SINCERE
ADVICE BASED ON PRECARIOUS ASSUMPTIONS:
A
Potentially Perilous Mixture
February
18, 2010
Kam
Zarrabi
Even though I
am finding myself increasingly at odds with the Iranian American scholars and
pundits regarding the analysis or the interpretation of the current
sociopolitical developments in Iran, I am no less appreciative of the honesty
and sincerity with which they have been voicing their opinions. In one sense we
are all in agreement; we all want to see a democratic, prosperous Iran,
governed by the will of the Iranian citizens and for the best interests of the
Iranian people.
[A word of
caution here: When we refer to the “Iranian people”, we should not be focusing
just on the very vocal urbanite, educated or “enlightened” elite in Iran’s
metropolitan centers, who are actually the counterparts of our Iranian American
or European Iranian academics and socialites living abroad. Remember, Iran has
a population of over 75,000,000, of whom about 45,000,000 actually vote!]
We also all
agree that the current state of affairs is far from acceptable, approaching the
point that for many Iranians the situation has become intolerable. Social
injustices, restrictions and persecutions prevail, inflation, joblessness and
economic pressures are reaching dangerous levels, and corruption is visibly
rampant.
[Another word
of caution here: Even graver social injustices, repressions and restrictions
exist elsewhere in the same region and in the world. Although unacceptable or
reprehensible as it is, Iran’s case is actually far better than is the case
among our so-called friends and allies in the Middle East.]
We all see that,
and it is hoped that we all want to see positive changes that would translate
into a better life for the average Iranian living in Iran.
It is only in
finding a workable pathway out of the current mess that we might disagree, to a
point of leveling regrettable insults and accusations at each other to degrade
and defame those with whom we disagree. And we are all guilty of this
unproductive behavior to some degree; not out of malice, but because of our
passion or conviction of our beliefs.
It is worth
repeating again that criticism that is not followed by workable
remedies or alternatives is more than just frivolous, it could prove downright catastrophic.
Also, advice or guidance coming from people who have nothing to lose should
they be proven wrong, reminds one of the old cliché of sitting on the sidelines
and coaching the wrestler in the rink (birun-e gowd neshasteh o miqe lengesh
kon).
However, what
is happening in Iran and, more precisely, to Iran, is not a
sporting event to bet on or to assume the role of an armchair quarterback. It
is not like the Super Bowl where the losing team, the Indianapolis Colts, walks
away having earned mega millions for the effort, looking forward to the next
season to earn even more millions.
Now, about
those assumptions:
One wrong
assumption is that Iran or any other major state of strategic importance, can
behave as some isolated, distant island, merrily plotting its own course freely
and independently. Any major development even in the internal affairs of the
nation will have ramifications within the larger regional, even global,
context.
Another
potentially dangerous assumption is that the sick patient suffering from a
malignancy that is ravaging its system would necessarily survive and recover
from radical surgery to extract the infected organs. Even in cases where organ
transplants might work, care must be taken to make sure the new organ and the
body are able to tolerate each other and survive the ordeal.
But perhaps the
most dangerous assumption is thinking that the global powerhouses and special
interests that have the capability of making or breaking any development on the
world stage truly prefer to see the Islamic Republic of Iran abandon its
defiant posture and transform into a democratic regime in peaceful harmony with
the regional states in the Middle East, including Israel.
However,
evidence indicates that a belligerent, defiant Iran, portrayed as a regional,
even a global, threat is serving too many purposes that benefit major global
interests, far more than a friendlier, compliant Iran would.
Dr. Trita Parsi
of NIAC, in collaboration with Alireza Nader, wrote an aricle posted
on foreignpolicy.com, How Washington Can Really Help the Greens in Tehran,
suggesting some "simple" ways the United States could help the
opposition's cause in the current developments in Iran.
Professor Hamid
Dabashi maintains
that the American Administration and media pundits here are basically clueless
about the goings on in the Iranian sociopolitical sphere. He attacks people
like Flynt and Hillary Leverett for even daring to express opinions about the
subject. I am sure Dr. Dabashi would disagree equally strongly with Stephen
Walt about the latter's perspectives, as well.
So, the
Administration of Mr. Obama, we are to believe, is clueless and short-sighted
in not understanding Iran and the Iranians, or in how to deal with the Iranian
"problem", even though a few "simple" steps could really
help! Perhaps the Administration should be alerted to the fact that there are
some very well informed and capable Iranian American academics willing and
ready to help President Obama chart the course toward a workable rapprochement
with Iran!!
Mr. Mousavi's “five
suggestions for reconciliation” also outlines some straightforward and
seemingly easy steps that would bring the current rift within Iran to an end.
Wow, how much simpler could the solution get?
Some 29 Iranian
American scholars and business people have also prepared a declaration in
support of the Green Movement, making some very positive statements. They also
say some very nice things. Do they honestly believe this declaration might have
some effect on the American government’s approach toward Iran? Or, is it
intended as a gesture of encouragement for the Greens to continue the struggle
with the assurance that, should they fall, the signatories would be there to
provide them with a soft landing?
On the other
hand we could even site groups such as the Mojahedin Khalgh as desiring a
regime change in Iran for what they believe are very valid reasons, reasons of
their own, of course.
Iran’s former prince has
also voiced his support for the Green Movement: That is truly encouraging!
Does anyone
among our Iranian American academics believe that the opposition leaders,
Mousavi, Karrubi, Khatami, would welcome Price Reza’s warm support? What are
Reza’s motives? His support for the regime-change in Iran, as well as the
support expressed by the MEK, is very similar to American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) welcoming and encouraging Pastor John Hagee, the founder and
National Chairman of the Christian-Zionist
organization, Christians United for Israel, at
their annual mega event in Washington, D.C. last year. Hagee is an advocate of
the Biblical End-Time or Armageddon scenario, whereby the Jews, after
overcoming all their enemies, will convert to Christianity, and those who don’t
shall surely perish! But since this overzealous maniac is supportive of
Israel’s current agendas, the Israeli lobby is quite appreciative of all the
support it can get from Hagee’s powerful evangelical following in the United
States.
Of course there
is some logic here, a classic case of syllogistic logic: The enemy of my enemy
is my friend!
But not so
fast, my friends. Some of these syllogistically acquired “friends” have venomous
ulterior motives of their own; some carry a vendetta and want to settle old scores,
some are after their personal gains, some are worried about their “bottom line”
if they do not jump on the bandwagon, and some seem more interested in “looking
good” among their peers as progressive liberals and advocates of human rights
or, more specifically by some of them, women’s rights, a very popular cause
célèbre. We know that looking good is much better than being chastised and
isolated!
Regardless of
the above, there is hardly anyone who doesn't agree that the situation in Iran
is in dire need of improvement, even though all those groups and individuals
are not in agreement as to what changes need to take place or toward what end.
What is missing
in all this can be divided into two categories:
One: how could
the proposed changes or reforms be implemented, by whom, in what order and
during what period of time?
Two: what are
the potential ramifications or peripheral effects of such changes on the
internal and external affairs of the nation?
Before entering
into this discussion, I would like to draw readers’ attention to the following
web links:
http://www.juancole.com/2010/02/more-nuclear-scaremongering-about-iran.html
http://www.raceforiran.com/just-which-country-is-%E2%80%9Cplaying-for-time%E2%80%9D-in-nuclear-diplomacy-with-iran
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-11/irans-unhappy-anniversary/
http://www.payvand.com/news/10/feb/1116.html
http://www.payvand.com/news/10/feb/1115.html
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/9385
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/9398
Contrary to the
prevailing views expressed by Iran observers and analysts, I have long
concluded that the rift between the United States and Iran, although counter to
both countries’ best interests, is not the unintended consequence of chaotic
mismanagement on the part of the Iranian regime, and callus incompetence of the
United States administrations, as some of our scholars believe.
The effort by
our scholars and pundits on both sides has been to find and suggest ways of
clearing the atmosphere of mistrust and misunderstanding that has obscured the
path to a mutually beneficial rapprochement between the two nations. And quite
naturally, looking at the situation from this side of the world, the onus has
always been on the underdog in this equation to bow under pressure and be more
accommodating for its own survival’s sake.
However, the
events of the past decade indicate otherwise:
The original
fire and turbulence in Iran’s revolutionary mood began to show signs of
moderation during Mr. Rafsanjani’s presidency, and reached a state of relative equilibrium
by the time Mohammad Khatami was elected President in 1997. Khatami, a reform minded moderate, was elected
by a majority of 70% of the voters, reflecting the general attitude of the
Iranian public. His proposal that the year 2001 be designated as the year for dialogue
among civilizations was officially adopted by the United Nations. Hopes
were then high that a rapprochement between the United States and Iran was
underway.
Just a few
months after that, George W. Bush, in his State of the Union address, referred
to Iran as a member of the international Axis of Evil and supporter of international
terrorism. This was shortly after Iran had helped the United States in
defeating the Taliban and in drafting Afghanistan’s first Constitution,
securing Hamid Karzai’s government!
Few now doubt
that our invasion of Iraq was actually part of a longer term plan for “securing the
realm” by Israel’s Zionist friends in the American administration. The
Zionist mole that had inserted the phrase “Axis of Evil” in the President’s
speech was the Jewish Canadian, David Frum, who has reaped the rewards of his
service to the “cause” by being admitted to various influential think tanks and
appearances in network broadcasts.
It soon became
abundantly clear that no rapprochement was to be initiated or even welcomed by
the American administration, no matter what policies or reforms the Iranians
were to adopt.
Mohammad
Khatami, disappointed and under criticism by his Iranian rivals for presenting
an ill-fated conciliatory image for Iran, an unnecessary, embarrassing,
compromise in the minds of the ultra conservatives, was succeeded by the
firebrand, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in 2005. And all the experts were wondering
what the hell happened!
In fact, it
wouldn’t have mattered how conciliatory Khatami’s approach had been or how much
progress toward reforms or liberalization he might have made; Iran was to
remain the designated enemy under relentless threats of sanctions, regime
change and even preemptive attack by the United States.
Some observers
and analysts even thought that the entrepreneur businessman/cleric, the
pragmatic former President Rafsanjani, running against Ahmadinejad in 1995, would
be the perfect candidate to engage in some serious horse trading and bring the
two countries closer to a meaningful engagement.
I have to admit
I also thought so at the time; but in hindsight, I can see that I was wrong to
think that Rafsanjani’s “realpolitik” pragmatism and horse trading skills could
have mended the fences between the two countries.
As it has been
demonstrated time and time again, in every instance that a glimmer of hope
appeared in the horizon of US/Iran relations, something happened to torpedo the
prospects for improving those relations.
A perfect
example has been the controversial history of Iran’s nuclear program.
There is
neither space, nor need really, to reiterate in any detail here how this one
issue was made the ultimate scapegoat against the Iranian regime in the
international arena. The volume of reports by the officials of the
International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations (IAEA), independent
analysts and observers and nuclear weapons and proliferation experts is indeed
staggering.
The other two
principle accusations against the Islamic Republic of Iran are its support for
what the United States and Israel regard as terrorist organizations and the now
increasingly looming allegations of human rights violations.
As the concerns
over the nuclear issue soften on occasion, as is currently the case with Iran offering
to purchase or exchange for 20% enriched uranium for the creation of medical
isotopes, the issue of human rights takes the center stage.
We saw the
pitifully sophomoric political chicanery put on display by Senators John McCain
and Joe Lieberman and two more drafters of the new sanctions bill against Iran
the other day. Senator McCain, true to the tenets of political gamesmanship,
lied about Mr. Ahmadinejad’s recent statements regarding the plans to obtain
enriched uranium for medical research purposes. He clearly knew better, but he
chose to lie to the American public.
Senator
Lieberman, always ready to add the icing on the cake, jumped in to make sure
the American people would be aware of Iran’s human rights violations, as well
as its support for the international terrorists.
The concern of
these philanthropic congressmen about the people of Iran suffering under the
brutal dictatorship of the oppressive fundamentalist Islamic tyranny would have
brought tears to my eyes were they not so diabolically dishonest. What moron
would buy into that bull.....?
The McCains, the
Liebermans and the like, indeed all our foreign policy decision makers, must
know the truth behind the charade, and yet they continue to play the game as
actors following a pre-scripted and well-choreographed plot.
It would take
an idiot not to realize that the current policy adopted by the United States
administration toward the Iranian regime is exactly the right recipe to prolong
the agitated state of affairs in Iran and to push back any chance for meaningful
reforms indefinitely.
Is this because
they do not know what they are doing or that they need sage advice and guidance
from our brilliant Iranian American scholars and academics? If that were the
case, perhaps some of the signatories to the various declarations by the
Iranian American scholars mentioned above should offer their services to the
State Department! Who knows; maybe some of these hopefuls might be recruited by
the White House! Are there really some among them who are thinking along those
lines?
But if that is
not the case, if the aim is not in fact to promote reforms in Iran to create a
more stable, prosperous and peaceful society? What then, my overanxious friends?
What are we to
conclude when we hear our hawkish congressmen use the pretext of Iran's nuclear
weapons ambitions to pass resolutions for new sanctions, at the same time that
the White
House press secretary Robert Gibbs claims Iran is
not even capable of enriching uranium to the 20% level needed for medical
purposes?
The Israelis
have been barking for several years now that Iran is within just a few months
of developing its nuclear bomb; and each year the deadlines are moved back to
justify new warnings!
Admiral Mullen,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has made several trips to Israel to talk to the
Israeli military bigwigs, on the surface to discuss Iran's nuclear threats and
how to stop those imminent threats. But each time his effort has been to give
assurances to the Israelis that an Iranian attack on Israel is not in the
books, therefore any preemptive assault on Iran would have grave undesirable
consequences.
So, what are we
to believe: Is Iran developing nuclear weapons to launch attacks on Israel and
on American forces and bases in the region? There is not a shred of evidence of
that being the case.
To clear this
hodgepodge of chaos and confusion, we should rise above the street level to see
the broader picture. Let us see who benefits from the portrayal of the Islamic
Republic of Iran as a real threat to regional and global peace and security.
Without doubt,
the biggest beneficiary is the state of Israel. The Israeli regime,
particularly the Likud and other hardliners, insist on remaining the region's
unchallenged sole superpower. When Iraq's Saddam Hussein began to beef up his
arsenal and had his eyes on potential nuclear weapons, the Israelis first
bombed and destroyed his nuclear power plant and, years later, took advantage
of the American administration's post 9/11 war on terror campaign to target
that country. With the able assistance and guidance of their dedicated Zionist insiders, Richard Perle, Paul
Wolfowitz, David Wurmser, Douglas Feith, etc., and the cooperation of the
controlled media, plus Israel's own proven capability of forging or doctoring
up deceptive material, we were drawn to the catastrophic war in Iraq under
false pretences. Now the same tactics are at play against Iran.
Iran, however,
is too big an adversary for such cavalier adventurisms, and the American public
is a little more concerned and skeptical about buying into the kind of
deceptive tactics that were used about the nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction.
Nevertheless,
the perception of an Iranian threat is not only risk free, it
serves the purpose quite well. Israel has been able to dodge every effort by
the international community and even the United States to moderate or
compromise any of its claims and show
willingness to reach a peace accord with the Palestinians. Israel is not ready
or willing to give up a square inch of the occupied territories, discontinue
building additional Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and stop its illegal
expansions into East Jerusalem.
As long as
Israel can sell Iran's image as an existential threat, who could blame them for
that? Thanks to the threatening image of Iran, not only is Israel excused for
its paranoid behavior, it has been granted additional billions of dollars worth
of the latest military aid to boost its "defensive"
capabilities. Even Germany has donated
several nuclear submarines to boost Israel's naval forces in the region. And
more is definitely under way.
To keep Israel
from doing "something stupid" like launching a preemptive strike against
Iran, an act already sanctioned by the likes of Dick Cheney and other
"bomb Iran" advocates, the American administration can easily
convince the Congress to approve more financial, diplomatic and military
assistance to protect this little ally and friend or, more correctly put, the
big extortionist. That would cost the
American taxpayers a lot less than would the consequences of such a stupid
action by Israel.
Now let us look
for other beneficiaries of Iran's negative portrayals.
No doubt, the
Israel issue is the main contributor to Iran's mounting problems in the ongoing
propaganda battlefield. But equally important is America's dilemma in
extricating itself from the quagmires in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. This will happen, but not as quickly as some
anti-war activists anticipate, or as
painlessly as they hope. We are dug in for as long as it takes to find a
face-saving way to get out without leaving behind a still smoldering powder keg
that could be ignited once the wind shifts direction.
The American
naval forces in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean and the
Mediterranean will have to remain on guard, and the multitude of bases
established throughout the region will be there for the duration.
As is clearly the case with America's so-called
missile defense shield projects, Iran is being used as the scapegoat to put the
real target, Russia, on notice. On the other front, the Arab states of the Gulf
are directed to purchase tens of billions of dollars worth of
"defensive" arms from the United States to prevent an Iranian attack
upon their oil rich territories. This alone is a fantastic source of revenue
for the world's biggest arms exporter. In addition, playing the role of the protector
of their sovereignty against the perceived Iranian threat, the United States
can exercise full control over these wealthy Arab oil states.
Whichever way
we choose to look at it, an unpredictable, unstable and threatening Iran in
pursuit of the ultimate weapon, plays an indispensible role in this regional
drama.
As long as all
cast members follow the script, the play will go on smoothly; but there is a
chance that they might not. All it takes is one rogue element to tip the entire
apple cart.
The scenario
calls for the Iranian regime to remain under international pressure and threats
of regime change so that its hardliners could further legitimize tightening
their grip and imposing more restrictions against voices of dissent or
liberalization and reform, all in the name of national security.
The main
guarantor of the nation's security is, of course, Iran's military might, which
consists of the regular armed forces, the Revolutionary Guards and the
voluntary militia or the Basiji elements.
Since the
nation's territorial integrity and security rests on its defensive
capabilities, the military, under the command of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah
Khamene'i, has been allowed to gain an inordinate amount of prominence, to a
point that many regard Iran's military establishment as a country within a
country. Iran's
military-industrial-financial complex has becomes the country's dominant
economic force, to the point that it might someday challenge the constitutional
authority of Iran's Supreme Leader. Should that happen, a rogue element within
the military command might just throw the script away and take matters into his
own hands.
The same could
also happen within the Israeli command structure; there are rogue elements and
loose cannons there, too.
Thus far, the
play is performed like a well-oiled machine. The Israelis keep raising sounds
of alarm about Iran's nuclear weapons and missile technology advancements, and
threaten preemptive strikes against Iran no later than a certain date, which is
always pushed a "safe" distance back in order to keep the charade
going.
The United
States and some European allies, meanwhile, impose various economic sanctions
against Iran, knowing full well that their effects would be far from crippling.
Targeted sanctions against the elements of the regime or the military would be
equally ineffective. In fact it is a joke to think that sanctions could be
devised is such a way that only the "bad" guys would be affected and
the people would be spared any suffering. This is as ridiculous an idea as has been the case with foreign aid
programs for poor, developing countries, where the moneys assigned to various
targeted projects end up in the pockets of the same folks whose allegiance we
intend to buy! Just look at Egypt and the two-billion dollars a year it
receives from the United States.
The tragedy is,
while this macabre charade continues, those who suffer are the Iranian people,
the Palestinians, and the innocent populations who perish or are made homeless
as the unintended casualties of our so-called war on terror.
Iranians
deserve better economic and social conditions, the Palestinians must someday
realize their dreams of an independent statehood, and the devastation and
wholesale massacre of innocent civilians must stop and meaningful reparations
must begin soon.
Finally, I
would like to know how the show of support and solidarity with the opposition
movement in Iran is going to resolve this dilemma. Obviously, this show of
support by the American or the British, French or German administrations is
exactly what the opposition in Iran does not need.
I would be very
interested, indeed anxious, to see what our Iranian American community of
thinkers and academics have to offer beside some "feel good" gestures
of sympathy, that might have a chance as workable remedies to
Iran's ills. I am hoping that the caveat, workable, has gained a
more meaningful status in view of this article.
Once again,
criticism that is not followed by workable remedies or
alternatives is more than just frivolous, it could prove downright
catastrophic. Also, advice or guidance coming from people who have nothing to
lose should they be proven wrong, reminds one of the old cliché of sitting on
the sidelines and coaching the wrestler in the rink (birun-e gowd neshasteh o
miqe lengesh kon).
IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF
I HOPE MYTHOLOGY DOES NOT
JANUARY 23, 2010
Myths and legends that have withstood the test of time did not sprout out of barren grounds overnight. Some have roots in mankind's fears and hopes, some in misinterpreted observations and some are created out of longing to fulfill unrequited desires.
Some legends, such as the Sasquatch, Loch Ness Monster, or alien abductions can be quite entertaining while harmless or benign. Others, such as the exploits of the gods of the Greek pantheon or the adventures of the Iranian hero, Rustam, or the master archer, Arash, who demarcated ancient Iran's eastern boundaries by shooting his arrow hundreds of miles in the direction of the rising sun, are folkloric tales that have been woven into a people's cultural fabric to embellish and enrich its heritage.
These are still harmless and entertaining stories for the most part. It would stop being entertaining if, for example, the Iranians today would claim Central Asian countries as far eastward as Western China, where Arash's arrow had hit the ground, as belonging to Iran, or when the Zionist founders of Israel use the Biblical narratives to claim Palestine as their heavenly ordained realm, an endowment by their God.
Some legends or folkloric tales have lost any connection to their origins, and are marked and celebrated with no regard to the stories or histories that generated those myths. Among these we can name the Passover. What this religious holiday celebrates is a nation's escape, through Divine intervention, from certain annihilation by an evil power. God's "Chosen People" were not to be messed with; the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition constantly reminds us of that.
But by reading the Biblical accounts, a somewhat different picture emerges. Needless to say, there is no historicity to this legend in the first place. Exodus, at least in the way described in the Bible, never happened, the Sea of Reeds never parted and there is even quite a bit of doubt that the Israelites were ever kept in bondage for generations to build the pyramids of Egypt.
