country and blaming the Shah for cracking down on their brutality. These subhumans are doing the same…now.

A reader in the West compares Reza Pahlavi with Nelson Mandela, which seems a stretch. But, more fair on the balance, he adds, ” Though I cannot agree with everything Mr. Pahlavi says, the important point is that the people of Iran know his love for the country. He is seeking a better life for all Iranians, much like his father did. We had a very good life back during the Shah’s reign. I was young then and I don’t remember much but would want Shahzadah Reza Pahlavi back in Iran and back in power….”

Of course, at the head of a democratic government, the reader adds.