Historical inconsistencies aside, let us see what the legend or story as depicted in the Bible, or as retold through Hollywood movies, tells us.
To summarize, God (Yahweh) becomes angered by the Egyptian pharaoh's refusal to free His people. After several unsuccessful attempts to convince the pharaoh, Ramses, to obey God's commands, the enraged Ramses decides to have the firstborn sons of Israel killed as punishment for their defiance. God reveals to Moses that He will turn the table around and have all the firstborn sons of Egypt, including Ramses' own son, killed that night, and directs Moses to have the Israelites pack their bags and leave that night. And, naturally, the Chosen People do escape to safety, against all odds.
The story is beautiful and self redeeming in itself, until one begins to bore a little deeper.
First of all, why was the all-powerful and all-knowing God unable to convince a mere mortal, the Egyptian pharaoh, to abide by His command? Well, let's just say that we do not understand the ways of the Divine. Maybe He was testing whether mankind would be worthy of being granted free will, or some such concocted excuse. But how do we rationalize the merciless killing of all the firstborn sons of a nation for absolutely no fault of their own? Is such a barbaric act, massacring innocent people, young and old, to teach a disobedient pharaoh a lesson, anything to celebrate? Just think for a second about the implications of this legend.
Thank God - or Yahweh - nobody remembers the whole story while celebrating the Passover these days!
A very similar myth was created centuries later, which continues to be celebrated to this day. This is the upcoming Festival of Purim.
The story unfolds as Emperor Ahasuerus of Persia throws a party for all the vassals and kinglets of his vast empire at his palace in Shushan. Having heard about the talented and beautiful Queen, Vashti, his guests ask the Emperor to invite the Queen to dance for them. The Queen refuses and the leader of the mightiest empire on earth is embarrassed.
Some among the guests suggest that Ahasuerus should demote Vashti and, instead, choose another queen. Ahasuerus orders the fairest of all women from each region of his empire to be brought to the capital so that, after proper training and preparation, one would be chosen by him as the new queen of Persia.
Now, a Jewish man by the name of Mordakhai, who belonged to one of the tribes of Jews brought to Iran by a former emperor, Cyrus, after their liberation from Babylonian captivity, had a niece by the name of Esther. Mordakhai had earned the Emperor's attention by exposing a plot by two courtiers who had plotted to assassinate him, but had never been amply rewarded for that service.
Mordakhai manages to shuffle Esther into the group of fair maidens who were to be trained as candidates. Needless to say, being the most beautiful and the most talented of the lot, Emperor Ahasuerus chooses Esther as the Queen.
The main plot begins when a general by the name of Haman gains the Emperor's favor and is honored at the palace. Upon departing, Haman notices that one man, Mordakhai, has not bowed to him as was customary when his entourage came out of the palace gates. That really angers Haman, especially when he is told that Jews do not bow to anybody other than their own Lord. Now, an enraged genocidal anti-Semitic maniac, Haman decides to exterminate all the Jews from the face of the Persian Empire!
Haman manages to convince Ahasuerus to allow him, using the royal seal, to send orders to kill all the Jews in the Empire on a certain day chosen by lots, hence the name Purim meaning lots.
Mordakhai finds out about this plot and begs Esther to intercede with her husband on behalf of the Jewish people as best she can.
Haman is shrewdly conned by Esther to attend a banquet supposedly to honor him. After she tells the Emperor of Haman's evil plot, she reveals her own identity as a Jew, as well as her relation to Mordakhai. The king is upset beyond words and leaves the chamber.
In a truly cinematic plot, as Haman prostrates himself to Esther asking for forgiveness and begging for his life, she tricks him into a compromising position just as the Emperor walks back into the room! She then accuses Haman of attempting to molest the Queen of Persia. The Emperor orders the execution of Haman and his sons, and gives Haman's wealth all to Mordakhai as a belated reward for his services.
Esther then appeals to her husband to nullify Haman's plot to exterminate the Jews and, instead, to turn the table around and have the military help the Jews, in a preemptive strike, defend their lives and kill all those who were prepared to harm them on that same prescribed day.
New orders are dispatched throughout the empire and, on the day of reckoning, the Jews, with the help of the royal troops, begin the killing.
At the end of the day, Ahasuerus asks Esther if she had accomplished her objectives to her satisfaction. She was not quite satisfied as yet. She asks the Emperor for one more day of carnage, and is granted her wish. At the end of the second day, Esther reports that they have killed some 75,000 of their detractors, and that she is now satisfied.
As her final wish, she asks the Emperor to designate that day as an annual day of celebration throughout the empire; and thus was born the Festival of Purim, the Megillah, which happens to fall just before the Spring equinox each year. The Spring equinox also happens to mark the traditional New Year Day among the Indo-Aryans (Iranians) in that part of the world, going back to prehistoric times.
Of course, it matters not that "Ahasuerus" could have referred to Xerxes (Khashayarsha), Artaxerxes (Artakhshatra or Ardeshir - and there were more than a couple of them), Howakhshatra of Media, or even some Semitic monarch by the name of George, pronounced Jerjes in Arabic, which sounds very much like the Greek Xerxes (pronounced Kherkhes in Greek). And it is really not relevant that Esther could be Astarte, Ishtar, or Hadassah; or that Mordakhai is really an adulteration of Marduk, as is Murdock. The name Haman was probably adopted from the older Babylonian name for the devil, Uman or Houman. And, the entire story seems to be an adaptation of very similar festivities practiced in ancient Babylon and the neighboring Elam, honoring god and goddess Marduk and Ishtar for defeating the demon, Uman!
In short, there is absolutely no historical validation for the legend of Esther, even though there is a monument in the city of Hamadan in northwestern Iran that is supposedly marking the graves of Mordakhai and his niece, Esther.
In the story thus created, the emperor Ahasuerus, supposedly the ruler of the greatest empire of the times, is depicted as a buffoon who is easily swayed by his party guests, his vizier or general, or by his young wife. He seems to be clueless as to what is going on in his empire.
Haman, the evil general, casts lots to choose a date for the extermination of all the Jewish populations of the Persian empire, simply because one man, Mordakhai, exhibited his Jewish pride by not bowing as Haman strode by.
Esther, of course, was not only the most beautiful and talented in all the realm, she was also a brave sole to risk her own life to save her people by rushing to the presence of the Emperor without prior permission, an act supposedly punishable by death.
And, finally, the story clearly reflects the anguish of an oppressed people under Roman occupation, aspiring to regenerate the lost pride and grandeur of a dampened tradition, not the least in the minds of their young ones for whom myths and legends impart a more profound influence.
Now let us spring forward two millennia and revisit the legend of Esther and examine its parallels with today's politics in the same region.
The evil Haman of the Biblical tale became a genocidal anti-Semite because one Jewish man would not bow at his presence. Because of that, Haman decides to wipe all the Jewish people off the face of the Persian Empire. This maniac had at least a reason, however trivial, for his hatred of a people.
What about today's Iranian President Ahmadinejad who, as we have been told over and over again, is attempting to wipe the state of Israel off the face of the map? He doesn't even have any reason other than a profound hatred of the Jews for doing so, and would supposedly attempt this genocide even at the cost of having his own nation devastated in the process.
Once again, it matters not that there is absolutely no evidence that the man ever made such a declaration, despite the fact that, just like the myth about the tombs of Esther and Mordakhai in Hamadan, the American media has been saturated with fabulous reinterpretations of what he had actually said!
Regardless, in order to stop this mad man from carrying out his evil mission, some Estheresque maneuvering is necessary to justify a preemptive strike.
Esther staged a theatrical scenario and falsely accused Haman of attempting to molest her when the Emperor walked into the room, resulting in Haman's execution. Similarly, Ahmadinejad's utterances have been deliberately distorted to make him sound like a Holocaust-denying nut-case in pursuit of nuclear weapons to destroy the state of Israel.
Esther had the support of the forces of the mighty Persian Empire to help her people "defend their lives". Today, the support and involvement of the mighty global powerhouse, the United States of America, would serve that purpose.
Esther had an easier time convincing her benefactor to unleash his might to assist the innocent Jews to defend their lives by killing 75,000 of their Iranian detractors. She was a pretty woman and the mighty emperor of Persia was obviously a mere fool! However, Israel and its influential lobby in Washington, even with the help and cooperation of the American mass media, spearheaded by Rupert Murdock's (Mordakhai!) Fox network, have had to work hard to portray Iran as the world's most active supporter of international terrorism, bent on the destruction of Israel.
It's been said that history repeats itself. I hope mythology does not.
WHERE ARE THOSE WHO TRULY CARE ABOUT IRAN?
Should the Baby be Thrown Out With the Bathwater?
December 25, 2009
With great interest and anticipation, I read Dr. Trita Parsi’s “Statement for the Record”, dated December 15, submitted to the House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs on “Iran Sanctions Options, Opportunities and Consequences.”
As the President of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), Dr. Parsi’s job is doubly challenging. Not only is he the guardian of the interests of the Iranian American members of that organization and their concerns for their former homeland, Trita must, at the same time, adhere to the principles of “political correctness” in order to avoid being labeled as an Iran apologist, or worse, a paid agent of the Islamic Republic!
Trita’s tenure requires that kind of awareness if he expects to be invited to the various forums, official committees or media networks to offer his informed views on subjects dealing with Iran. In his most recent statement, Dr. Parsi has expressed NIAC’s position in a well reasoned objection to the imposition of new sanctions on Iran. He also managed to dress his statements advising against the sanctions in colors and tones that safeguard his position as a credible commentator: comments such as “a tectonic shift” in referring to the impact of the recent pro-democracy movements or pointing out Iran’s “flagrant” human rights violations, illegitimacy of Ahmadinejad’s presidency, etc. have been helpful in that regard.
I do not envy Dr. Parsi's position and am glad I don't have to be concerned about being properly diplomatic in expressing my views.
We all know that imposing economic sanctions on Iran have been and will continue to be more than just ineffective, they are actually counterproductive to bring about the long advertised objectives, (which I have always taken as pure propaganda and window dressing, behind which lurk deeper agendas) of a regime change or, at the very least, a change of attitude by the present regime. We also know that sanctions hurt the Iranian people and actually strengthen the hands of the conservatives and hardliners. This fact alone should make one wonder why the U.S. Administration insists on imposing “crippling” new sanctions on Iran, when everyone with any knowledge of these issues would tell you that such action is the surest way to postpone any shift in current policies within the Iranian government.
Are we to believe that America’s high level policy makers are less knowledgeable about the facts behind Iranian issues than are Trita Parsi, Vali Nasr, Mohammad Sahimi, Karim Sajjadpour and many others, including myself? I think not!
As I have said numerous times, criticism is the easiest exercise in futility if not followed by workable, constructive alternatives or solutions.
To understand the dynamics of the current impasses in US/Iran relations, we must take into account all the important parameters or vectors of force that bear on this issue.
The core issues continue to be control over the Middle East oil, Israel’s agendas and American military presence in the region. In the periphery, but always highlighted by the Administration and the media as the primary concerns, are Iran’s nuclear ambitions, war on terror and the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. These peripheral parameters have quite successfully served as effective pretexts for any diplomatic, economic or military action that was deemed necessary by the United States to pursue the primary objectives – the core issues mentioned above - in that region.
The issues that are worth debating are twofold: On the one hand we have the pragmatic approach in securing and preserving a superpower’s best interests and, on the other hand, we have the perennial dilemma of moral, ethical or philosophical and legal justifications for such approach.
Once the natural dichotomy between self-serving pragmatism versus “fair play” instinct is resolved at the public level, best accomplished through self-delusional “beneficial” hypocrisy, the remaining debate could only revolve around whether the adopted pragmatic policies do actually pave the way toward securing and preserving the superpower’s best interests, regardless of how amoral, illegal or unjust such policies might be.
On the surface at least, it seems as though America’s recent and current policies directed toward the Middle East have had unpredictably negative consequences. Again, not being able to see the forest for the trees, one might conclude that America’s policy makers did not know what they were doing on the drawing boards.
While that might be partially true, it does not diminish the significance of the three primary or core issues of concern for the Empire – and there is no denying that an Empire we are and we intend to remain.
A- Control over the Middle East oil and gas flow:
Although the bulk of America’s imports of oil come from sources other than the Middle East, the Persian Gulf’s biggest oil producer, Saudi Arabia, has always played the role of an effective buffer against undesired fluctuations in the amount and the price of crude in the international market. America’s allies in Europe and Japan, and America’s competitors, present and potential, depend on the Persian Gulf oil to fuel their economic engines. Next in importance are Iraq’s known and as yet untapped oil reserves, estimated to be the largest in the world. Add to these the productions from Kuwait, Bahrain and the Emirates, and we can easily see the strategic importance of the Empire’s control over the region’s regimes and its natural resources.
The most expeditious and the least expensive way to achieve this control have been to create existential dependencies among the rulers of these states where their unequivocal obedience to the mandates of the Empire is their only ticket to their survival and prosperity.
It is in that light that we can see why Saudi Arabia’s truly undemocratic rule, its violations of basic human rights and its flagrant support for radical Islamic terrorism are not targeted for criticism in the American political circles.
B- Israel and its regional agendas:
Whether by design or by default, Israel has been able to successfully sell itself as America’s indispensable partner and ally in the Middle East and to remain the beneficiary of America’s lion’s share of foreign aid and assistance in the world.
The Jewish state’s agenda could not be more clear:
The postponement of any peace treaty with the Palestinians, with the blame always successfully put on the Palestinians.
Continuous expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied lands.
Continuous marginalization of the Palestinian populations by any means possible, be it economic strangulation, demolition of homes, military assault in the name of counter terrorism, etc.
Parading as a peace-loving nation under siege, deserving of all the economic, military and diplomatic aid and support that the United States could muster.
Remaining the region’s unchallenged military superpower.
C- America’s military presence and bases in the region:
The fact is, we are already there and have been for some time. The rationale for this presence and its expansion has not changed.
If control over the region’s oil as well as other strategic considerations are essential to the Empire’s vital interests, and if the methods employed during the past decades to secure America’s guardianship of the region are to continue, America’s overwhelming military presence in the region is the guarantor of those interests.
Tens of billions have been spent and countless lives lost in establishing America’s military bases throughout the region. We are currently engaged in two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan, and now from what we see in many reports, involvement in Yemen, supposedly to knock out Al Gha’eda cells but in reality to help the Saudis combat militant Shi’ite rebels. The Saudis do not like those Shi’ites!
First is the issue of oil.
It would be needlessly redundant to elaborate on the strategic and economic importance of control over the Middle East oil production and the global allocation and distribution of this industrial lifeline.
The United States cannot afford or allow these vital resources to be manipulated by unstable or unpredictable regimes, or to be subjected to free market dynamics of the global supply and demand pressures. It is not just the Middle East region’s oil that is of concern here, the oil and gas from the regions east of the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus are being carefully routed in such a way that Russia, for example, would not be in a position to influence it. Many believe that the pipeline planned to traverse Afghanistan, through Pakistan and on to the Arabian Sea had a lot to do with America’s involvements in Afghanistan. This is while the safest and the most economic way to market the Caspian and Central Asian oil would have been through Iran, where the infrastructure and access were already present.
It thus becomes abundantly clear why the promotion of democratic reforms in the true sense of that phrase, or freedom and self-determination, as the so-called Free World of the West has been advertising, have not and could not have been honestly intended for the strategic Middle East states. One could only imagine the fate of the Saudi regime and, as a consequence, America’s solid control over its assets, if the citizens of that nation could enjoy true democracy and self-determination. Similarly, states such as Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and the Persian Gulf Emirates, each for their own specific strategic reasons, could not be allowed to evolve into Western style democracies and to determine their own destinies as each nation sees fit.
It is, therefore, quite obvious that the promotion of freedom and democracy could hardly be the reason for the United States and certain Western allies to commit hundreds of billions of dollars plus tens of thousands of their own war casualties, or to cause the destruction of the infrastructure and deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians among the nations targeted for the so-called liberation!
Second is the matter of Israel and its long umbilical cord attached to the United States:
Those who believe that Israel’s influence over the American administrations’ foreign policies with respect to the Middle East is either a myth or highly exaggerated need read no further.
Suffice it to point out America’s decades-long unquestioned and unequivocal military, economic and diplomatic support for the Jewish state, all to no demonstrable advantage or benefit for this benefactor.
It has only been in the last few years that questions have been raised by some high profile public figures, albeit somewhat apologetically, about the cost/benefit ratio of this relationship. The power of the Zionist lobbies and the support by the moneyed and influential American Jewish communities that respond to the lobbies' relentless propaganda campaigns in a knee-jerk reaction, have created an atmosphere in this country where the slightest criticism of Israel's policies and behavior is translated into anti-Semitism.
As an added bonus, the magic of propaganda has even managed to equate this so-called anti-Semitism with anti-Americanism by drawing strategic as well as moral equivalencies between the two nations. This success has even emboldened the leaders of the Jewish state to boast openly and adamantly on occasion that it is they who control America's policies in that region.
So, we shouldn't be surprised that every time, without exception, the American government has attempted to pressure Israel to do or to stop doing something, the Israeli regime refused to comply, that it was the American administration that had to, sometimes quite embarrassingly, back down.
For decades the proverbial tail that wagged the dog did its job without too much public consciousness, knowledge or concern over its consequences, which were hidden from public view, being masked under the veil of pro-Israel propaganda. Any backlash from America's blind support for Israeli aggressions or anything Israel wanted to do was blamed on the victims, who were always portrayed as the real troublemakers, aggressors or terrorists.
This trend began to change, most significantly after the 9/11 terror attack on the American soil. In spite of all the efforts by the media and the Administration to bypass all other considerations and hold Islamic terrorism solely responsible, questions began to be raised by some higher profile figures that perhaps this act was at least partially a blowback from America's own blind support for Israel. Initially, any suggestion that America's military bases in the Islamic lands and its demonization of Islamic states in favor of Israeli agendas might be at the root of anti-American angst among the more militant Islamists, was viewed as unacceptable and even unpatriotic.
With slowly increasing public awareness of alternative explanations besides the official lines, thanks to the internet and the more vocal and visible left-liberal forums on the web and cable/satellite television, the radical Right media (a good example being Fox TV), neoconservatives and the Israeli lobbies redoubled their efforts to redirect public's attention back to militant Islam as the source of anti-West paranoia and international terrorism.
This strategy has served three purposes:
First was to continue the momentum behind the Administration's neoconservative-driven agenda encapsulated conveniently in the vague concept of War on Terror, specifically war on Islamic terror.
Second, it served Israel's perennial objectives of demonizing Islam in general and, in particular, those troublesome groups, such as the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas as international terror organizations, and Iran as the chief supporter of this terror network.
Third, it provided further rationale to increase the military budget and to allocate more resources to the American military presence in the Middle East to confront and combat Islamic insurgencies that might target American assets and interests in the region.
As an added force, the semi-dormant but fanatic conservative evangelicals, particularly the self-described Christian Zionists, gained new momentum and became visible and vocal supporters of unilateral military action against Islamic targets, much to Israel's delight.
Much was prematurely expected when the Democrat Party prevailed in the last elections and the young and ambitious Barak Obama replaced the neocon puppet George W. Bush. As we are increasingly observing, Mr.Obama seems to be no more a "decider" than was George W. Bush. The forces at work continue to steer the Administration along the same path as before. For the President, regardless of how he might genuinely desire to earn the honor bestowed on him with the Nobel Peace Prize, backing down from the current military operations in the Middle East or pressuring Israel to accommodate the wishes of the international community would prove too risky in so many ways.
What looms ahead is no more reassuring. It is a good guess that the conservatives did deliberately lose the battle for the presidency this time around in order to turn over to the Democrats an unwinnable hand, in order to regain power come next elections. The strategy seems to be working at this time!
Now, to get back to the main topic; what forces are at work that might have a bearing on the Iranian crisis?
The American military establishment with its trillion dollar annual budget contributes to the nations' economy through many affiliated and supporting industries. This is what Dwight Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex, and warned the nation in his farewell address to not allow this self-perpetuating monster to gain too much control over the nation's destiny. It is too late now!
The atmosphere of existential dependencies that the United States has created in the oil-rich Middle East serves more than securing America's control over that region's vital energy resources. The positioning of American military bases all over that area requires enormous expenditures that must somehow be compensated for.
One way to raise tens of billions of dollars for the armed forces and the military/industrial infrastructure is to convince the wealthy Arab states to pay for those installations and to purchase expensive weaponry and equipment and pay for the management and training of them. They are simply told that they need that stuff for their very survival against impending threats from their big, bad neighbor, Iran. Before that, it was the threat of Soviet expansionism that was used as the pretext.
Iran behaving as a stubborn, belligerent and defiant "rogue" state has actually been playing that role so well that it deserves the Academy Award for the most convincing motion picture script of all time!
Iran, portrayed as the regional evil, has helped to justify and legitimize America's overwhelming military presence in the region, it has induced wealthy Arabs to stock up on tens of billions of dollars worth of American made arsenal, and it has even provided ample pretexts for increased military expenditures, missile defense shields and a variety of exotic new deep-penetrating bombs and tactical nukes, etc.
In short, the presence of a marketable "clear and present" threat aimed at American interests has been the best possible rationale to justify increased military spending and deployment.
The image created for Iran as an existential threat to Israel has also been quite a blessing for the Jewish state. Hand in hand with the American military establishment, the Israeli regime has been capitalizing on the hyped scenario of an Iranian attack that might include the use of the atomic bomb, another useful myth, in order to prioritize its concerns for self-defense over all other considerations.
The Israeli position is quite convincing at the pedestrian level: As long as there is Iran and its reckless and firebrand president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who intends to wipe the Jewish state off the face of the map, and now gaining access to the ultimate weapon, who could pressure Israel to engage in peace talks with the Palestinians or to stop the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories? What's more, under such dire circumstances, Israel needs, indeed demands and gets, increased military, economic and diplomatic support from the United States and other Western countries to protect itself.
No matter how one chooses to look at it, the presence of some ominous threat in the strategic Middle East is an essential requirement to justify certain basic objectives: One is that it would serve as a perfect pretext for the Empire's military deployment and the establishment of bases to protect its assets and interests. The other is to continue the unconditional support for Israel and its agendas.
In short, without some uninterrupted clear and present threat, only an actual war, more than likely initiated by the Israelis and backed by the United States, would serve this purpose. Ironically, the presence of a believable enemy, Iran, is the best safeguard against an actual war.
This scenario plays out best if the threats and counter threats continue to escalate and even reach a critical stage just below the flashpoint. So far the game has been played well by all sides. Ultimatums and deadlines are intermittently set and then revoked or pushed further away in order to keep the charade going. As long as no player attempts to violate the rules of the game and do something stupid, such as lighting up the match that ignites the powder keg, this macabre dance will continue.
So, Israel is sure to have its way and our armed forces must remain in full control of the region and the vital seaways. This much we know.
Now, what about Iran, its survival as a nation, its retarded economic development and the struggle of its citizenry for democratization in an open society free from overt repression?
I have absolutely no doubt that Dr. Trita Parsi, like so many other colleagues and friends of Iranian background and heritage, including myself, desires positive changes to take place to improve the socioeconomic conditions inside Iran and to mend broken fences with the outside world, particularly with the United States. Opposing economic and diplomatic sanctions is one step in that direction, so it seems.
But let's look at this particular issue for a minute. With the implementation of more sanctions the Iranian people will suffer increasing hardships while the regime will find added excuses to crack down on dissident voices and pro-reform movements. Just look at Israel: How could a nation under siege be pressured to overlook the threats from outside and concentrate on positive reforms inside?
On the other hand, the lifting of all the trade barriers and other sanctions would strengthen and embolden the Iranian government to increase its defiant stance and bellicosity against external pressures for change and reform. Aren't we dealing with a Catch 22 here?
Supporting the dissidents and the so-called pro-democracy movements and their leadership will lead either to the demise of those forces as puppets or stooges of foreign interests, or result in a national uprising and the collapse of the current regime. Not the first, but the latter alternative is, I am sure, what Dr. Parsi and other Iranian American scholars are hoping for.
If this hope is materialized, we should examine what might follow as a consequence of such a radical "tectonic shift", using Dr. Parsi's words.
Here again we might be facing two alternative scenarios: Either the "tectonic shift" leads abruptly to a bloody fragmentation and disintegration of Iran, something that has been already predicted and even planned for by certain "Orientalists" and think tanks, or the changes will occur slowly and in measured steps, rather "untectonically".
In the first case there won't remain an Iran as we know it, anyway, to worry about - a fate similar to the old Ottoman Empire or the more recent fragmentation of Yugoslavia.
No doubt, the true lovers of the homeland would like a gradual sea change in the Iranian sociopolitical system that is not accompanied by tectonic eruptions, turbulent storms or a disastrous tsunami. Dr. Parsi does, and so do I.
In such a scenario we have a velvety change of leadership and the passing of baton to moderate, reform oriented people who would abandon the confrontational stance against the United States and Israel, stop supporting groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, create total transparency and abandon Iran's nuclear works.
The next series of constructive or conciliatory steps would include dismantling Iran's missile defense and other military arsenal rendering the country literally vulnerable, releasing all political prisoners, opening diplomatic channels with the United States by exchanging embassies and taking steps toward the recognition of Israel.
If all goes well, previously imposed economic sanctions against Iran would be lifted, frozen assets released, and the flood of investments would begin to pour into Iran’s starving economy. Many members of the National Iranian American Council and other Western educated intellectuals and moneyed Iranians who now reside outside of Iran would find the new atmosphere appealing and full of wonderful opportunities should they repatriate themselves.
Soon after, the Lebanese Hezbollah, being abandoned by their chief supporter, Iran, would disarm voluntarily, while the Palestinian Hamas resistance group dissolves and becomes subordinate to the U.S. and Israel supported Palestinian Authority.
Israel will find itself safe and secure after decades of violence and terrorism aimed against it. Israel can then stop its own retaliatory violence against the Palestinians and begin to return the occupied territories and the illegal settlements back to the Palestinians. And finally, the United States will channel billions of dollars of annual aid that Israel no longer needs toward rebuilding the Palestinian state’s infrastructure instead, and finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fulfilling his campaign promises, President Obama will have thus earned the Nobel Peace Prize he received, and will be ready for his next term in office.
Who the hell are we kidding here?!!
Let’s start by releasing all the dissidents and political prisoners. Next, let us allow anti-regime demonstrations to take place, with or without official permit or any control by the security police or the Basij. And, let’s not allow the use of force, tear gas, rubber bullets, not even fire hoses, against demonstrators even if the crowds go wild and attack the police or attempt to take over government offices, armories or military facilities. After all, we want the “people” to express their feelings toward the regime freely and openly; don’t we?
The fact is, this kind of daydreaming will get us nowhere, folks.
I know that I do not have any ready answers or solutions to the problems within Iran. Like so many others who are concerned about the stressful environment in our former homeland, I know what I don’t like and what changes or reforms I would like to see. I would also like very much to win the Super Lotto next time I buy some lottery tickets.
What bothers me more than anything else is witnessing how Iranian American forums and web sites have channeled their resources to highlighting anything negative they can find to criticize the Iranian regime, seemingly advocating support for the reform activists and democracy movements in Iran. Who wouldn’t want democratic reforms, not just in Iran but in China, Saudi Arabia or right here in these United States? We could all benefit from some positive changes. But are we the slightest bit concerned with the consequences of such advocacy or the fact that any legitimate opposition movement in Iran will be tainted and rendered as illegitimate if supported by outside interests.
Instead of jumping on the bandwagon of Iran bashing to cater to the sentiments of the elitists among us, let us encourage serious discussion and debate about potentials and possibilities that might lurk behind all the nonsensical passionate hot air being vented left and right.
For starters, why not look for a viable substitute for Iran as the “designated enemy” or the evil bad boy on the block, to serve everyone’s purpose? This pariah has suffered long enough; wouldn’t you say?
The old Persian anecdote, Doostyeh Khaleh Kherseh, or the mama bear’s affection for her cub, deserves repeating. Mama bear noticed a wasp sitting on baby bear’s nose. To keep the wasp from stinging her cub, she lifted a large boulder and smashed the wasp right on top of baby bear’s face! That did the job on the wasp, alright.
Ignored Realities and Unpleasant Truths
How will it all play out for Iran?
October 30, 2009
Let’s start with the vignette of a brief televised ceremony at a military base honoring a young soldier who had lost his life recently in Afghanistan. We were told he had lost his life fighting to preserve our freedom.
What are we really fighting for in Afghanistan? If it is truly fighting for our freedom, wouldn’t it make sense to define the concept of freedom for which we are fighting: freedom to be what and to do what? But please let us not get into enumerating the kinds of freedom, such as the freedom to eat our carrots before our peas or to stroll barefoot along the beach. I am not talking about the freedom to vote, to partake in political debate or discourse, to live as a red-neck religious zealot or as an atheist, or even to openly deny the existence of God. Such freedoms are enjoyed here and in many other places on earth, up to a point, of course. And these freedoms are not being challenged, threatened or attacked by our detractors half-way around the world.
Those who drove the airliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon did not do so because they had a problem with us exercising the freedoms we enjoy here at home or simply because they hated the concept of a “good life”. Yet it was, in fact, our freedom they hated, but quite a different kind of freedom.
Naturally, the concept of freedom only makes sense when it is defined and confined within the limits outlined by the laws of the land, which are, in turn, governed by a people’s cultural norms and moral and ethical guidelines. Not even the most daring libertarian or anti social anarchist would suggest that one should be free to assault or kill a competitor who might be standing in one’s way. You cannot drive as fast as you like or against the oncoming traffic, or refuse to pay for the groceries you intend to take home.
You simply do not have the freedom to change the rules half-way through the game in favor of your own team if your opponent is winning. But when it comes to international affairs, we certainly are looking at a different ballgame. In the international arena, changing the rules of the game and moving the goal posts are actually among the accepted, unwritten rules of engagement. The so-called Golden Rule of doing unto others as you’d have them do unto you is out the door, replaced by double standards, hypocritical acrimony and one-upmanship, to where the Biblical Golden Rule has become, do unto others before they have a chance to do it unto you. That is called preemption in justifiable self-defense!
Of course, if others exercise that kind of preemptive option against us in their own version of justifiable self-defense, it is regarded by us as naked aggression!
A perfect example of this double standard is the recent statement by our UN Ambassador, Ms Rice, who commented regarding the accusations against Israel’s Gaza offensive, that every nation is entitled to defend itself, and that the United States will stand behind its friends and allies. In other words, when it comes to our supposed friend and ally, Israel, it matters not whether war crimes have been committed or if ten-thousand eyes have been exacted for one eye, our partner is entitled to defend itself in any manner it chooses. But we do everything in our power to deny Iran, our antagonist, to beef up its defenses by purchasing anti missile and aircraft weaponry from Russia: Iran is simply not entitled to develop the capability to defend itself, even though Iran, quite unlike Israel, has never attacked another country.
The underlying reason is quite obvious: We do not want Iran to have the ability to prevent us or our friend from attacking it, should that become necessary. This fact is disguised in order to make it appear as though the concern over Iran building up its defensive capability is over the fear that the Islamic Republic plans to initiate an attack against our allies while protecting itself against any retaliation. The American public has already bought into that line of propaganda; just tune in to Fox TV!
There is nothing unusual about this manifest hypocrisy; it is the most profound aspect of human cultural evolution, reminding us that we are not that far removed from other species of life in the long geological history of struggle for survival. What animals do instinctively and without a sense of guilt or shame, we do also, except that in our case we have a conscience to deal with.
Fortunately for us, the Homo sapiens species is endowed with a natural gift that helps it cope with its moral and ethical dilemma, and that is the ability to rationalize. We would be hard put to find anyone, even among the hard-core criminals, who’d admit to being immoral and unethical. Even they have some rationale for their misbehavior, something outside of their self-control – the blame always falling somewhere other than on themselves.
In a purely Darwinian sense, our human ancestors, the species with a conscience, had to pursue their self-interests to survive. If group cooperation promoted the interests of the individuals, as in a wolf pack, the hominid gangs formed tribes, then nations and ultimately empires. The human society has not reached a point as yet for the nations and empires to merge and create some kind of global community with shared values and interests – it may never.
So, we have ethnic, linguistic, physiognomic, religious and cultural differences, national boundaries that each nation fights for and protects, and immigration laws to prevent or regulate the flow of “strangers” into our territories. Animals mark their territories with their scent; we delineate ours by fences, walls or threatening “no trespassing” signs. They have their warning calls, we have national anthems.
When a pack of hyenas runs short of food in its own domain, it crosses over into a rival’s territory and the stronger pack survives the fierce confrontation. We don’t do it quite that way anymore; that wouldn’t be honorable or sit well with our self-righteous image. But what are wars all about?
Wars happen when one nation transgresses against another, each fighting to the death to protect and preserve what it views as its entitlements. The aggressor always has what it perceives as a noble cause, a legitimate reason to mobilize armies and risk the lives of its fighters in the pursuit of its rightful mission. The defender also feels entitled to protect itself against the onslaught at whatever cost to its land and population. And finally, it is the winning side’s rationale, story or the narrative of the accounts that go down in history books as historical facts.
Naturally, we have to differentiate between the decision-making group, class or the leadership of a nation and the general public whose support is necessary, indeed vital, for the government to conduct its agendas. Therefore, the success of the regime’s course of action or agendas depends to a great extent on the approval or the support of the public. This is where internal diplomacy, a euphemism for propaganda or disinformation, plays the most critical role.
To be frank, disinformation, hypocrisy and propaganda are indispensable tools of diplomacy if we define diplomacy as the craft of the statesmen that makes what has to be done look good and proper at the same time.
It would be most interesting and revealing to conduct a nationwide survey about the general public’s attitude regarding our foreign policies worldwide.
Suppose we ask a wide spectrum of people from all walks of life whether they believe that America should play the role of the dominant global empire. I dare say that a great majority would not favor that position. The idea of an empire is not very appealing to most people. After all, America fought for its own independence against the dominant empire of the time, the British Empire. In more recent memory, America has challenged other powers that aspired to become global empires, such as the Nazis and the Soviets.
There will be some, perhaps among the more pragmatic or elitist neoconservatives, the Dick Cheney types, who’d respond quite honestly and unabashedly that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of extending the power of the American Empire to dominate the global economic and geopolitical spheres, no matter at what cost to whom. In fact, the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), makes this more than just an idea, but a mandate in its Mission Statement.
In between these two opposite poles are proponents of the idea of an American Empire who believe that American ideals of democracy, fairness and magnanimity would actually benefit the global populations, while ensuring, at the same time, America’s own best interests. There are as many people who believe that America’s foreign aid programs were aimed purely at relieving poverty and disease in the neediest nations, with absolutely no strings attached, political or otherwise.
To this last group we then put another question: Would you still promote this idea if you knew that ensuring America’s global dominance and securing the lifestyle of the American people would deny some other peoples around the world of their best chance to strive for a good life?
I think the great majority would answer; No, not if our gains would mean other peoples’ losses.
Now we ask the same group the following question: Would you be willing to lower the standard of living you are accustomed to and have come to expect as your birthright in order to be fair and honest in dealing with other nations around the world?
I am quite sure that this question would cause a great deal of apprehension and looked upon with understandable incredulity. The deep-seated response is, of course, No. But rather than admit to this very natural tendency, the effort would be to defy and deny the viability of the question itself. The response would likely be self-delusional, that there would be no need to lower our lifestyles to accommodate others, and that they, with our help, can achieve their goals.
If my assessment of the public opinion is correct, the need for the manipulation of the public’s mindset becomes apparent. Whether we are in China, Russia, Iran, Brazil or the United States, the regimes have the duty and responsibility of pursuing their nation’s best interests in the global arena, and do so while convincing their populations that the pursuit is not only necessary but noble at the same time.
Is there anything wrong or evil with this age-old grand hypocrisy? I’d say; Not at all.
Remember, we humans are not that far removed from our ancestral hominid past. To survive, we all compete to get ahead at our competitor’s expense, sometimes individually and other times as groups, whichever serves the purpose better. As mentioned before, we are endowed or, better put, cursed by a self-delusional sense of morality, which forces us to rationalize and portray to ourselves whatever serves our best interest as justifiably ours and our efforts to obtain it as noble and just. The human species would not have survived and evolved to the present otherwise.
To resolve this perennial dichotomy between natural predatory greed and morality, our leaders, whether messengers from the Creator, dictators or elected officials, must engage in a masterful charade of disinformation and hypocrisy to serve their constituents’ best interests as they perceive those interests to be. And therein lies the fundamental problem; the problem of perception and motivation in the part of the leadership, the importance of which will come later.
Once we accept that hypocrisy at the highest levels is a fact of life, even the most skeptical would understand why we were told, and we accepted, that the young soldier who lost his life in Afghanistan was there to fight for our freedom. We need not look any further to see what “freedom” he gave his life to preserve.
Once we understand the role that propaganda or disinformation plays in the political scene here, indeed everywhere, we can see how it is that groups or states that are opposed to our perceived interests or agendas are called terrorists or supporters of terrorism. We also see groups or states that are actually engaged in blatant acts of terror and aggression, including ourselves, being referred to as champions of freedom and democracy.
It would not sit well with any honest, moral and ethical citizen to think that the freedom we are fighting for is actually the freedom to extend our power and influence half-way around the world in order to ensure our very self-serving interests, as ill perceived as they might be, and nothing more than that – nothing altruistic or philanthropic here.
In short, we have to lie and engage in hypocrisy and disinformation to protect and preserve the lifestyles we feel we are entitled to. All governments and nations are engaged in the same game, and we are no exception.
Is there anything wrong with that? Again, I don’t think so; I do understand, like it or not, why it has to be this way.
Now that we have come this far in exposing the naked truth about our human nature, culture, society and politics, let us touch on the most consequential issue at hand: Are America’s foreign policies serving the best interests of the nation regardless of how such policies are carried out, whether in violation of international laws or whether our gains are costing other nations more than we’d like to acknowledge?
If the answer is Yes, then let us not complain about lies and deceptions that led us to Vietnam, the war in Iraq and now also in Afghanistan or even possibly Iran. Let the hypocrisy do its job; let our people believe that we went there to spread freedom and democracy and to rid the world of terrorist cells. As long as the American public buys into that line, let the propaganda machine keep on doing the convincing job it has been doing.
But what if the answer is No?
Even those who do believe that our mission in the Middle East was initiated with the best of intentions and motivated by just and noble causes, are now increasingly concerned about the mess we’ve gotten ourselves into. In spite of this anxiety, the prevailing public perception persists that we are engaged in the Middle East in the proverbial battle of the “good” against the forces of “evil”, good being represented by us and our allies, and evil by the dark, ugly and savage enemies of civilization and modernity: just ask your next door neighbor to confirm this attitude. The only question now is whether maintaining the course is worth our costs in lives and money, or should we simply build up our defenses and be prepared against any eventuality, and leave those incorrigible barbarians wallowing in their own quagmire.
This public mindset is not likely to change in any meaningful way anytime soon.
Our hardliner ultraconservatives believe that the United States has only two choices in dealing with the “enemy” in the Middle East. One choice, the option championed particularly by the neocons, from the former VP, Dick Cheney, down to the pipsqueak, John Bolton, and their voices amplified by the Christian Zionists, is to strike at the targets with the full might of our armed forces, not excluding the use of nuclear weapons.
The less hawkish believe we should use our global influence to economically strangulate that region and allow our regional surrogate, the Israelis, a free hand in dealing with any survivors whenever necessary and in any way they deem suitable or in their best interest – with our blessing and support, of course.
The slightly more sane, our so-called liberals, while acknowledging the “threat” to our security and national interests from that region, prefer a softer, more “humane” approach to the “problem”: Rather than make ourselves look really bad in the eyes of the world, they believe we should refrain from the wholesale nuking of the bad guys and, instead, attempt diplomacy (meaning heavy arm-twisting, sabotage, bribery, assassinations and kidnapping, etc.) and, if these efforts fail to bring about the desired changes, employ economic embargos and other sanctions to keep the potential troublemakers in semi comatose condition.
Of course, the radical rightwing insists that our policies throughout the Bush years were right on the mark to tackle any obstacle on the path to America’s greater glory and security. The Center for Security Policy, founded by the Zionist neocon, Fred Gaffney, just honored Dick Cheney and several among his aides and advisors during his tenure, with the Keeper of the Flame award. Cheney claimed in his speech that the former administration had passed a successful record to the Obama team, which the new administration seems to be mismanaging.
Again, if we prefer to believe that our nation was headed in the right direction before the Democrat Party took the helm, President Obama does seem to be somewhat off course in his new approach and strategy toward the Middle East, particularly regarding Iran. He and his State Department have opted to engage with the Iranians directly and without stiff preconditions, something that the Cheney cabal considers a betrayal of the trust.
Cheney also mentioned that Obama’s decision to back off from the deployment of anti ballistic missiles in Eastern Europe, formerly declared by the Bush administration as defending against an Iranian missile attack, was another mistake. This, in spite the fact that everyone knew this missile defense shield was aimed at Russia and not Iran. In other words, the old “Keepers of the Flame” insist on continuing the portrayal of the designated bad guy on the block, Iran, as the real cause for our security concerns.
Then, not to disappoint the American public and create more ammo for the fans of Fox TV, The Obama administration justified this change, not by explaining to the American people that Russia had threatened to reciprocate by installing their own massive anti missile defenses, but by arguing that the new deployment strategy is even more effective against any Iranian mischief! He knows fully well, as do his Republican detractors, that Iran is not now, and will not be in the future, desirous or in a position to initiate a missile attack on Europe or the United States. But, at the same time, Mr. Obama has to appear concerned about Iran and sound unyieldingly tough regarding Iran’s “nuclear ambitions” in order to appease the public opinion at home.
Now to the core issue: Why is there such insistence to portray Iran as a clear and present danger to the security of the Middle East, Europe, and even the United States?
Once again, before tackling this question, I would like to reemphasize that, no matter how hypocritical or unjust our position might truly be with regard to our approach to Iran, a valid argument could always be made for continuing our course if it could be demonstrated that our policies are aimed at ensuring America’s best interests. However, if the current ration of disinformation, deception and hypocrisy that the American public is being exposed to is not conducive to this nation’s best interests, we should wonder what, if anything, is being done to correct this trend.
This whole process began in earnest under the official name of “Dual Containment of Iran and Iraq” in 1994. Connecting the dots from there to the policy paper prepared for the Israeli government in 1996 by certain American strategists under the name of “Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”, and then the establishment of the Washington think tank, The Project for the New American Century – PNAC” in 1997, the blueprint for the path to the invasion of Iraq, and the threats to do same to Iran comes into view.
The reader would be well served to look up the following on the internet:
Martin Indyk (The architect of the concept of Dual Containment), his background and affiliations.
WINEP.
Clean Break; Securing the Realm.
PNAC.
In short, the master-strategy of securing the realm for Israel’s goals and objectives has not only failed to secure the realm as envisioned for the Jewish state, the effort has cost Israel’s chief protagonist and supporter, the United States, more than even the staunchest Zionists within the American establishments could have welcomed.
The blowback from all that ill-advised strategy has been the creation of reactionary terrorist cells responding to the establishment of American military bases in Saudi Arabia, leading to the 9/11/2001 attack. After the invasion of Iraq, new terrorists groups, encouraged by anti-American sentiments, were helping destroy what was left of Iraq’s infrastructure by exacerbating ethnic and religious divisions within that country.
In the meantime, Iran, which for its own interests, could have been of significant help to the United States, and was actually instrumental in defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan and the establishment of the Karzai regime in that country during the operations in late 2001, was labeled as a member of the “axis of evil” by President Bush in January 2002. The speech writer who had come up with that phrase was David Frum. Look him up, too.
Iran thus became the next designated enemy state, not because its regime in any way threatened the bona fide interests of the United States of America, but because it stayed defiantly in the way of “securing the realm”.
To beat the proverbial dead horse one more time, if it could be demonstrated that securing the realm for Israel has been serving America’s best interests, valid arguments could be made that the United States should continue sheltering Israel from international condemnation for its war crimes and violations of international law, and that the pro-Israel propaganda and disinformation carried through our mass media and government sources are actually serving our purpose. However only the most gullible could fall for that line.
Today, there is serious dissent even among the rank and file of Israel’s own government for its excesses in dealing with the Palestinians, as well as with regard to relations with the United States. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s chief rival, Zipi Livni, went as far as blaming the Likud Prime Minister for a widening rift between the United States and Israel. Many Israeli scholars and political scientists, mostly concerned about the future of the Jewish state, are leaving Israel to settle in Western Europe or the United States. Many Orthodox rabbis are openly critical of the secular Zionism that has been driving Israel’s expansionistic and aggressive politics since its inception as a state.
The Obama administration, meanwhile, is quickly discovering that any genuine attempt to mediate as a peace broker between the Palestinians and the Jewish state will prove an exercise in futility! This is not due to a lack of honest desire to see a solution to the tragedy that is drawing the attention of the global community with increasing intensity. Outside of the Anglo-Saxon block of nations, Israel does not have any friends or supporters. And the United States as the chief protector of Israel against international condemnation is chastised and subjected to retaliation and terrorism for its unquestioned and unequivocal support for the Jewish state.
It is a valid question to ask why the US administrations have never been able to put the brakes on this runaway train or at least to slow it down to examine where the road would lead if uninterrupted.
An analytical examination of the current situation, the dynamics behind the superficial charade staged between the United States, Israel and Iran, would help answer that question.
To put it quite bluntly, anyone who suggests a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma has no intention of bringing an end to this problem. In all honesty, the Israeli rightwing regimes, currently headed by Netanyahu, have no intention of stopping settlement expansions, giving up a square inch of land or allowing the Palestinians a nationhood in a contiguous state, not to mention the right of return or the equitable status of Jerusalem.
The Palestinians, much to our displeasure and denial represented by Hamas, will not settle for anything less than what the Israeli regime would never accept as terms of any settlement. No matter how often the American administration refers to Mr. Mahmoud Abbas officially as the Palestinian President, he and the Fatah Party are not in fact recognized by the Palestinians themselves as their true representatives.
The one-state solution is the only alternative that might work, but not under the current Israeli administration or the current consensus of the general Israeli public, or as long as the United States administrations, Democrat as well as Republican, continue to be in the grip of the Israel lobby and its influence peddlers.
Sadly, the concept of a two-state solution is what has successfully been sold to the American public as the goal of the American administration. And as far as the world public opinion is concerned, “pressuring” Israel to sit down at the negotiating table with the Palestinians, represented by Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, sounds as though the United States is finally serious about resolving this decades-long mess. This diplomatic charade masks the reality of the situation that no Israeli-Palestinian accord is in the visible horizon.
This theatrical stage show accomplishes two tasks at the same time. First, it is to demonstrate to the American public and the world at large that the United States is actively engaged in brokering a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Second, it gives the Israelis ample opportunities to blame a vast array of reasons to back away from the negotiating table while pretending compliance and cooperation with the wishes of the Americans and willingness to abandon so many of their “sacred rights” for the sake of peace. As usual, the Palestinians will always be there to be blamed for any mishap, anyway.
What does all this have anything to do with Iran?
Israel needs and has even more sensationalized reasons to be excused for walking away from any peace accord. Hamas, the principle “terrorist” group that has the support of the majority of Palestinians, is backed by the formidable member of the axis of evil, Iran, headed by mad mullahs who are intent on developing nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the face of the map! Hezbollah in Lebanon, another “threat” to Israel, is also supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Under such circumstances, we are supposed to agree, Israel has every right to be concerned for its very survival. The American public has been well indoctrinated to believe in such nonsense.
As long as Iran remains the bad boy on the block, Israel doesn’t have to beg for unlimited military, diplomatic and economic support from its chief benefactor, the United States. With the American public opinion under mass hypnosis by the media, whether Left, Right or Center, any action Israel might take preemptively to attack Iranian targets, even if the consequences might prove very costly for the United States, would be accepted here as justified.
With this formidable trump card, Israel has managed to gain the upper hand in dealing with the US administration. Backed by the American public opinion and the hog-tied US Congress, Israel can threaten to attack Iran unilaterally and benefit from this threat, but with no intention of actually embarking on such a stupid act, the results of which would be devastating for Israel and extremely costly for the United States.
Neither Israel nor the United States would benefit from a war against Iran. However, Israel in particular would benefit immensely if Iran remains portrayed as an existential threat to the Jewish state. A strong enough Iran would embolden Hamas and Hezbollah to remain increasingly defiant against Israeli agendas in the region; Israel does not like that. A disarmed and weakened Iran, on the other hand, would remove the big menace that has been so effectively created and propped up to serve Israel’s objective of remaining the unquestioned recipient of aid and support from the United States. As long as Iran is perceived as a great threat to Israel, no one could justify pressing the Jewish state toward a compromised resolution to the Palestinian issues.
It should now be clear why Iran has been kept in a state of suspended animation, not allowed to gain too much economic and military strength, but just enough to be a believable threat to play into the propaganda machine in the West. Economic sanctions and diplomatic pressures imposed by the Western regimes against the Islamic Republic have served the dual role of strengthening the hands of hardliners and religious conservatives, creating sociopolitical divisions within that country, while further weakening the system’s potential for economic growth and development. At the same time, enough effort to bring about a regime change in favor of an opening with the United States and the West has been carefully sidestepped to allow the Iranian hardliners a freer hand in maintaining a sustainable level of stability through force and oppression.
It is not an accident or miscalculation that these economic sanctions or the ones currently on the drafting board have not been and are not going to be truly “crippling”. As outlines above, truly crippling sanctions would prove counterproductive in achieving the desired effects.
The only conceivable negative or dangerous blowback from following this course is the increasing prominence of the Iranian military establishment, which when push comes to shove, might not behave according to the plans, and mayhem might ensue beyond anyone’s control.
Is there a way out of this devastating stalemate, devastating for the Iranian people, of course?
Ironically, a reformed Iran that would bow to pressures to abandon its defiant stance and cease its posture as an existential threat to Israel would encourage Israel to attack Iran in the guise of self-defense, thus opening the door to another lengthy hellfire in the region. This, however, would not happen if Israel were assured by the United States of continuous, even dramatically increased, diplomatic, economic and military support, as well as a secret green light to torpedo any peace arrangements with the Palestinians. There are signs that this process is already under way.
No longer perceived as a threat to international peace and security, the Iranian regime would lose its best argument to sacrifice the nation’s economic development and social reforms for the sake of national security and territorial integrity.
We have ultraconservative hawks that wield enormous power affecting our nation’s course right here in the United States. Why should we be surprised that there are hawks in Iran with even more legitimate reasons to remain steadfast in conducting its politics?
The recent anti regime demonstrations against the presidential elections’ results in Iran, the cries for human rights or the rights of women and the now more vocal protests by high ranking reform minded clergy, presage at least the potential for positive changes within the Iranian society, should certain preconditions, as mentioned above, pave the way.
I frankly fail to see anything positive in what the various Iranian web sites or political observers, critics and academics are engaging in. Whom are they trying to convince that the Iranian regime is oppressive and that the Iranian people, particularly the youth, want more freedom and economic opportunity? How is it going to help to keep highlighting negative news about the goings on inside Iran? What good could conceivably come from the demonstrations staged by the Iranian communities here and in Western Europe against the Iranian regime? Aren’t they all preaching to the proverbial choir?
So what if the presidential elections were rigged as so many Iranian scholars believe? Supposing Mr.Mousavi had actually won the elections: How would that have changed the political dynamics inside and outside the country? Suppose Ayatollah Khameneh’i were replaced by Hojat-ol-Islam Rafsanjani: Would things have changed for the better?
Why are we so blind not to see that Iran, a major player and a consequential factor in the affairs of the Middle East, is not now and will not be in any foreseeable future in a position to determine its own course to follow without regard to all the peripheral issues in that region?
Rather than hyperventilating passionately about irrelevant, albeit important, stuff, perhaps our astute thinkers and analysts should come up with workable alternatives to speed up the process of change, both with regard to Iran’s international relations, as well as its internal problems. There is nothing easier or more wasteful than emotionally driven criticism.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Here We Go Again
September 25, 2009
He’s Baaaaack!!
Mr. Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, is back. He was met by a welcoming committee; no, not just by the well-wishing Orthodox New York rabbis (the self-hating Jews!) who are as anti-Zionist as he is, but by the Iranian American “Green” folks who cannot stand the sight of the diminutive firebrand fellow.
Ever since his address at Tehran University on the occasion of the Quds Day (the plight of the Palestinians day) a couple of weeks ago, we have been hearing and reading about the horrible lies uttered by the Iranian president again that the Holocaust never happened.
Outside of some little known fringe elements and weird Jewish sects, Ahmadinejad does not seem to have any sympathizers here. He is very short and looks like he needs a shave and a proper haircut. He does not dress well, either. In stark contrast, when you see photos of, for example, Mr. Netanyahu and President Obama taken at a White House meeting, the Israeli Prime Minister looks elegant and authoritative; and if you didn’t know better, you’d think he was the President of the most powerful nation on earth and Obama was his underling! Or is this really the case?
Last year, the president of Columbia University called Ahmadinejad a petty dictator when he introduced him to the audience that had come to hear what the Iranian president had to say. Many thought Ahmadinejad was so dense that he did not get the point and simply walk out of the auditorium in protest.
Why, one might rightfully ask, is Ahmadinejad so pissed at the Zionists and their supporters that he is blaming the problems in the Middle East and Iran’s negative portrayal in the West, particularly in the United States, on Israeli politics?
Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact, for example, that Israel has been threatening to attack Iran militarily for the past couple of decades?
As was the case regarding his first publicized utterances about the Holocaust and wanting to “wipe Israel off the face of the map”, the latest statements attributed to Mr. Ahmadinejad need not be scrutinized to see what the man actually said or intended to say. From as high up as the White House and the State Department, down to our television news anchors and national and local newspapers, the near unanimous view is that the Iranian president does not believe the Holocaust ever took place, and that he intends to destroy the Jewish state of Israel.
Any attempt to clarify Ahmadinejad’s statements by pointing to misquotations, mistranslations from Farsi into English, colloquial parlance versus literal interpretations or contextual manipulations, will fall on deaf ears. Then, why doesn’t Mr. Ahmadinejad or his handlers at least try to clarify all this misunderstanding that has been causing such turmoil in the Western circles?
Is it, perhaps, because he does not really believe that the misrepresentations of his position are caused by accidental glitches in translation, as many believe? Maybe, on the contrary, he thinks that the distortions of his views are quite deliberate, as I personally believe, in which case, anything he says will face the same fate; so why even bother.
Another well attired, very articulate gentleman, Lou Dobbs of CNN, the man who just might make himself graciously available for a Senate or even a higher position some day, perhaps along with the other legend-in-his-own-mind, Bill O’Reilly of Fox fame, had a couple of “experts” on his show a few days ago to talk about the recent decision by Mr. Obama to back off from installing the missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic, supposedly designed to protect Israel, Europe and even the United States from Iranian attacks. Of course everybody with a modicum of international savvy knew that the missile shields had nothing to do with Iran, but Russia.
The two “experts” were not in disagreement regarding the real and present danger of an Iranian ballistic missile attack, but disagreed on whether the deployment of deterrent arsenal on board ships in the Mediterranean and elsewhere would be even more effective.
On the background was the map of Iran with circles drawn around it to indicate the range of targets Iran’s short and medium range ballistic missiles would reach. Regarding Iran’s long-range missiles, one “expert” maintained that Iran is not yet in possession of such weapons, while the other “expert” pointed out that Iran has already managed to send a satellite into orbit!
Naturally, there was no expert to debate whether the whole charade about an Iranian missile or nuclear threat has any foundation in reality or is just a political ploy to serve other ulterior agendas.
So, in addition to what we know about the president of Iran’s intentions to destroy Israel, the American people also know that Iran is developing all kinds of ballistic missiles to attack the rest of the world. Next, of course, is Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Just imagine; the Islamic Republic of Iran whose leader wants to eliminate Israel, and attack Europe and the United States, is now building long-range missiles and is trying to develop atomic bombs to carry out its evil intentions!
And then there is the monumental issue of human rights violations in the Islamic Republic, particularly the violations of the rights of those very special humans who were protesting the results of the recent presidential elections that they claimed were fraudulent. Naturally, as is always the case, if things don’t go your way, something must have gone wrong! Can we recall any exceptions to this rule anywhere?
Millions, according to the opposition figures, had demonstrated in the streets of Tehran and elsewhere for several days and on several occasions. The “barbaric” crackdown by the security “thugs” who had shown no respect for civilized values resulted in the deaths of some thirty-five to a couple of hundred demonstrators (not counting the “thugs” themselves), depending on the source of the figures, which, if we take the opposition’s own casualty numbers, translates to less than one-hundredth of one percent of the demonstrators.
Of course, casualties in any number are not acceptable, even if the protesting mobs attack public facilities or storm the armories and threaten the riot police. But to get a feel for the scale of such atrocities, we might compare the figures to those in the most recent protest demonstrations in Western China, or Sri-Lanka, or Gaza, or perhaps the friendly, civilized Turkey.
It might also be interesting to imagine what the outcome would be if such large scale anti regime demonstrations were to take place in our “friendly, moderate” Islamic country, Egypt.
It might be equally interesting to imagine a huge crowd of angry anti-war protesters charging the Pentagon or the State Department while chanting “death to the dictator”. I just wonder how peacefully the police and the National Guard would have reacted to that.
I know many were disappointed that the protests in Iran did not result in truly massive bloodshed and chaos; the scenario did not pan out as hoped by “some”! Did it?
First, let us look at the Holocaust denial issue:
Regardless of how you translate, transliterate or interpret Mr. Ahmadinejad’s words spoken on several occasions about the Holocaust, it would be quite safe to assume the following:
He believes that the concept of anti-Semitism was created in Europe, even before WWI, in an effort to get rid of their unwanted Jewish populations. The original Zionists, he believes, adopted the same tactic in order to encourage and facilitate the creation of an exclusively Jewish homeland somewhere else (Zionism). He believes that the Holocaust was a ploy, a convenient pretext, exaggerated and embellished by the Zionist propaganda machine and encouraged by the colonial powers (mainly Great Britain), in order to justify the creation of a Jewish state away from Europe in Palestine.
He asks; if Holocaust has taken place in Europe and admittedly by the Europeans themselves, why then have the European nations not created a homeland for the dispossessed Jews somewhere in Europe – why did they dump the non-indigenous European Jews in the Palestinian lands?
He goes on to claim that the “illegitimate” state of Israel, helped and protected by its Western benefactors, has been committing atrocities against the native inhabitants of the land they have usurped, and continues to carry out its aggressive policies with impunity and without regard to international norms.
Ahmadinejad blames Israel’s leaders and Israel’s influence within the American administrations for the decades-long rift between Iran and the United States.
To put it bluntly, Ahmadinejad does not like Zionism and believes that, like Communism that disappeared in Soviet Union, Zionism or “the regime of occupation” as he calls it, will also vanish.
Here we can come up with a few important questions. First of all, why does Mr. Ahmadinejad, if he is really not a Holocaust denier, explain his position more clearly so that he is not blamed for denying a historical truth that the event did take place? He clearly must know better.
The answer might be, because he does not consider the issue of Holocaust as a sacred, untouchable subject, any doubt cast upon whose established narratives to be tantamount to committing a cardinal sin.
Then again he might be so mad at the Israeli regime that he enjoys taunting the Zionists by deliberately questioning the authenticity of the Holocaust narratives.
Finally, let us simply assume the worst, that he is genuinely of the opinion that the whole story is no more than a myth created by the Zionists and their colonial protectors to justify the creation of a homeland on top of another people’s ancestral territory.
In his interviews by television network anchors during his current visit, Ahmadinejad asked why the issue of Holocaust has overshadowed all other, far more important, issues of international concern here in the West. Didn’t tens of millions of others also perish during the same war, he asked. By asking this question, and pointing to the fact, as he has done in the past, that opening the discussion regarding the details of the Holocaust is prohibited in the West, he is clearly implying that this sacred veil of secrecy was created by the Zionists to promote their own agendas to this day.
On the basis of that assumption, let us examine what actual damage his utterances might be causing, and to whom. What kinds of “harm” are done, and to whom, by Ahmadinejad’s “denial” of the Holocaust?
Will the world leaders believe him and suddenly withdraw all financial, military and diplomatic support from Israel? On the contrary, if anything, that would be a good reason to intensify all that to protect Israel from the wrath of a madman! So, the Israeli regime should be happy that Ahmadinejad behaves as he does. What a gift he is to the Zionist cause! I believe Mr. Netanyahu has already said something to that effect!
Will the United States listen to Mr. Ahmadinejad and pressure Israel to move back to its 1948 borders and make reparations to the dispossessed Palestinians? Not in this lifetime!
Would Ahmadinejad’s lying about the Holocaust create loss of fortunes or, heaven forbid, lives, anywhere in the world? If he is just lying through his teeth, he is only doing damage to his own credibility and to his own country’s relations with the rest of the world. So, what do we care?
In contrast, there are lies, distortions and disinformation that do cause immense harm all the way around. We are not talking about hurting people’s “feelings” or denying them their lunch ticket, as the Israeli scholar and the son of Holocaust victims, professor and author Norman Finkelstein describes as the Holocaust Industry in his book of that name.
We are talking about lies such as those that have cost a million innocent lives in Iraq, not to mention over four thousand young American lives plus tens of thousands injured. We are talking about lies and disinformation about the “dangers” that Iran is posing to the region and the world, which might drag us into another, much deeper, quagmire if we let the theatrical stage show get out of hand.
The current charade staged at the Senate to justify another immense expenditure for the redeployment of upgraded missile defense shields by our armed forces is a sign that the military-industrial complex still rules. The three and four-star generals appeared so serious when making their presentations about the danger Iran poses to our security and how prepared they are to ward off any potential attack upon our soil, to make us all feel at ease that we are in such good hands!
Yes, there is no denying that Iran might be posing a real and present danger or threat: it is the danger or threat that Iran might actually defend itself and retaliate against aggression with all its might. Is that what is worrying our military chiefs?
Second issue is the established nonsense that the Iranian president wants to destroy Israel. First of all, he has never declared such a thing and is in no position to make such a decision within Iran’s constitution and its political hierarchy. Second, there is absolutely nothing to gain for Iran, and everything to lose, by attempting such a stupid act. Third, Iran does not even have the capability of attacking Israel without being wiped out in return by Israel’s vast, illegal, nuclear arsenal and the American support.
And then there is the issue of Iran’s nuclear programs. The Iranians have already said that Iran’s inalienable, legal under the NPT, rights to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes will not be discussed in any negotiations between the representatives of the G5+1 and Iran. Well, our State Department does not like that. We (really meaning the Israelis) insist that Iran’s enrichment programs must be stopped right away because we (actually the Israelis) do not trust neither Iran nor the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for saying that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons or enriching uranium to weapons grade levels.
I was about ready to post this article on my web site when the bold graphics on the TV screen announced “Breaking News”. The CNN morning anchor, Heidi Collins, had not even had enough time to put on her full makeup when she excitedly announced the discovery of a clandestine nuclear enrichment site in Iran.
Right after this shocking news, President Obama appeared on the screen, accusing Iran of cheating again and demanding that Iran adhere to its obligations under the NPT agreements, and that IAEA should immediately begin monitoring the activities at the new facilities.
Well, Mr. President, Iran, a signatory to the NPT had already done what you demand. They had already informed the IAEA of the intention to open their new enrichment facilities still under construction, perfectly legal and in accord with the NPT agreement, prior to embarking on the actual operations. We should remember that the additional protocol requiring informing the IAEA prior to the construction of the facilities was rejected in 2003. By inviting the IAEA inspectors to monitor the enrichment process, Iran will remain compliant with the NPTrequirements, that the enrichment remains at the level necessary for fuel rod production.
The construction of such facilities in the vicinity of a major metropolitan area could not have been too “clandestine”. You cannot hide a pink elephant inside a chicken farm! According to reports, the White House knew about it in January of this year.
The United States, clearly on behest of the Israeli manipulators, has adopted the position that we cannot tolerate Iran even acquiring the “knowledge” of the technology that could conceivably enable it to build a nuclear weapon. In fact, both the United States and Israel (again, a purely Israeli demand) do not want Iran to be armed with the anti-missile and anti-aircraft “defensive” arsenal that Russia has promised to sell Iran. Why? Are we and Israelis planning to attack Iran and are worried that those missiles might cause us some harm? How obvious could thing get, pray tell?
Perhaps what Iran should do is to declare that, should the threats of harsh sanctions, blockades or preemptive attacks continue, Iran would exercise its legal right to, like North Korea, pull out of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and join Israel, Pakistan and India as non members. After all, what is there to worry about since whether Iran allows intrusive inspections by the IAEA or exercises its legal rights to quit the NPT and kick out the inspectors and monitors, suspicions of its cheating and wrongdoing will continue to haunt it?
In conclusion, let us look at the text of Ahmadinejad’s speech and see what the man said at the United Nations General Assembly on September 23.
Once we ignore the usual religious invocations and appeals to the Almighty for the salvation of the human race,
what remained from his address was his very real and down to earth complaint regarding the current affairs, particularly in the Middle East.
The issues of great gravity and concern centered around superpower, meaning the United States and its Western allies, manipulating the region’s social, political and economic affairs to the detriment of the region’s nations on the pretext of promoting freedom and democracy and eradicating terrorism. He referred to it as the neo-colonialists’ predatory capitalism that is ravaging the planet with little regard for the welfare of the less advantaged in the world.
He also blamed Israel for its treatment of the Palestinian people, whose ancestral land was wrongfully occupied by the Zionists. Most importantly, he complained against the double standards applied by the Western powers when dealing with Iran, whether with regard to its nuclear technology, support for what the West calls international terror organizations, as well as accusations of human rights violations.
Granted, Mr. Ahmadinejad was his usual self, not holding anything back in his address. His tirades about the Israelis and their supporters were blunt, scathing and to the point. He had no problem showing his disdain against a regime that, as he said, has been threatening to attack Iran in violation of all international laws and the UN Charter.
No doubt, Ahmadinejad said many things that did not sit well with those who marched out of the session in protest. The question is, what did he say that was not true?
No one should be blamed for not liking the Iranian president, for whatever reason, personal or otherwise, or whether they are Americans, Europeans, Jews, Iranians or Iranian Americans. He is very easy to dislike. And, he is clearly not fazed at all by the way the media here have treated him.
But to discard what he has been saying about the real and present troubles in his region, just because he questions the authenticity of a sixty-year-old sacred cow or because the adjectives he uses in describing the behavior of certain “friends” of a superpower are harsh, is not fair, honest or productive.
THE DANGERS OF OVER EXUBERANCE
The Fate of Iran’s Reform Movement
August 5, 2009
My web site, “intellectualdiscourse.com”, was activated early in 2002, and since then, I have been posting my monthly essays that have focused on Iran, especially the US/Iran relations and entanglements. Even though I may not have always been successful at the attempt, I have tried to remain objectively analytical and dispassionate in my approach. In short, I have endeavored to clear the dust of propaganda, bias and hypocrisy that saturate the news and information media, in order to bring to light the realities hidden behind the fog of politically motivated disinformation that serves the special interest groups’ agendas.
Since the prevailing mindsets are so successfully manipulated by agenda-driven propaganda machines, my attempt at unraveling some of the more complex issues have at times been regarded as overly Machiavellian or convoluted. In spite of that, what has encouraged me to stay the course has been that, looking back, I would not change any or much of what I had presented in my analyses or predictions, which the events have borne out.
There are two basic approaches to pontificating on current affairs. One approach is offering opinions and suggestions based on one’s personal ideology or preferences, sometimes, but not necessarily, clearly aimed at benefiting the opinion molder in some way. The other approach is to untangle the confusing web of events in order to obtain a clearer picture of the dynamics that drive these events, without offering unsolicited solutions to perceived problems or suggesting directives as to how things should be. The first approach falls within the job descriptions of ideologues, politicians and preachers, and the second is in the domain of analytical observation and true journalism, an increasingly rare commodity these days.
Although I have chosen the second path, I find nothing wrong with efforts by people of good will and honest intentions to campaign for or against specific causes or political systems, individually or in organized groups with stated objectives. In the case of the true analysts, their personal knowledge, involvement, background and, most of all, track record, determine their credibility. If correct in their assessments of the situation, their findings could then serve to plot the path to whatever direction the desired objective may lie. In other words, the analyst does not determine the desired objective, but could provide guidelines that might help in reaching a given destination, impartially and objectively.
On the other hand, for the agenda-driven activists who choose to get involved in sociopolitical movements, the process is actually a lot more complicated than it might at first appear. Points to ponder may include the following:
1- What exactly is the desired objective, not in broad or vague terms such as demanding global harmony, a better life, a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage, freedom, democracy, and the like, but as clearly and specifically stated as possible?
2- Once unambiguously stated, and that is seldom if ever the case, is the desired objective achievable in practical terms and within a reasonable time frame?
3- If so, at what costs, economically, socially or emotionally, short term, as well as long, is the objective achievable?
4- What are the potential stumbling blocks or blowbacks?
5- What are the most significant ramifications or peripheral consequences of striving toward that objective?
This takes me to the main theme of this essay: the current unrest in Iran, what factors are at work and where it might lead.
Iran is not some uncharted island, terra incognito, in the middle of a forbidding ocean. Issues dealing with any country in this ever shrinking world, and that includes Iran, must be addressed within a larger regional context, as well as with due consideration of broader global interests and dynamics. It would be insane to think that Iran could independently plot its own merry developmental course as might a small island nation in the South Pacific. Iran, a large, well populated country, strategically located with highly significant natural resources and economic potentials, has a lot to consider and worry about, no matter what direction it chooses to take or what methods it adopts to reach its goals.
But before entering into the debates regarding the post elections’ unrest and subsequent developments in Iran, we should flush out some of most pertinent factors that affect, and will be affected by, these developments.
There are three major elements of concern for Iran and the immediate region surrounding it.
First- American and allied military presence surrounding the country on all sides, with demonstrated objectives of destabilizing the Iranian regime and preventing its economic development.
Second- Israel and its never concealed agenda to remain the dominant and unchallenged military force in the Middle East, and to deny the Palestinians any chance for a meaningful statehood or, in the absence of that, integration into the Israeli society.
Third- The West’s economic interests that include the region’s energy resources and its lucrative marketplace.
First, the rationale and the function of the American forces’ presence in the region:
Without going into great detail or background of why and how we have reached this point, the American military bases on land and in the seas encircle Iran, presumably to be prepared for any eventuality and to provide support for the ongoing campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan (the so-called war on terror), and to keep the sea lanes open for the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf. What are these eventualities that the American forces might be preparing for?
On the surface, and purely for public consumption, one major eventuality, perhaps the only one always pointed to, is a potential Iranian military assault on American naval or land forces, closure of the shipping lanes, attack on Saudi Arabian oil fields or, heaven forbid, a missile strike upon Israel.
As insane as such conjectures sound, official pronouncements by the American administration, Israel and certain Western governments continue to raise such concerns. The question should be; Why?
If we discount the ludicrous presumption that the Iranian leaders are mentally deficient or suicidal, it would be impossible to fabricate a scenario in which Iran might choose to initiate a military attack on anybody in the region, which would undoubtedly result in Iran’s own total devastation. How could it then be possible that the American administration and the Israeli leaders would not be aware of this reality?
By the same token, isn’t it also ludicrous to assume that the American and Israeli leaders are a bunch of incompetent imbeciles who truly regard Iran as an existential threat to Israel and a danger to the world at large?
In my opinion, it stands to reason that it is not the fear of a nuclear armed Iran which might initiate a global holocaust out of shear madness. If there really is a fear, it would be the concern that Iran might, just might, respond to and retaliate against an armed attack or incursion upon its territory or installations. This, at least, would make a lot more sense and is, even if not strategically a wise choice for Iran, actually within the realm of possibility.
For the sake of sanity, let us dispel the myth once and for all that the Islamic Republic of Iran plans to become the region’s sole superpower, hegemonize the oil-rich Middle East and establish a Shi’ite Caliphate. So, if Iran is not truly the awesome evil that might unleash its might against its neighbors, Europe and the United States, and is not planning to gain nuclear weapons to reign over the vital oil regions of the Middle East, what would the reason be for concern about any potential retaliatory attack by Iran? Who would need to attack Iran, and why, to which Iran might supposedly respond aggressively?
The logic or probability of such an event begins to fade when practically every military analyst, American, Israeli or Iranian, have concluded that no matter how devastating a massive preemptive military attack against Iran might be, the Iranians will have enough firepower left to do some serious damage to the American fleet and installations, the oil production facilities of Saudi Arabia and particularly to the state of Israel.
Therefore, if Iran would not be the initiator of any military attack, and if initiating a preemptive attack upon Iran will have dire consequences which nobody wants, then what is all this fuss about, anyway?
*For those who have not read my previous articles on the subject, my answer to this question will come a bit later.
Second, the Israeli interests and agendas:
What doe the sixty-years-long history of Israel’s statehood tell us that would leave any doubt as to its visions and agendas? Whether we like it or approve of it, Israel has gained in population, territory, infrastructure, wealth, military power, and above all, increasing financial and diplomatic support from the United States and some Western European countries. Meanwhile, the Palestinians have been losing their ancestral territories, homes, farms and means of livelihood and, above all, have been stripped of their human dignity. Supporters of Zionism put the blame for this historical imbalance squarely on the Palestinians for, among other things, not ever missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
This so-called “opportunity” that is often rhetorically repeated clearly implies the chance given the Palestinians on occasion to give up their resistance against the superior force, accept the fate of the conquered, abandon any demands for reparation or repatriation, and to put themselves at the mercy of their conquerors. This fate, they are told, is better than losing out ever more by resisting the irresistible, much like knocking their heads against a stone wall to break through – it ain’t going to happen.
Since human beings cannot always be broken and tamed like wild animals, the Palestinian resistance and struggle and hope for some breakthrough shall continue until not much remains worth fighting for. And that conclusion seems to be what Israel’s agenda has been aiming for.
Realistically speaking, Israel does not see any reason to change the strategy that has worked so well to this point in time. Israelis know it, and so do the decision makers in the American administrations, Republican or Democrat. So, why all this charade about the Obama administration now “pressuring” the Israelis to stop their settlements expansions and to enter into peace talks with the Palestinians, while Netanyahu and his fellow hardliners parade as though there really is some kind of a rift between the two administrations? Who’re we kidding? The public relations strategists, both American and Israeli, are doing a great job staging this phony drama.
Since in reality both the American and the Israeli administrations know that the territorial expansion, enlargement of the illegal settlements, and the siege on the Palestinian lands will continue until the Palestinians become marginalized and the issue becomes a non-issue, the charade is an attempt to find some believable or marketable justification for Israel to carry on its agenda and appear cleared of any blame by the international community, at least by those who must remain Israel’s loyal benefactors.
This, of course, does not mean that the Palestinians’ cause is doomed and all hope is forever lost. There remains only one solution to this historical tragedy, and that is the rising voices of opposition to the Zionist agenda by Israel’s own liberal intellectuals and certain religious Jewish groups, who predict that the current trends are not sustainable, and worse, might lead to yet another Holocaust sooner or later.
*How this charade is being staged and who the players are will come later.
Third is the strategic significance of Iran within the context of the region’s energy resources.
Anyone who knows something about our world’s socioeconomic dynamics, might wonder why the oil producing countries centered around the Persian Gulf have not attempted to form some kind of union or cartel, a real OPEC, to dictate the price of crude by tying it to a number of basic industrial commodities and include annual inflation figures, as well as some depletion factor for dwindling reserves. The observer might also wonder why the producers of crude oil do not enjoy the economic benefits of exporting value-added downstream products rather than selling that oil unrefined. In other words, why is OPEC so impotent in dealing with the giant international oil companies?
Why is Iran suffering from a shortage of gasoline and diesel fuel to a point that preventing or limiting the importation of these products through military blockade or sanctions would bring Iran’s vital transport industry to its knees? If Iran did have enough refining capacity to produce all its own internal fuel needs, would threat of sanction or blockade against imports of gasoline and diesel fuel have any effect?
Similarly, if Iran would agree to become dependent on imported fuel rods for its fledgling nuclear power plants, would that not also be another Achilles’ Heal to be exploited by external interests for various political reasons? Sanctions, direct or indirect, are the basic tools of “containment” enacted against Iran since before the first Gulf War.
The nation’s economy is also greatly dependent on the price of crude oil, Iran’s major source of foreign revenue. The Iranian regime has claimed that Iran’s annual budget has taken into account the price of crude oil at $35 per barrel, which is less than $1.50 per day, per capita, without even factoring in the costs of production! Even so, the international price of crude oil, and gas, plays a vital role in the nation’s economic development.
In addition to the effects of oil prices on Iran’s economic prospects, influencing and controlling the rate of production, the direction and the amount of oil exported from the Persian Gulf region, would have a major impact on the development of economies of certain other global concerns, such as Russia, China, Brazil and India. Therefore, any instability in the Middle East could be exploited as a tool to influence the economic prospects of potential global challengers to the Western superpowers.
There should be little doubt as to why the United States desires to maintain its military presence and bases in the sea and on lands where major oil producing countries enjoy the highest degree of protection, and where the “compliant” regimes are sheltered from criticism and condemnation by the Western media for their systems of government and violations of human rights, particularly the civil rights of women.
It also is no surprise that the comparatively speaking “liberal”, but non-compliant, Iran, where women enjoy far greater liberties and opportunities, or where political parties and opposition groups not only exist but, in spite of all attempts by the regime, do openly voice their opinions and debate the issues of contention, is the subject of constant criticism by the Western media and governments for not being open or democratic enough.
Now back to the current unrest in Iran:
Regarding the elections process, doubt has been raised by the opposition groups, headed by the presidential contender, Mousavi, as to the honesty of the process. This, of course, is not at all unusual. In an almost daily or weekly basis we see in the media some defeated contender, in some important elections somewhere, challenging the results of the elections and accusing the winning party of fraud, demanding a recount, a new elections or a public referendum. So, what else is new?
In Iran’s case, Mr. Mousavi might have a valid argument, but most certainly no evidentiary proof of such a claim other than in the minds of his supporters or, much more correctly put, in the minds of those who may not be particularly enamored by any particular opposition candidate, but are simply opposed to the current regime, each for their own respective reasons.
Question: Do the various opposition groups and candidates demand the same kind of reforms, and if so, what exactly are their demands?
In my previous writing dated July 20, With Friends Like This, Who Needs Enemies, appearing in my web site, I went into some detail as to what these disparate opposition groups hope to achieve. The only common denominator among all these groups is their disdain for the current power structure, which, rightly or wrongly, is blamed for most of the social and economic problems that have stagnated the nation, with little opening in site.
Even if the various opposition leaders and their constituencies did manage to cooperate in some form of a workable coalition to challenge the current leadership, something that is highly unlikely in my estimate, the questions that should logically follow are the five points mentioned in the fifth paragraph of this essay.
We all know that Iran has for decades been struggling along under severe economic restrictions and diplomatic pressures primarily by the United States. We also know that the Islamic Republic’s leadership has itself been struggling to stay afloat and to keep the center or core of the Islamic Revolution intact.
Whether the post-revolution, post hostage crisis and post Iran/Iraq war Iranian regime could have adopted a more conciliatory stance against the United States, short of total capitulation, is beyond the scope of this writing. Suffice it to say that most Iranians abroad and many urbanite elite and liberal secularists inside Iran hold not only the ineptitude of the clerical establishment responsible for Iran’s predicament, they also regard the very nature of any theocratic regime, meaning the Islamic Revolution itself, as a fundamentally flawed, retrogressive historical anachronism.
Take, for example, those Iranians of Baha’i faith who have been treated, at best as a disfavored minority, and at worst persecuted as heretics, in their own homeland? Considering that this anti Baha’i sentiment also exists in other Islamic lands such as Egypt, can anyone blame these folks for having a grudge against Islam or Islamic states?
Similarly, it is understandable that those who abandoned their fortunes and social standing in the course of the Islamic Revolution to find refuge elsewhere would also desire to see a reversal of their fates and to regain their lost wealth and fame. Many among them would welcome the return of the monarchy under the leadership of Price Reza Pahlavi, hoping for a reestablishment of a system similar to the one that had provided them or their parents with such grand opportunities.
The intelligentsia, the academics and the liberal-left, find the atmosphere of their homeland intellectually suffocating and rightfully blame the conservative religious orthodoxy for the lack of broader openings and social liberties.
The more Western oriented urbanites desire to shed most social restrictions imposed upon them by the regime, sometime in the guise of internal security and other times to enforce the Islamic code of morals and ethics.
In short, when we hear outcries during massive, anti regime demonstrations demanding reform, what kind of reform is it that they want? Is it illogical to assume that it is the very fundamentals of the theocratic regime, the tenets of the Islamic Revolution, that is being attacked as responsible for what ails the Iranian society? When the chants and placards proclaim “Death to the Dictator”, are they simply demanding a replacement of the current “Velayat-e-Faghih” with a more open-minded “Velayat-e-Faghih”, or are they demanding the abolishment of the whole concept, altogether ?
But the whole concept was what the original Khomeini revolution was all about. So, when we hear the opposition movement leaders, Mousavi, Khatami or Karroubi, each blaming the current regime for having betrayed the original tenets of the Islamic Revolution, they are either paying condescending lip service to appease the masses loyal to the Islamic Republic, or all three are honest Islamists who have no intention of replacing the regime with a secular, modernist model.
In the first instance, any “reform” movement away from the path established by the Islamic Revolution under Ayatollah Khomeini would lead to a bloody confrontation with not only the armed forces and the Basij, but by the multitudes that remain forever loyal to the Islamic revolution, and we are talking about the bulk of the population that is not afraid, as history has shown, of bloodying their noses. The consequences of such an attempt at counter-revolution is either a massive bloodbath and disintegration of Iran as a viable nation, or the reestablishment of an even more repressive regime and the mass exodus of the more affluent people, those who don’t like their noses bloodied, from the scene, much like the events of 1978-79.
In the second Instance, the replacement of the current leadership of the nation with another “Islamist” group, albeit a more “moderate” type, would not satisfy the demands of the various groups who have been struggling all these years for not just visible, but meaningful reforms. Even if the new regime is “reform” minded to a degree acceptable by the progressives, it would take years to implement the desired changes and, consequently, the struggles and opposition movements shall continue, one presidential election after another presidential election!
I would like to conclude this essay by answering the two questions highlighted by asterisks.
As explained before, in spite of all the politically motivated nonsense, nobody seriously believes that Iran is a military threat to anybody in the region or to the world. Even if attacked or otherwise provoked, Iran would likely not retaliate directly from the fear of massive counterattacks by formidable foes.
On the other hand, it would make no logical sense for anyone, meaning either Israel or the United States, to launch a preemptive attack upon Iran, as any response, although unlikely as mentioned above, could be costly to all concerned. Furthermore, a preemptive strike would not accomplish the stated objectives that might justify such action.
If the foregoing analysis is correct, I can only conclude that it is the portrayal, not the reality, of the Islamic Republic of Iran as an unpredictable threat that is serving the purpose all the way around. This portrayal not only justifies America’s open-ended military presence in the region to safeguard America’s interests in that vital strategic region, but also serves the interests of the vast military industrial complex at home.
The pariah state of Iran and its ties to other regional elements serve the interests of the state of Israel, as well. With Iran portrayed as an existential threat to Israel, the Jewish state has the most convenient and unwittingly accommodating scapegoat to dodge pressures by the international community to deal with the Palestinian issues or to open its doors to its clandestine nuclear weapons stockpile for international monitoring. As long as Iran remains regarded as a threat, Israel will get whatever it wants, much to the pleasure of its Zionist backers in the United States Congress, while enjoying the support of the innocently misinformed American public.
For this charade to go on, Iran must be kept alive as the evil entity in the region. Without a Soviet Union to play the role of a global nemesis, the threat of Islam variously defined by terms such as Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic extremism, Islamic fanaticism, etc., we have what now has become lumped together as Islamic terrorism.
The Middle Eastern Arab states are, categorically speaking, under control, either enjoying America’s support or kept at bay by American or its regional surrogate’s military threats. Non-Arab Islamic states of Afghanistan and Pakistan are already under American military assault. Iran remains the only outstanding defiant or “rogue” state to play the role of an Islamic “threat” worthy of the name, and is playing its role rather convincingly, to the delight of the American mass media which are lapping it all up like sharks in a feeding frenzy.
It was an education watching the Indian born Fareed Zakaria two Sundays ago interviewing the Iranian professor of sociology from Tehran University on his weekly CNN program to ask him about the ongoing post elections events. Mr. Zakaria’s biographical brief on Wikipedia is well worth reading. Not knowing the truth about this journalistic cross-dresser, one would think that he should have a clearer handle on the realities and dynamics of socio-politics of the Islamic Middle East than would the average Western correspondent.
Mr. Zakaria had the answers he wanted to hear already framed in his own questions, ending each lengthy question with: Is it not so? When the professor refused to bite into his bait after the second and third attempt, Mr. Zakaria simply concluded that the man was understandably afraid to admit the truth!
Since this so-called interview was pre-recorded and partially edited, one would wonder why Fareed Zakaria would have wanted to embarrass himself by broadcasting this unprofessional, Sean Hannity (Fox TV) style, show. The answer is sadly quite simple: the audiences who watch these shows are already well indoctrinated to buy into the propaganda lines; and Mr. Zakaria’s popularity and ratings continue to rise – screw journalistic integrity! This catfish did not stay a bottom-feeder for very long and is headed up toward the top of the food chain.
Now, if the “masterplan” is for Israel and the United States (and in that order) to exploit the demonization of the Islamic Republic of Iran for as long as possible, how does that bear on Iran’s future developments in terms of its economic projects and, more to the point at this juncture, the efforts by reformist groups to bring about their desired changes?
Clearly, any effort, regardless of how genuinely indigenous and patriotic, which would create chaos and instability inside the country and exacerbate the already negative image of the regime, can and will be exploited by those who benefit from such internal unrest. This kind of “benefit” is certainly not what the opposition leaders and demonstrators had in mind during and pursuant to the contested presidential elections.
Similarly, genuine, heartfelt support by many, but certainly not all, foreign based Iranians for the reformists in the homeland can and will be used by those who would sacrifice the Iranian nation for the sake of their own interests in a heartbeat.
It would take an idiot to believe that the media coverage and Administration rhetoric here about even the most trivial events in Iran, and the expressions of sympathy for the Iranian dissidents, women, the jobless and those screaming for democracy and freedom, are motivated purely by humanitarian goodwill. Atrocities and violations of human rights have been and continue to be taking place at a much larger scale not that far way from Iran in the Israeli occupied territories, but where do we see any proportionate coverage by the American media or comments by the Administration officials? Where are the voices of concern for the fate of Arab women in Saudi Arabia, or the social repressions in Egypt or Turkey? Are we to believe that there are no opposition groups who would like to have the same opportunity as their Iranian counterparts to demonstrate in front of foreign cameras in other states in the region, or in Africa, China, or elsewhere? Or is it only Iran that deserves all the coverage and to receive all that “sympathy”?
How many Americans tune in to programs such as Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” on Free Speech TV or democracynow.org on the internet?
So what are the proponents of reform in Iran to do? Every time the prey entangled in the spider’s web makes a move, the drawstrings pull even tighter.
For the indigenous progressive reformist movements in Iran to have a chance to bring about positive results, simply opposing the status quo won’t be enough.
1- Above all, a carefully planned agenda or direction, clearly defined and well organized under a respected leadership who can bring together a coalition of the otherwise disparate flanks must be created.
2- Every effort should be made to distance the movement from outside interference, regardless of whether these gestures of support are genuine or disguised as such, in order to avoid tainting the movement in wrong colors.
3- It should be remembered that a non-belligerent Iran that could no longer be so easily portrayed as a threat to its neighbors, especially to Israel, would pose even a greater danger to its own security as well as to the regional stability. An Iran that would bow under pressure, abandon its defiant stance, adopt the mandates of the global power brokers, meaning submitting to total compliance, would create a dangerous vacuum that can only be filled by some “unfortunate” incident to reignite the mayhem! Nobody wants that, would they?
Nobody wants another real war in the region. A new war will not serve the interests of the United States or Israel, and certainly not Iran’s. On the other hand, the presence of a regional bogyman, if marketed successfully, as it has been, for the local consumption in the United States, clears the path for the American administration to allow Israel to carry out its agendas with impunity. Ironically, playing the role of the bogyman, Iran also escapes the consequences of some “unfortunate” Israeli staged incident that might trigger a disastrous regional conflict.
If the continuous presence of the bad boy on the block safeguards against Iran’s own destruction, any significant change in the regime’s confrontational attitude, or a replacement of the leadership with more moderate, reform oriented parties, must not appear as a sudden reversal by Iran of its hostile anti Western and anti Israel position.
So, while quiet, behind the scenes diplomatic negotiations between the United States and the Iranian regime continue, as they undoubtedly are, the theatrical stage show of threats and counter threats, muscle flexing and chest thumping by all sides plays its vital role. This is not that much different from the stage show put on to publicize a fictitious rift between the American and the Israeli administrations over the illegal settlements. The show must go on to validate the inevitable.
Those who believe that the reform movement in Iran has a chance to succeed, and those Iranians abroad who so enthusiastically voice their support for this movement, should be aware of all the peripheral contingencies that also must be taken into account. If the process is carried out hurriedly and with too much exuberance, either the reform movement will die before maturation, or the nation will disintegrate, making the whole issue irrelevant.
With Friends Like This, Who Needs Enemies?
July 20, 2009
Alligator tears seem to be drowning out many sincerely heartfelt tears shed over the post-election events in Iran. The agenda-driven outcries of accusation and condemnation against the Iranian regime for the handling of the recent presidential elections and the confirmation of Mr. Ahmadinejad for a second term have been receiving such a frenzied coverage in the Western media that there remains hardly any room for an objective, non emotional analysis of the issues.
Iranian expatriates, groups, organizations and web sites have now joined in with the various non Iranian activist movements, which seem to love Iran more than do the Iranians themselves, and whose aim is supposedly to promote freedom and democracy or to defend human rights in Iran. Most expatriate Iranians have started petitions asking the Obama administration to abandon soft diplomacy and to get tough with the Islamic Republic; in other words, to strengthen what they perceive to be a gathering momentum for an impending regime change in Tehran. Even the former prince, Reza Pahlavi has, once again, appealed to the Israeli regime to support the opposition movement in Iran. Of course, he and everybody else know why!
Meanwhile, the English speaking media and our official pronouncements about Iran employ a highly crafted language with powerful subliminal messages for the unwary. The BBC, for example, refers to the Bsiji militia as the “loyalists”! This is like calling the volunteer National Guard here a “loyalist” group. Mrs. Clinton misses no opportunity to sound insultingly acrimonious when warning Iran that the Islamic Republic better not test America’s patience in complying with the demands of a superior. And the Israeli regime makes sure that everyone, particularly the Iranian regime, sees its naval fleet approaching within striking distance of Iran’s sensitive strategic targets.
Regarding Iran’s alleged breech of the Non Proliferation Treaty, for which no one, including the IAEA, has been able to show a shred of evidence, the media and the Administration officials, even Mr. Obama, continue to refer to Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions as an established fact! Naturally, if one is to accept the allegation as a statement of fact, and if one also prefers to believe that the Iranian regime consists of a bunch of crazies or suicidal maniacs, the world should indeed be concerned about a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic.
Let us be realistic. A great majority of Iranians who live abroad do so because what they have left behind was worth abandoning for the gains in lifestyle – call it love for freedom or Western democracy, economic opportunity, etc. - elsewhere. On average, they are relatively well educated, culturally integrated and acclimated to the modern, Western lifestyles. They share much in tastes and preferences with many upper/middle class and elitist populations in Iran’s larger metropolitan areas who also find the social and economic conditions in Iran regressive, restrictive and increasingly unbearable. For most foreign based Iranians, as well as for the upper echelon Iranians inside Iran, the concept of a theocratic Islamic governance is a dark anachronism, a setback for modernity and integration into the progressive world as they know it. And they are right.
Of course they are right, that is if we revert back to the old and well established philosophy that, since a strategically located country with highly desirable natural resources will not be allowed to tread its own independent course, it is better to follow the path of, and be subservient to, the big and the powerful.
The 1978 chants in the streets of Tehran and other major cities, Independence, Freedom; Islamic Republic, have now faded away and, as we have witnessed in recent street demonstrations, have been replaced by Death to the Dictator. What does not seem to be understood or acknowledged is that the pre Islamic Revolution Iran was, in fact, a committed subservient to the superpower mandates under a superficially progressive but factually oppressive dictatorial monarchy. The Monarch at the time also believed the axiom that, since Iran was too strategic a country to be allowed to remain nonaligned, it was wiser, pragmatically speaking, to follow the dictates of the dominant global economic and military power, not just to survive, but to prosper as well.
One could easily argue that there is quite a bit of merit to that philosophy. But is this what the progressive, freedom-loving and placard-carrying folks demonstrating in the streets of Tehran want? The answer seems to be Yes; although few if any among them would be willing or brave enough to admit it as such. They claim, instead, that the Iranian nation is ready, willing and capable to shed the bonds of dictatorial, theocratic oppression and join the league of progressive nations as a coequal partner. If this means abandoning certain cherished traditions or national identity and pride, the prize is well worth the price. In time, they also maintain, all that is lost could be regained, and the large silent majority that seemed eternally content with the traditional lifestyles of the ages past will also welcome the economic improvements and the elevated standards of living afforded them by this involuntary emancipating process.
The problems with this mindset are twofold: A- Is the opposition movement currently underway able to achieve the desired results as the protesters and their leaders hope? To put it in a simpler sense; is some “velvet” revolution under way, which might result in a reasonably peaceful transition to an open secular democracy in Iran? B- Is a change of direction or a total regime-change what would benefit the Iranian nation in the 21st century world?
A-It is no surprise that the pro Israel organizations actively involved in steering America’s policies in the Middle East couldn’t be happier that Mr. Ahmadinejad has been reelected for a second term as Iran’s president. Opponents of any opening toward Iran by the Obama administration are also overjoyed and have spared no effort in sensationalizing the news of the unrest in the streets of Tehran and capitalizing on the regime’s crackdown on the demonstrators. President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, have already condemned the Iranian regime for its “unacceptable” treatment of “peaceful” demonstrations in Iran.
Now the American public knows what the civilized world is dealing with regarding the Iranian regime and the danger it poses to the world, should it be allowed to proceed with its nuclear weapons development!
Israel can now be assured that no rapprochement with the Islamic Republic of Iran is in the making, and the enemy state whose leader, Ahmadinejad, plans to wipe Israel off the face of the map, would be further isolated under economic restriction, even a blockade if necessary, for the foreseeable future.
With Iran thus portrayed as the evil on the block and deserving of the highest priority for containment, Israel can continue with unprecedented impunity to carry out its perennial mandate of ethnic cleansing and territorial expansion.
In short, a destabilized Iran under increasing economic pressures, internal unrest, sabotage, and constant threat of invasion, all perpetuating and legitimizing further oppressive measures by the government (in the name of national security), seems to serve the interests of the real regional power brokers.
But what are the chances that the dissent movement currently underway could gather momentum and snowball into a full fledged national uprising against the current regime?
There are two parts to this question: 1- Would such a potential eventuality bring about the kind of change foreseen by the restless, oppressed, reform-minded hopefuls? 2- Could the destabilization and chaos bring about the collapse of the current regime and lead to a blood bath, a catastrophic disintegration of the Iranian society and the fragmentation of the country as predicted by many so-called Orientalist prognosticators?
The answer to the first question is, to my opinion, No!
The opposition forces who are vying for power against the current establishment consist of several disparate groups.
a-The conservative clerical establishment opposed to the legitimacy of the very concept of “Velayat-e-Fagih” or a Supreme Islamic Jurisprudent (similar to an infallible pope in Catholicism), but believe in a national constitution which, although not in conflict with Islamic fundamentals, would not provide for an authoritarian religious dictatorship. Opinions expressed by the Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, for which he has lost favor with the regime since the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution, best exemplifies this ideology.
b-The clerical establishment whose most visible figure is the former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, are the pragmatic, business oriented realists who may or may not use the religious cloak while leading the country toward a more conciliatory or cooperative path with Iran’s current antagonists. The Iranian intelligentsia and the more educated and enlightened urbanites regard Mr. Rafsanjani, a known multi millionaire businessman, with great suspicion as to his personal motives and agendas.
c-The ultraconservative clerics, best exemplified by ayatollah Yazdi, who would like their turn in running the Islamic Republic of Iran by further radicalizing the government to create a true theocratic Islamic State!
d-The secularist intelligentsia and the elitist urbanites who view the theocratic establishment in any shape or color as a historical anachronism and prefer a modernized non religious form of democratic government along the Western European and American lines, no matter what the effects of the shock might prove to be physically or culturally to the masses who, so they believe, don’t know what is good for them.
e-The politically neutral or ideologically indifferent populations that are facing increasing economic pressure, inflation and rampant unemployment, looking for change, any change in any direction that might improve their lot.
f-And finally, the increasingly more educated and integrated professional women who, like their counterparts in the West, aspire greater parity with men in all aspects of social life, and demand a break from the imposition of dress code and other restrictions mandated by the religious orthodoxy.
Clearly, the one common denominator among groups “a” through “f” is their disdain for the government headed by ayatollah Khamene’i and President Ahmadinejad.
It would help to recall similar dynamics at work that led to the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran over thirty years ago.
Once the evidence became overpowering that the grass roots movement inspired by ayatollah Khomeini was going to succeed in toppling the Pahlavi regime, dissident groups from near and far began to crawl out of their foxholes and join the uprising. These were also disparate groups, each hoping to play a consequential role in channeling the flood in their desired direction. There were Marxists, communists, leftist and liberal intellectuals, academics, as well as operatives of certain foreign agencies, all intending to steer the movement in a direction that would serve their respective purpose.
It is also interesting to recall that the failure of the “progressive” forces to alter the course of the flood, which led to the ultimate success of the Islamic movement, was, and is to this day, blamed on foreign intrigue and direct involvement for various Machiavellian reasons. BBC radio broadcasts in Farsi were blamed for encouraging, directing and providing strategic information to the revolutionary forces at every step of the way. Cassette tapes were being distributed clandestinely throughout the country, believed by many to have been produced by the American CIA, Israeli Mossad or the British MI6, to destabilize Shah’s regime and to encourage the mass movement behind Khomeini’s banner. At the time, many “intellectuals” believed that the whole thing was a master plan by the Imperialist West to, once and for all, create a solid barrier against the Soviet Union, and to control Iran’s oil wealth, lock, stock and barrel!
How soon do we forget!
My answer to the question “A” above, is:
1- There is absolutely no reason to believe that any possible or probable substitute regime would be able to bring about the kind of changes, and at a rate, that would satisfy the demands of all the various opposition groups which today speak with a common voice against a common foe. Any substitute regime would inevitably face challenges by rival camps demanding their fair share in managing the affairs of the country. This was exactly the case after the Khomeini regime took power in 1979. We all know what happened to all those “hopefuls”! The serious non religious ideologues died out, went into their underground dormancy or fled the country. Most intellectuals, the moneyed elite and the modernized bourgeoisie, at least those among them who could, abandoned ship and sought refuge and comfort abroad, where most of them still are!
2- Reform can and should take place, and it will. Why steps toward moderation, liberalization or reform have been delayed can only be partly attributed to the religious zealotry and hunger for power. There are other influences at work that cannot be brushed aside and ignored. Iran has been under the threat of fragmentation, military attack and severe economic sanctions. Its internal security and territorial integrity have remained in jeopardy since the Islamic Revolution thirty years ago. While we could blame all of that to the ineptitude of the clerical regime and its inability or, better put, unwillingness, to play ball with the global powers, I do not believe any red-blooded Iranian would have preferred an Egyptification or a Saudification of Iran in order to be spared all the hardships incurred for insisting on Iran’s sovereignty and national independence. Yes, this national pride – call it stubbornness – has cost the nation dearly. While Iran’s prestige has been escalating throughout the nonaligned world, to where even the firebrand President Ahmadinejad is a popular figure among global populations that are not affected by Western propaganda, economic blowbacks and diplomatic isolation have done tremendous damage to the Iranian people.
3- No doubt, many Iranians would proclaim: Enough is enough. Many proclaim that the regime’s rationale to maintain its stranglehold over the nation in the name of solidarity and national security is not only highly exaggerated, it has stymied growth and development and is sure to bring the nation to its knees. What they are proclaiming is that it is time to capitulate and throw in the towel, come what may. Their hope is that throwing the nation at the mercy of the global superpowers would reopen the doors to international integration, trade and economic development. I would call this wishful thinking out of a combination of desperation and naiveté.
4- Any meaningful and sustainable reform has to take place in gradual steps and in carefully gauged measures to prevent a national breakdown and catastrophic bloodshed. Chaos, disharmony and violence may weaken the fabric that has been holding the nation together to a point that it could fall prey to predatory exploiters waiting on the flanks.
5- Gestures of sympathy and support to encourage and add momentum to the dissent movement in Iran by Iran’s detractors and foreign based non governmental organizations can only serve two purposes: One is to taint a genuine movement and its leaders as either naïve or as victims of foreign intrigue, or even worse! The other is to turn the table around to serve a more diabolical purpose: that is to force the regime to employ ever harsher measures to quell the protests, thus not only adding to, but perpetuating the negative imagery so carefully created for the Islamic Republic in Western spheres.
6- Here I would like to repeat what I have been maintaining all along as reflected in my previous articles, that a negatively portrayed Iran serves the purposes of the real power brokers in the region much better than would a peaceful, friendly and progressive Iran. An Iran that is viewed as a potential existential threat to Israel and as a danger to the Arab states, Europe and even the United States, creates sufficient rationale for all parties to this charade to pursue their respective regional agendas. I invite the reader to refer to my previous writings covering this issue in more detail.
7- I personally predict a gradual trend toward moderation and reform that should become more visible before Iran’s next presidential elections. Whether ayatollah Khamene’i retains his position as the nation’s highest authority, or he is replaced by Mr. Rafsanjani or another challenger, the nature of the regime as an Islamic Republic will remain intact for the foreseeable future. Iran’s nuclear issue and support for extra territorial groups (referred to as terrorist groups here) will remain objects of debate, accusation and as the rationale for threats of armed conflict for reasons mentioned above. If the scenario is followed properly, none of these threats will reach a flashpoint. Iran, meantime, will be trying to play devil’s advocate by reaching out to China and Russia to hedge against economic sanctions by the Western powers.
8- Finally, as long as Iran remains portrayed as an existential threat to the Jewish state, the Israeli regime can, as it already has, use that pretext as a real issue deserving of the highest priority, in order to sidestep any negotiation with the Palestinians, and to continue with total impunity its long-term agenda of territorial expansion and the marginalization of the Palestinian people. The Iranian regime, especially with a vociferous, diplomatically challenged, President Ahmadinejad, has been playing the role of the proverbial goose that laid golden eggs. One does not kill the goose that lays golden eggs. In short, it deserves repeating once again, the road to any progress in Iran goes through Israel, my friends.
Issue “B”, “Is a change of direction or a total regime-change what would benefit the Iranian nation in the 21st century world?” deserves its own expanded discussion at another time.
IF IT IS TIME FOR REGIME CHANGES IN THE MIDDLE EAST
WHERE SHOULD WE BEGIN?
June 27, 2009
Is there even a single state in the Middle East that should be excluded from the list of candidates for regime change? Such candidacy is, of course, contingent on several factors, such as: Does the regime enjoy the support of the majority of its own population? Is the system based on the democratic principles that safeguard the rights of the minorities from the rule by the majority? Do the regime’s human-rights standards mesh with the accepted norms in the modern world? Is the regime in peace with its neighbors, or is it viewed as a threat or a destabilizing factor by other states in the region? Is the regime viewed with respect and sympathy around the globe, or are there legitimate reasons for the international community to be concerned about it. And, how does the regime treat the international media, journalists and observers and their access to, and broadcast of, negative events occurring in the country?
Well, I cannot name a single state in the Middle East that should be excluded from that list.
The problem, however, is in evaluating and judging which state is the worst of the worst that should draw global attention for regime change considerations. Which state should be the first one to be isolated and put under international sanctions, economic and diplomatic pressure, and even military threats, in order to submit to the will of the international community?
Which state is the greatest violator of United Nations Security Council resolutions, has committed the most heinous atrocities, including war crimes, against its neighbors, bans media reporters and broadcasts from the scenes of its atrocities on a routine basis, has threatened and continues to threten other nations, has armed itself to the teeth, has horded weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons and means of delivering them, and where not all citizens of the state share equal civil rights and privileges under the law?
You only have one guess as to the name of this staunchest ally of the Unites States, which is referred to as the only democracy and the symbol of Western values in the Middle East!
Now let us go to some other friendly allies of the United States, those moderate Arab states that toe our line as required and, in exchange, continue to benefit from our support. When was the last time there were open political rivalries, debates or street rallies and peaceful anti-regime demonstrations in, say, Egypt or Saudi Arabia? What is the percentage of women in these countries who receive higher education, are involved in politics or hold positions of authority in the affairs of state or the private sector?
Next, we go to the supposedly more Westernized and friendly Islamic country of Turkey, another American ally, with aspirations of being admitted into the European Union. What are the real numbers of casualties among the Turkish citizens, including Kurdish dissidents and anti-regime traditionalists, who were targeted by the Turkish military using American made weapons in violation of American laws that forbid the use of those weapons against the country’s own civilians – hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands?
None of this, of course, is meant to vindicate Iran’s style of governance or make it appear as a model of liberal democracy and progress, even though in comparison with its neighbors and rivals in the region, it does shine as perhaps the best of the worst.
Now the question: Why all this nonstop coverage of the demonstrations and clashes in the streets of Tehran in literally every major news network or, I should say, infotainment media, here and equally in England, going on for over two weeks? Had it not been for the Rock legend Michael Jackson’s death now saturating the airwaves, the Iranian “insurrection” would continue to be a source of entertainment for the American audiences. Where did all these “experts” on Iran and “senior correspondents” specializing in Iranian affairs suddenly crawl out of? And above all, why all the spin and disregard for opposing perspectives that do not support the prevailing portrayals of the events? A return look at Mexico’s 2006 presidential elections and the New York Times coverage of that event creates an interesting contrast to the extraordinary coverage of the Iranian elections by our “infotainment” media.
Another pertinent question should logically follow: Who stands to gain from this media frenzy and anti Iranian regime sentiments?
The immediate or kneejerk response to this question is to say that the dissent movement as a whole should benefit from the support and encouragement from such publicity and saturation coverage by the Western media. Demonstrators who brave the harsh treatment by the crowd-control police and the militia would welcome encouragements from any source to keep the momentum alive, regardless of what the true motives behind such encouragements might be.
Naturally, without moral and even material support, and in the face of strong reaction from the security forces, the opposition movement would lose momentum and fizzle out, either to disappear or to go into a lengthy hibernation to reappear at some future time.
Looking at it from another perspective, such excessive media coverage and foreign propaganda frenzy, especially by agencies such as the BBC, which has been blamed for not only interfering, but actually masterminding political events in, among other places, Iran, could taint and discredit a genuine movement and weaken its legitimacy in the eyes of the Iranian people. Simply look at the Palestinian movement and the support Mahmood Abbas has been receiving from the friends and supporters of their arch nemesis, Israel. Clearly, support for Mr. Abbas and his so-called Palestinian Authority has been aimed at weakening the real representative of the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation, Hamas. Divide and conquer continues to be the time-tested modus operandi, allowing any unwanted social movement to self-destruct.
If Mr.Mousavi, now supposedly the champion of the opposition movement in Iran, becomes adopted as a foster child of the United States and Great Britain, the reform movement in Iran could suffer the same fate as the so-called Palestinian Authority, not as a viable alternative to improve the lot of the Iranian nation, but as a divisive ploy to weaken Iran as a challenger to the designs of the superpowers in the Middle East – and that includes Israel. For the Iranian opposition movement to avoid this fate, it is essential to keep it indigenous, clean and unadulterated by foreign influences.
It was indeed sad to see Reza Pahlavi, in an interview with an Israeli paper, seeking the support of the Israeli regime for the Iranian opposition movement, even though he did warn against direct military action by Israel. I don’t know what the hell is the matter with this guy!
As I watched his press conference at the Press Club last weekend, I couldn’t help but mentally tune out his crowd pleasing sophomoric utterances and, instead, wondered how Iran’s image in the global media would fare if its president looked and spoke more like the handsome Reza Pahlavi or the always authoritative Bibi Netanyahu!
One clear and unabashed beneficiary of this two-weeks-long media frenzy has been the government of the Israeli hardliner, Netanyahu, whose winning ace-up-his-sleeve to defeat his rivals was his anti Iran rhetoric as the greatest existential threat against the Jewish state. He has already vindicated himself by pointing to the results of the Iranian presidential elections as proof that any rapprochement with Iran would be en exercise in futility.
We also have the rightwing hardliners and neoconservatives in our administration who have opposed President Obama’s announced policy of a softer approach to Iran. They are now showing their great pleasure that the post elections protests in Iran have prompted the President to adopt a harsher tone against the Islamic Republic. Chief among them is the unofficial Israeli representative in the Unites States Congress, Joe Lieberman, who is pushing ever harder now to take advantage of this golden opportunity.
What can we read between these lines?
The way the portrayal has been projected onto the global Multiplex screens in full splendor and hair-raising special effects, the Islamic Republic of Iran remains as the greatest danger to the regional and, indeed, global peace and security. As a result of this masterful portrayal, Israel was proven right, again: Its claim that Iran is an existential threat to the Jewish state is now vindicated. And President Obama is now back on track with the Republicans and his own party hawks who were not too enamored with his initial soft approach to the Iranians.
The media pundits, Left, Right and Center, are also unanimous in their condemnation of the Iranian regime and their praise of the Administration for its reaction against the Islamic Republic for the rigged elections and its treatment of the anti regime protesters. One cannot but wonder how peacefully and gently the US administration would deal with a million-strong anti war demonstrators disrupting life in Washington DC, or storming the Pentagon, setting cars, buses and stores on fire, destroying property and shouting Death to the Warmongers!
When President Obama condemned the Iranian regime’s crackdown on the “peaceful” demonstrations, does he remember the Sixties “peaceful” demonstrations, called “riots” at the time, right here at home, or is he too young to have such memories. Can he recall the massacre at Kant State, for example? What about the more recent Waco massacre?
This is not to say that two wrongs make a right. But when the pot calls the kettle black we see more than double standards, we see hypocrisy.
Clearly, a peaceful and cooperative Iran under a new leadership such as what Mr. Mousavi might have established, although I regard that as quite presumptuous, would not have served the “purpose” nearly as well as the way things have turned out.
Now President Obama does not have to get into trouble with the Congress and the American infotainment media for extending his hand toward Iran, hoping to encounter Iran’s unclenched fist. Now Mr. Netanyahu can say; See, I told you; the Iranians are incorrigible, so don’t push us toward any peace negotiations with the Palestinians until the main threat facing all of us has been properly checked. And now, the American administration has ample reason to support Israel’s position as an ally under the threat of annihilation by mad mullahs who will do their best to acquire nuclear weapons to terrorize the region.
It, therefore, follows logically that, in order to avoid another war, this time against an ominous Iran, The pressure on the Iranian regime should be intensified to a level just below a potentially catastrophic flashpoint. Avoiding that dangerous and unpredictable threshold is essential, as the perpetuation of the image of the Islamic Republic as a threat is far more productive for everyone concerned than the absence of the myth.
This way, we can avoid a very costly war, Israel does not have to resort to a dangerous alternative in order to dodge the pressure to enter into peace negotiations or make any concessions toward a settlement with the Palestinians, the oil-rich Arab states will have to purchase more American military equipment to defend against a perceived Iranian aggression, and American forces will continue their presence in the entire region to safeguard the interests of the civilized world – and let us not forget oil.
Ironically, Iran also benefits by not being drawn into a military confrontation it cannot afford, should Israel take its own initiative if the preceding scenario is not implemented according to plan!
How much better can it get?
Not much; unless you just happen to be a patriotic Iranian concerned about a tired nation, whose hopes and aspirations to realize its true potentials, economically, socially and politically, have been compromised through mismanagement at home and pressures from abroad.
As the world mourns and celebrates the symbol of Iran’s resistance against oppression, Neda, the attractive young casualty of confrontation between the demonstrators and the security police, many more Nedas shall be slain in the streets and alleys, from Gaza to Bogota and Mogadishu to Beijing, all casualties of lust for power and greed by those who always find justifications for whatever they do to secure their own interests.
This young Iranian victim should, perhaps, symbolize the struggle of mankind everywhere to defy tyranny and oppression, and not be hijacked and used as another propaganda tool for the benefit of special interest groups.
IRAN ; WHOSE COUNTRY IS IT, ANYWAY?
A POSTSCRIPT
June 20, 2009
I knew fully well that my post-Iranian-elections commentary, IRAN; WHOSE COUNTRY IS IT, ANYWAY?, would cause a stir among the readers of my articles. I wrote that piece simply because I was so sick of watching and listening to the media chatter and the coverage of the post-elections events in Tehran.
I watched how a legitimate opposition movement - and it is quite legitimate - was being hijacked by the overzealous media hogs and spin artists, which could create a potentially bloody mess from what otherwise might have been a harbinger of a natural “normalizing” social evolution. Nobody can deny the honest truth that there has been a growing social resentment and internal unrest against the Islamic regime, which is blamed for everything from poor economic conditions, lack of necessary social and political reforms and, thanks to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s crude and undiplomatic ways, to the negative image of the nation in the eyes of the global powers.
I became sick and tired of watching and listening to so many “Chief International Correspondents” from this or that network, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX, BBC, etc., and their wide-eyed, salivating, reporters on the scene fanning the fire to raise the temperature of anxiety, actually hoping, even predicting, that the social unrest would lead to major clashes between the demonstrators and the security forces: They always love to see blood flowing; as long as it is not their blood! Some were actually predicting that this movement would bring the Iranian regime to its knees.
This also applies, quite tragically, to so many among our expatriate crowds who are voicing their support and cheering the demonstrators to remain relentlessly defiant, each group hoping that the Islamic regime would somehow morph into their particular desired system, even if it would mean massive devastation and bloodshed. Again, that devastation would not affect their lives here, and the bloodshed would not cost them a drop of their own precious blood.
When the exuberant newscasters talk about the “Iranian people” expressing their outrage by showing placards written in English, WHERE IS MY VOTE, or “DEATH TO THE DICTATOR”, which segment or percentage of the Iranian people are they referring to? Are the international audiences expected to believe that the entire Iranian nation is mobilizing to stage a revolution against the regime?
Nevertheless, I am not trying to minimize or delegitimize the anger and frustrations of great numbers of Iranian people who have taken up to the streets of Iran’s major cities to demonstrate their hatred for the current establishment and their impatience for their long awaited reforms.
There are, however, many legitimate issues that encompass the current events in Iran, which deserve dispassionate, objective analysis, if one is truly interested in cracking the current dilemma. These issues could prompt the following questions:
Has Iran reached the time that the legitimacy of the concept of the “velayat-e-faghih”, or the authority of a Pope-like supreme religious jurist, or even a council of such jurisprudents (Cardinals in Catholicism) should be challenged?
Is the concept of an Islamic Republic for Iran an anachronism for a nation aspiring to compete in the 21st century world?
How risky is it and how much should the nation be willing to give up in its pride and independence in order to avoid potential confrontations with the global superpowers? In other words, how much longer should the nation resist what it deems as unjust pressures from outside interests, and when should it bow down and capitulate?
What are the ramifications of foreign influences capitalizing on major political upheavals in Iran; and how would such interference and influence peddling affect the Iranians’ best national interests?
Would a more moderate, reform-oriented government be able to meet the expectations of the oppressed intelligentsia, the urbanites, especially the women, and the nation’s growing, mobile phone and iPod-carrying young middle class?
Is a more moderate, reform oriented ruling class less prone to political and financial corruption than their current counterparts?
Should the Iranian people aspire toward establishing true democratic reforms, or should they press for some form of aristocracy (by the more educated and Westernized elite), a reformed mollahcrocy (by “pragmatic” or enlightened religious leaders), a benevolent dictatorship (modeled after Darius the Great), an oligarchy (ruled by the moneyed, merchant class), or a neo-socialistic bureaucracy (perhaps under the baton of an amply “enlightened” pretend-Trotskyite)?
Finally, and most significantly, who speaks for the great majorities, those ordinary people of Iran who are not as well educated or nearly as Westernized and who are more comfortable within a traditional environment and who honestly believe in their Islamic faith, not like the urbanites who grudgingly pretend it to escape the wrath of the orthodoxy? Should these “ordinary” folks not be granted the same voting rights as those “extraordinary” people parading in the streets?
I am simply talking about real democracy here! Do our demonstrators truly believe in universal suffrage, meaning the right of participation in deciding the affairs of the nation for all Iranians regardless of their socioeconomic status, or do they think that would be going too far, as, without proper guidance, they wouldn’t know what’s good for them?
I do not claim to have answers to these questions, only personal opinions, which might or might not prove workable for the Iranian people living and dying there in Iran.
Like most other former Iranians living abroad, I am also anxious to see what the current unrest in Iran will lead to. But unlike most commentators, Iranians or not, I do not believe that these recent developments are headed toward a significant change of course for the ship of state. I do, however, expect certain incremental changes, including some softening of the tone by the Iranian administration, leading to more meaningful reforms as we approach the next presidential elections in Iran.
I also do believe that President Obama is approaching the current Iranian issues in a very measured and intelligent manner, and hope that his strategy is not affected by congressional zealots with ulterior motives.
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the only complements I have thus far received for my article have been from individuals from the rural areas of Iran who clearly struggled to write their e-mails to me in English!
IRAN : WHOSE COUNTRY IS IT, ANYWAY?
June 17, 2009
For whatever it’s worth, Iran’s presidential elections are over and Mr. Ahmadinejad will be featured as Iran’s image in the global press for another four years.
Mr. Obama’s strongest point of departure from his predecessor was the promise of “change”, actually any kind of change from what the liberal progressives, the young and the intellectuals thought was the trend set by the conservative and stubbornly close-minded Republican administration. Remember, here we are talking about the United States of America, the global champion of all in which our Western civilization takes pride.
Even the staunch supporters of the new Obama administration are wondering when or at what pace all those promised changes will take place, from the internal affairs of the nation to our foreign policies – not by mere words, but by actual, visible deeds. The opposition groups, of course, have continued to regard all those promises for change as mere campaign rhetoric.
A realist would attribute the slow pace of any meaningful change, whether pertaining to the internal socioeconomic issues or to America’s foreign policies, to the inertia created by the long-established policies of the past, which make it nearly impossible to implement quickly or painlessly.
In Iranian politics, internal or external, several factors make any meaningful policy change even more difficult. The most important factor is the siege mentality that has been created in three decades of facing outside pressures, interference and threats of regime change. Iran’s hardliners claim, as do America’s own conservative establishment with regard to Homeland Security, that it was only through their diligence that the nation’s enemies were kept at bay and the country was safeguarded from further attacks and invasions. Surviving eight years of war with the Western backed invading armies of Saddam Hussein and recovering to rebuild its devastated infrastructure and the military to its rather formidable status today, have given the establishment the reason to make even stronger claims to legitimacy.
In addition, the president, whether a Commander in Chief as is the case right here in these United States, or simply a mostly ceremonial figure, has effectively a limited range of authorities to implement policies on his own. In Iranian politics, a reformist president could not, and would not even attempt to, force changes that might affect the daily lives of the citizens quickly and significantly enough to satisfy the demands of those who supported his candidacy with overanxious expectations.
Any meaningful change in the status quo would have to be incremental and in carefully measured steps. Considering that ultimate authority lies outside the power of presidency, such incremental reforms could also take place under a non-reformist president, as long as the nation’s real leadership structure views the change favorably. And, contrary to common portrayals here in the West, the nation’s real leadership is not summarized in the person of one single supreme leader, but rather in a well established and time-tested structure that cannot be bypassed by an elected president.
It is only in the international arena where the results of Iran’s presidential elections does truly make a difference. This difference has absolutely nothing to do with Iran’s actual attitude or policy shifts, but everything to do with the portrayal of Iran by the international propaganda media.
To appraise the international ramification of Ahmadinejad’s victory, just see who is gloating in having been proven right: the Israeli leaders and their supporters have already voiced off that, with Ahmadinejad back on the throne, Iran remains the sole existential threat to Israel and to international peace and security!
Most intellectuals inside and outside of Iran are dismayed and embarrassed by this kind of portrayal of their nation as represented by the Iranian president, and rightly so. But it is far better to be portrayed in this negative light than to face a potentially catastrophic confrontation with Israel and/or the United States.
In the absence of a conveniently convincing, albeit fictional, existential threat, the Israeli hardliners would simply have to resort to other tactics, and they have proven very good at such tactics, to create a state of emergency in the region. The most likely would be attacking Iran’s nuclear power plant or some other strategic target to draw Iran into some retaliatory response. As long as Iran remains a perceived threat to Israel or America’s interests in the region, Israel’s bargaining power against any pressure from the United States or the international community to make compromises toward a peace settlement with the Palestinians remains strong.
If my arguments or reasoning sound too convoluted or Machiavellian, so be it.
Naturally, our expatriate Iranians, particularly those longer-term residents in the West, simply hate to see their former homeland, the land of the noble Aryans, be represented by the diminutive Ahmadinejad. His appearance, mannerism, his venomous speeches accentuated by religious slogans, and his lack of Western style sophistication, have all been a source of embarrassment for most Iranians abroad and many at home.
It is, therefore, no surprise that practically all demonstrations by expatriate Iranians in front of Iranian embassies around the world have been against the elections results, which they unanimously regard as totally rigged and fraudulent. If these folks were in favor of the “Islamic Republic” of Iran and its policies, most of them would be back there sharing in the joys or the miseries of life with the rest of their compatriots!
Meanwhile, our news media, from CNN to Fox, broadcast Tehran’s street scenes, where the outraged youth, angry ladies dressed in tradition-defying manner, and disappointed professionals and the upper-middle class city folk, demonstrate in front of television cameras, many carrying placards written in English to let the world know of their anguish. Analysts and commentators, both Iranians and non Iranians, some even from the streets of Tehran, are having a field day. In short, for our Western audiences watching TV and surfing the internet, the Iranian regime seems to have lost any credibility it might have had prior to the elections.
Thus far, I have not seen or heard even one commentary from any academic or high profile observer of the international scene that has not been highly critical of the election results. Even the heretofore defenders of Iran’s right to pursue its nuclear programs, and those who had vehemently objected to economic and diplomatic sanctions against the Islamic Republic, are now outraged by what they regard as blatant fraud and a mockery of the democratic process through which Ahmadinejad has come out victorious.
Our own Iranian American scholars and academics, from the pretend-Trotskyites to liberal feminists and human-rights advocates, are unanimous in lambasting the “rigged” elections; they all wanted to see some moderate reformist displace the little man and open the door to honest democratic reforms.
Our well paid, tenured academics, the pretend-Trotskyites and liberated women’s rights advocates who are speaking out from the sanctuaries of the halls of academe choose to downplay or disregard out of hand the desires and demands of the masses that are unfamiliar with Trotsky, Mandela, Gandhi or Martin Luther King, or even know anything about Nabokov and his Lolita. Here I am talking about the masses who always form the front lines of defense in case the nation is threatened by invasion. I am talking about the ones whose young sons would run over mine fields to pave the way for their brothers to confront the enemy.
Of course, the pretend-Trotskyite would gladly volunteer to offer his or her leadership in the creation of a model democratic republic should anything be left of the nation, even though he or she had only watched from a safe distance while the voiceless masses, the ones you’d seldom see in these massive protest demonstrations, paid with their sweat and blood to protect the homeland. That is what they did when Saddam Hussein attacked Iran. The country is also theirs, actually mostly theirs; don’t you ever forget that!
Ask those who carry the banner of democratic reform as to what exactly they mean by such beautifully crafted words, freedom and democracy. What kind of democracy do the Tehrani neo-bourgeoisie really prefer? Do we start the voting age at 16 or perhaps 14 or even 13, since most young folks there are much more politically savvy than their counterparts here in America? Should the voting public be literate enough to know about the Great Gatsby or Lolita? Or perhaps, should the educated elite be granted more than one vote per head, perhaps as many as three or four, based on their degree of education and Western sophistication, and the less fortunate only a partial vote per individual based on how low on the social ladder they stand or how much of their figures is covered under the chador?
Now, what does your average neo-socialist or pretend-Trotskyite, the phony advocate of the power of the proletariat, want? Should we have a dictatorship of the proletariat, or should we just let the masses plough the field so that the pretend-Trotskyite could then direct their destinies as he or she sees fit? How different would that be from a conservative theocracy or a totalitarian monarchy?
It is not at all relevant what I personally like or dislike, whether I would prefer to live in some theocratic republic, or whether I believe in Islam, some other religious or even secular doctrine, or even in the Almighty God. What I prefer for myself should not dictate how I should offer advice to a nation in which I have not actively participated in a meaningful way for a very long time. They have done rather well without my help or interference.
Thirty years ago, just before I returned for the last time to my primary residence where I have lived since 1956, my ancestral town of Kashan at the edge of the forbidding Kavir, lacked running water, a single decent health clinic or more than a single high school. The nearby Niasar, where my family owned the now famous Talar and its magnificent scenic waterfall, was a dusty village only known for its wild roses during the rosewater season. Today, Kashan has its technical university and the road to the plush tourist resort of Niasar is paved and its gorgeous waterfall and hotel facility can be seen on the internet!
That all happened without my help, or in spite of me and other family members who lacked the incentive or the wherewithal to do it. Or perhaps we felt we had the freedom to choose not to do anything – after all, it was our property. Did they steal it from us? Some family members certainly claim so; but in all honesty, more power to them even if they did!
About the election results: whose country is it, anyway? I wonder what percentage of those anti-regime demonstrators would choose to stay in Tehran if they were free to abandon the homeland for greener pastures elsewhere.
I also wonder what kind of mayhem, carnage and bloodshed would take place and what level of free media coverage of such events would be allowed by the regimes and broadcast globally if it were to take place in Egypt, Saudi Arabia or even in our “progressive” Islamic country of Turkey.
I admit the Iran I see is far from the Iran I would have loved to see after thirty years since the Revolution. But I must also admit that what I see now is far better than the way it was thirty years ago; perhaps not for me or my kind, but for those who succeeded in moving the immovable mountain because they were not sophisticated enough to know that they weren’t supposed to succeed!
MOUSAVI OR AHMADINEJAD?
June 10, 2009
On the heels of Iran’s presidential elections, President Obama paid a precedent-setting and timely visit to the Middle East. In his address to the “Islamic World” during his stops in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, he showed a degree of respect and humility that seemed more genuine than the usual arrogant or, at the very best, condescending attitude we have been used to expect from former American leaders. Here I am putting the “Islamic World” in quotation marks for a reason.
First of all, is there such a kingdom, phylum, order, genera, family or species that we could correctly refer to collectively as the Islamic World?
Secondly, if there truly is such a recognizable category, was the President addressing the actual Islamic people of that nondescript Islamic World?
His Cairo speech was indeed a masterpiece of eloquence, well organized and quite profound, albeit heavily cliché-laden. He said many nice things in a very nice way, reminiscent of another well educated and eloquent speaker, the former Secretary of State, Condy Rice, whose similarly profound statements always left one with the question whether she could have just as eloquently reversed her course in mid sentence without missing a beat. But what did the President say exactly that might lead us into hoping that meaningful changes in America’s attitude toward the Middle East are underway?
To begin, there is no such creature as the so-called Islamic World. From the western edge of Africa, two-thirds of the away around the world into eastern Indonesia; and from the depths of Siberia to central Africa, there are Islamic nations that are as diverse in their histories, cultural idiosyncrasies and ethnicities as we see among the Christian nations throughout the world. Is there such a thing as the Christian World - some homogenized blending of various ethnicities, histories and cultural habits that stereotypically distinguishes a people as members of a “Christian World”?
More importantly, what parts of the so-called Islamic World did President Obama visit and who were the leaders that hosted him? Does the Egyptian government truly represent the sympathies and grievances of some eighty-million Egyptians? Does the Saudi regime that rules over Islam’s holiest sites speak for the world’s Moslems? Most certainly and emphatically not!
In his speech, President Obama reduced a huge bundle of highly complex international issues down into a cartoonish confrontation between the United States of America and an entity simply called the Islamic World. Listening to it, one could picture a science fiction scenario where the leader of an earthly confederation is attempting a rapprochement with an alien empire from some other corner of the galaxy in order to avoid a Star Wars type of confrontation.
Unfortunately, things are not that simple or clear cut. Worse yet, the “Islamic World” that the President was trying to appeal to, at least those members of that non-descript entity who are truly of serious consequence, while appreciative of his effort, were not too impressed by his speeches.
Those people of “real consequence” within the Islamic World do understand diplomatic constraints that limit the latitude, honesty and sincerity of a public address by even the most powerful leader of the so-called Free World.
Who are these people of consequence? Are the “friendly, moderate” leaders of Arab nations, from the Persian Gulf Emirates to Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in other words, our own puppets or allies of convenience, the ones that Mr. Obama needed to address? Certainly not. Could the President have, instead, visited Iran, Syria or Gaza, even though he would have been greeted with great respect and anticipation? Again, certainly not.
Why certainly not? Well, for the same reason, perhaps, that the President simply had to visit Buchenwald concentration camp on his return trip through Germany – or else! So, what was that all about?
It is all about Israel, stupid! Israeli interests and Israel’s undeniable, as well as to this very moment unchallengeable, influence on America’s Middle East or “Islamic World” politics is what that was all about. The President did not really have to reiterate America’s allegiance to Israeli interests so that the leaders and the peoples of the “Islamic World”, in particular Iran, would understand that he is not as free as they would hope, to say and do as he might truly feel in the privacy of his own heart.
Many outspoken leaders of the Islamic nations of “real consequence” regarded President Obama’s Middle East trip or speeches as a public relations feat of little or no actual policy significance. For Iran’s leader of “real consequence”, Ayatollah Khamene’i, for instance, Mr. Obama’s encouraging words, which are nullified in real-time by actual actions and policy decisions, did not carry the promise of a positive change in the air.
On his stop in Germany on the way back from the Middle East, the President, after criticizing those who deny the Holocaust, invited the Iranian president, Ahmadinejad, to visit Buchenwald concentration camp and see with his own eyes that the genocide against the Jews did, in fact, take place. But Barak Obama is not George W. Bush; he must know that: one, the Iranian president is not the “decider” of Iranian foreign affairs or in a position to declare war or mobilize Iran’s military to “wipe Israel off the face of the map”; and, two, the utterances attributed to him regarding the Holocaust were, thanks to pro Israel lobbies, deliberately and maliciously distorted to portray him as a buffoon, an illiterate madman with no knowledge of current history, who is bent on the destruction of the state of Israel.
Is demonizing Ahmadinejad supposed to diminish his chances against his more liberal progressive rival, Mousavi in this Friday’s elections? Is this what President Obama really wants; Ahmadinejad’s defeat and the rise of a more moderate or “agreeable” administration in Iran? We shall examine if that is really the case.
No doubt, Iran’s rising educated youth, as well as the more politically savvy upper middle class, particularly the women, have long been craving more liberal policies at home and better relations within the international community. Mr. Mousavi is enjoying these groups’ overwhelming support. Iranians in diaspora are predominantly against a second term for the firebrand Mahmood Ahmadinejad, for obvious reasons. For the Western oriented, mostly Western educated Iranians, any departure from what they see as a retrogressive religious conservatism would be a welcome change. In reality, most foreign based Iranians, whether they have any intention of ever returning to their original homeland, prefer to see an Iran molded in a Western model, adopting some idealized versions of Western values and principles, regardless of their applicability to that culture.
But the nation is comprised of as many or more voting citizens who continue to support that little fellow and his folksy and incendiary style. And let us not forget that, even though here in the West the concept of an Iranian democracy is regarded as an oxymoron, a comment by Dr. Brzezinski during a recent speech at RAND Corporation paints a different picture. To paraphrase, he said that while one can predict who will be the President in Russia in 2012, no one can predict the result of the presidential elections in Iran!
What this means is that, like it or not, every vote cast by the educated and enlightened elite is countered by a vote by a traditionalist conservative – and every votes carries the same weight.
Now, for those friends and colleagues who might be disappointed if Mr. Ahmadinejad is elected for a second term, here is the irony or the paradox of all paradoxes: What would the United States, in other words Israel, do in the absence of a potent enemy or existential threat, however fictitious, in the Middle East?
Just think about such a prospect under a more moderate and West-friendly Iranian leadership. Would it not, then, lead to pressure on Israel to abandon its aggressive policies of expanding Jewish settlements, gulping up more Palestinian land, demanding and getting ever increasing financial, military and diplomatic support, etc? Would this pressure not ultimately encourage Israel to strike at Iran just to keep the pot churning?
To avoid that eventuality, should Mr. Mousavi replace Ahmadinejad in this Friday’s elections, the diplomatic pressures on the American administration would prove enormous. The biggest challenge for the Obama team would be to satiate Israel’s appetite with ample guarantees that all its expectations and demands would be met, regardless of a prospective normalization of relations with Iran. This guarantee would include a face saving strategy for Israel to walk away from any peace settlement with the Palestinians, with the blame, as usual, put on the latter for that failure.
So, make your choice, world!
WISHING YOU LUCK, MR. OBAMA
Can the Vicious Circle be Broken?
May 10, 2009
In response to a young reader who had little patience to delve into my “boringly lengthy writings”, as he lamented, I am beginning this article with a condensed outline of the Middle East picture as it is presented here in the United States for public consumption.
A/Iran is a dangerous country run by crazed zealots. Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons to destroy our staunch ally, Israel, and to frighten our other friendly allies in that oil-rich region in order to blackmail the industrialized world.
B/Our friendly “good” Arabs must purchase major quantities of arms from us and ask for our support to protect themselves from the mad mullahs. They have plenty of oil money to pay for all that.
C/Arming the Arabs would alarm our main partner, Israel, which means that we must give Israel our most advanced arms to maintain its military superiority, especially against the formidable Iranian threat.
D/ The United States must maintain a viable force in the region to watch out for any eventuality.
E/The American democracy requires public’s approval for major policy decisions. It is imperative, therefore, that the news and entertainment media keep public’s focus on the right track.
Item “B” means that the oil producing Arab countries must purchase billions of dollars worth of American arms, thus returning to us the moneys we pay them for our crude oil; and that is very nice. And since the arms they purchase require operational expertise, they need our military bases and the staff and trainers to manage that equipment. For these services, we are compensated well; and that is nice, too!
Item “C” requires the Congress to approve the budget for this military aid to Israel, this year alone amounting to some 30 billion dollars. Israel, of course, can and often does, sell at least a portion of this “gift” at a substantial markup to other countries as it sees fit.
Item “D” implies that the military spending must be beefed up regularly, this year over one-half trillion dollars, ensuring the health and prosperity of our military-industrial complex.
Item “E” has worked successfully like a well-oiled machine, only requiring minor maintenance, such as the annual AIPAC gatherings in Washington DC, or visits by the Israeli leadership.
Item “A” means that Iran’s portrayal as a danger to the region and as a global menace serves as the necessary catalyst to facilitate items “B” through “E”.
Enough said: now let us enter the main article.
Like most Iranians, Iranian Americans or even non Iranians, who have been looking forward to a more normalized and “civilized” relationship between Iran and the United States, I also have a tendency to read and interpret the signals from both sides optimistically. I, however, try to hone down my optimism cautiously enough not to enter into the domain of wishful thinking.
In the responses I have received to my latest two or three articles, some readers have taken issue with my critique of President Obama’s Norooz message to the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian people. While most analysts of US/Iran relations see the message as a conciliatory, even groundbreaking, outreach by the new American administration toward Iran, I have not contented myself by looking at it through rose-colored glasses. In my view, the message, in and by itself, sounded as a continuation of the previous administration’s self-righteously indignant approach, albeit in a more condescending tone, as a superior admonishing an underling. In his Norooz message, the President warned Iran that it cannot "take its rightful place in the community of nations……. through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization."
What did Mr. Obama mean exactly by admonishing Iran to abandon the “terror or arms” method and, instead, adopt “peaceful” actions in order to join the community of nations? You don’t have to be particularly fond of the Islamic Republic to interpret this message as quite presumptuously and unfairly accusatory.
Yes, the mere fact that Mr. Obama even bothered to send a New Year’s message to Iran and to refer to the country as the “Islamic Republic of Iran” was a departure from the Republican administration’s inflexibly arrogant attitude. But to interpret Mr. Obama’s statement quoted above, and to deliberately overlook the accusatory phrase that clearly implicates Iran with terrorism (highlighted in the above paragraph), is an act of self-deception.
In this regard, I do disagree with many respected colleagues, such as Dr. Trita Parsi and Professor Mohammad Sahimi and many others, who have emphasized the positive tone of Obama’s message to Iran.
However, in a much more important regard, we are all in agreement that President Obama does quite genuinely desire to open a conciliatory dialogue with the Islamic Republic; I wouldn’t doubt that for one second.
Can he do it, and how, are the questions!
In that regard, there are some truths that should be acknowledged before we could build up any high hopes for a sea change in America’s Middle East policies, particularly with respect to Iran.
1-Having managed to firmly and inextricably establish itself as America’s indispensable ally in the Middle East, the power and influence of Israel and its lobby (AIPAC) over the Congress of the United States cannot be denied or wished away anytime soon.
2-The Israeli regime finds it against the interests of the Jewish state for Iran to lose its status within the American government as a terrorist state bent on the destruction of Israel.
3-If the United States were to redress its policies in the Middle East in order to serve America’s best interests, new policies which the Jewish state might view as detrimental to its own agendas, the risk to America’s interests and security in the region might prove prohibitively great.
4-Certain definitions and parameters that have entered the official policy manuals during the previous administrations cannot easily or quickly be amended or overturned. These include definitions for terrorism or what groups are regarded as terrorists or supporters of international terrorism. Other examples include the definition and classification of states or groups as friendly, moderate, or democratic, versus rogue, extremist or dictatorial.
It does not take a genius or a gifted visionary in politics to see that Israel’s antagonists, i.e., groups or countries that Israel regards as active or even potential antagonists that resist or oppose its agendas, become classified as terrorist groups and supporters of international terrorism by the American administrations. This pattern is not new and not likely to change even if it were to be demonstrated that Israel is hardly in a moral position to judge how terrorism, barbarism or defiance of international law should be defined.
Under the established nomenclature and based on the logic, or illogic, stated above, the Lebanese Shi’a party, Hezbollah, is a terrorist group, as is the democratically elected Palestinian group, Hamas. Iran is openly and admittedly supportive of both groups. Therefore, Iran is, by extension, officially classified by the State Department as a state supporter of terrorism.
Unless the formal nomenclature is amended, the new administration has no option but to adhere to the official finding of the State Department and its most recent report accusing Iran of continuing to be the biggest source cause of international terrorism. This status will not and cannot change unless the status of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas is changed. How likely is that? The readers might find it disgustingly clear that no change is in the horizon by simply following AIPAC’s annual proceedings in Washington, D.C.
So, while Mr. Obama and even Hillary Clinton might have it in their hearts to clear the path for a rapprochement with Iran, the State Department comes out with such an accusatory report and, at the same time, a bill championed by the likes of Joe Lieberman and fellow Zionists is introduced to the Senate to tighten the economic noose around Iran’s neck and to create a literal blockade against the importation of gasoline – a lifeline for Iran, so dependent on gasoline imports.
In my opinion, tormenting an entire nation while showing a wilted olive branch as a gesture of conciliation can hardly be viewed as a positive development. Yes, to paraphrase what Malcolm X said once, when a dagger is in your back six inches deep, pulling it out a couple of inches is an “improvement”; but you still have a dagger stuck in your back!
Have I lost all hope for an improvement of relations between the United States and Iran? No, not at all.
I do believe that the Obama administration is hoping to open a productive dialogue with the Iranian government. The effort is going to be an uphill battle, not as much because of opposition by Iran’s radical hardliners, but against our own domestic naysayers, the neocons and their Zionist co-conspirators.
Bringing such figures as Rahm Emanuel and Dennis Ross into the fold as Israel’s watchdogs could be a signal to the Israeli regime that the Jewish state’s primary concerns and interests will be well protected, no matter what arrangements are entered into with Iran. Unless Israel is satisfied that its agendas, interests and favored status remain guaranteed, nothing the Obama administration can do for an opening with Iran will materialize.
As utterly degrading and embarrassing as it is, no one should be surprised that our cowardly and intimidated politicians in both political parties feel obligated to pay homage to the Israel lobby and to renew their pledge of support at the annual AIPAC events in Washington. And it did not surprise me to hear Senator John Kerry vow to expedite another 30 billion-dollar military aid to poor little defenseless Jewish state - he likes to keep his job just like all the others.
Then we also have the messianic sociopath, Pastor John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel organization, who in his zeal to bring about his peculiar interpretation of the Book of Revelation, wants to see Israel’s enemies wiped off the face of the earth to pave the way for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. His utter hatred of the Islamic faith and all Moslems sound like music in the ears of AIPAC Zionists, even though none among them would regard this pompous maniac as a man of vision or integrity. Sadly, madmen like John Hagee do have an inordinate influence over the innocently ignorant masses that flock like herds of cattle into his ministries, donate money and pressure their respective elected officials in Washington, much to the delight of the Israel-firsters. Their next march on the Capitol is due later in July this year.
A combination of intimidation, political influence peddling, control over the news and entertainment media, plus the American public’s sheepish ignorance of world affairs and, above all, the ability to extort or blackmail the government of the United States, help the momentum of the pro Zionist activists alive.
An article written be Paul Craig Roberts, Criminalizing Criticism of Israel, appearing in the web site, counterpunch.com on May 7, 2009, should be requited reading for every adult American with an IQ over 110!
For nearly thirty years now, I have maintained that the pragmatic interests of the United States and Iran are not mutually exclusive. Pragmatic interests do not include ideological zealotries, passionate love affairs or irrational attachments. The United States remains a global leader in every sphere of concern, at the same time that Iran has proven itself to be a rising regional power worthy of serious reckoning. The rise of Iran’s power and regional influence did not come about at the expense of America’s pragmatic best interests. This is contrary to the prevailing politically motivated and, for the most part, Israeli-driven propaganda we have been inundated with since the so-called war on terror.
A true war on terror in response to the events of 9-11 would have been a limited, concentrated action aimed at specific targets and against a handful few who were responsible for that event. In that effort, Iran would have gladly cooperated with the United States to eradicate the source of terrorism – Al Gha’eda - that had already declared its animosity toward the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran did exactly that later in 2001, before President George W. Bush announced Iran as a member of the axis of evil in his State of the Union address in 2002! The genius who had so shrewdly inserted that ridiculous phrase into the President’s speech was the Jewish Canadian import, David Frum, who is now a member in good standing in several rightwing, neoconservative and Zionist organizations.
I cannot believe, by any stretch of my imagination, that President Obama and others around him are unaware of the realities on the ground. These realities are pressing ever harder to burst into the open. But as long as America’s security and strategic best interests are so cunningly dressed to appear inseparable from what suits Israel best, the Obama administration can neither broker a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, nor engage Iran in a meaningful dialogue toward a mutually beneficial cooperation.
When, how and at what cost will this parasitic attachment be cut off? While we await the answer, any attempt at a rapprochement with Iran must be safeguarded by pampering and feeding the little monster to keep the troublemaker from sabotaging the whole process.
We all wish you courage, stamina and a great deal of luck, Mr. President. May you have the will, wisdom, courage and the perseverance to break this vicious circle.
Please look up a very timely article by Gary Leupp under "Other" button.IRAN BASHING
April 25, 2009
These days saying or writing anything in anyway positive about the Islamic Republic of Iran is an invitation to all sorts of criticism, ridicule and even slander. It is, therefore, no surprise that high profile writers and academics or those folks who seek publicity and recognition in the mass media cater to the prevailing mindset, simply because it is all about “them” and their ambitions. They are not ready or willing to risk their tenure or position for the sake of journalistic honesty or the truth; no surprises there!
Rising in defense of anything Iranian marks one at best as an apologist, or at worst as a paid agent of the Islamic Republic. This is particularly true, even exclusively so, if the “offender” is an Iranian or an Iranian American. As a result, we see only the American or British academics whose views we see reflecting a different perspective from the conventional wisdom about Iran. Even these observers, the likes of the nuclear physicist Gordon Prather who writes about Iran’s nuclear operations, or Professor Juan Cole with impeccable credentials and qualifications in the fields of history and geopolitics, offer their countercurrent views to seldom publicized dissent oriented web sites or on their personal web pages.
They are also subject of criticism by their detractors, not being accused of sedition as agents of the “enemy”, but as ignoramuses who simply do not understand or are in denial of the so-called “facts”. We Iranians or Iranian Americans, on the other hand, are not as kindly received when we express views that do not accommodate mass perceptions about Iran.
Needless to say, not all is well in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Not all is well anywhere else in the world or right here in America, either. I cannot think of any place on this earth where all is well and where criticism does not apply. In fact, I believe there is lot more wrong in Iran today than the regime or the administration of the country would ever admit. However, it doesn’t necessarily follow that all is wrong in Iran, or that everything the Iranian leaders say or do should be criticized.
This brings me to three subjects of current interest regarding Iran and its relations with the West, particularly the United States.
First issue that has been highly publicized lately is the detention and conviction of the Iranian American reporter, Roxana Saberi, on charges of espionage. The United States and practically all the Western allies have unanimously condemned Ms. Saberi’s arrest and conviction, as have all the media sources, which include Iranian American organizations and the related web sites.
What strikes me more than anything else is that they all claim they somehow know that the charges against the young and attractive Ms. Saberi are bogus and trumped up for ulterior motives by the Iranian government.
Naturally, we cannot expect our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to say anything other than what she has said repeatedly about Roxana Saberi’s innocence. The question is whether she could have said anything different if Ms. Saberi was, in fact, truly guilty of the charges against her: of course not. Neither would we expect Ms. Saberi’s long-time companion and fiancé in Iran, whose publicized letter about his friend’s character and innocence was so emotionally charged, to be dispassionately objective.
Roxana Saberi might well be totally innocent of the charges against her. She might have been falsely accused by the authorities in order to be used as a political pawn in the chess game of international intrigue. But how could our colleague, Dr. Trita Parsi, be so sure that the young lady reporter was wrongfully arrested and accused of trumped up charges? Is it simply a personal presumption, a case of clairvoyance, or the result of a careful, objective, hands-on analysis of the situation?
In an article in Huffington Post, Mr. Parsi enumerates a long series of possible alternative explanations as to why this young lady was arrested and charged with espionage. In the final sentence, he makes the cursory remark that, of all the possible motives for that arrest, espionage would be the least likely to have been the true reason. If we exclude that final short sentence which hints at the possibility at least, however remote in Mr. Parsi’s view, that she might have been involved in some act that could have been regarded by the authorities as espionage, the text would read as though written by any mainstream newspaper editorial or op-ed writer here.
Within the text of his article, Mr. Parsi finds it apropos to refer to President Obama’s “friendly” Norooz gesture toward Iran: “The Obama administration's outreach to Iran, and the President's extensive efforts to change the atmospherics between the two countries - particularly the signal that problems between the US and Iran cannot be resolved through threats and his consistent reference to the Islamic Republic - have largely deprived the Iranian government of the pretext of a perceived US threat.”
Here he is implying that, without the pretext of an American threat against the Iranian regime, the hardliners were left with no choice but to resort to means such as the arrest of an innocent Ms. Saberi in order to torpedo any rapprochement with the United States.
I don’t know why Trita Parsi has tried to reword and then interpret Obama’s message to the Iranian regime as conciliatory on its own merit. President Obama never relented from accusing Iran of the pursuit of arms and support for terrorism in that “friendly” message. The only difference from the previous administration is, as Hillary Clinton has just expressed in her address to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, that the United States is now willing to negotiate with the Iranians before more serious measures are adopted! Naturally, who wouldn’t prefer to dictate terms of a negotiation or an agreement (an oxymoron) over a friendly chat and a cup of coffee, rather than through expensive and risky escalation of hostilities or military action? Even the Israeli regime would prefer to have its way without resorting to force, if it could.
Finally, Mr.Parsi sites the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran (ICHRI), as a source of credible and objective view about Iran, and as a reference highlighting the Iranian regime’s treatment of its women, ergo the case regarding Roxana Saberi. I can only assume that Dr. Parsi is an honest advocate of “human rights”, irrespective of, and disconnected from, all social or political considerations and constraints. This, of course, must include other human rights, such as freedom of expression, life without discrimination, freedom from repression and injustice, etc., no matter where or in what circumstances, which would include the national security concerns. I suppose that same group of humanitarian Good Samaritans also have agencies dealing with the civil rights and liberties of the Palestinians, or cases such as the long-term imprisonment of people like Mordachai Vanunu , or the thousands of political prisoners in Israeli jails held without charges or trials, or the lot of Moslem minorities in many European countries. Does this “international” group also have a branch that deals solely with the violations of women’s rights, say, in Saudi Arabia, a far greater violation of women’s rights by many degrees of magnitude? Or is it just about women’s rights only in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and solely for the women’s sake and not to denigrate that particular regime?
[This, by the way, reminds me of the so-called Save Darfur international movement, whose function, thanks to their Israeli contingent, is to reduce the conflict and internecine massacre to a Moslem Arabs killing the Native Africans scenario for obvious reasons. Dr. Mamdani’s book, Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics, and the War on Terror, is an eye-opening view for the interested readers.]This brings me to the second issue at hand; the 2009 Durban II gathering in Switzerland, and the Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s tirade against Israel and its supporters: Not very “helpful”; reminiscent of Mrs. Clinton’s comments regarding Israel’s atrocities in Gaza and the plans to expand its illegal settlements in the West Bank, where she said those actions were not “helpful!”
Only an idiot would consider Mr. Ahmadinejad as a charismatic personality or a capable diplomat. However, those who are familiar with the Islamic Republic of Iran know the limitations of the power and constitutional authority of the presidency of Iran: He is not in charge of Iran’s foreign policy apparatus or Iran’s military affairs. What he says in those regards are simply his personal opinions that do not carry any weight in the decision making processes. He is not the “decider” on whether or not to engage in diplomatic dialogues in the domain of international negotiations, deploy the military or to declare war against Israel, Europe or the United States.
Even right here in the United States, what percentage of the American nation did George W. Bush speak for in his misdirected foreign policy utterances, where the President does have the constitutional authority as the “decider” and is, in fact, the “Commander in Chief”?
Similarly, why all this international uproar about “Iran” wanting to “wipe Israel off the face of the map” or denying that the Holocaust ever took Place? Not only were Ahmadinejad’s utterances deliberately distorted to imply what he never intended, his voice is not the voice of the nation of Iran or even that of Iran’s ruling power centers who make such decisions.
True to his crude personality, Ahmadinejad said some terribly unkind words about Israel and Zionism in general. Listening to his speech at the UN conference on racism in Switzerland and reading the translated text, which he did not deliver in full, his words and characterizations were truly harsh and accusatory; but were they total falsehoods, exaggerations or right on the mark? In the translated text, he characterized Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as genocidal: He should have, perhaps, used the term, ethnic cleansing, instead. Isn’t that the truth, though, no matter what you might call it?
Well, the Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize laureate, Elie Weisel, in his address at the most recent Holocaust Remembrance Day (the only atrocity, I suppose, ever committed in recent history worth remembering and memorializing!) a few days ago, wondered why Iran’s president was ever invited to the UN conference on racism. Was Mr. Weisel shocked because talking about racism during a conference on racism is totally unacceptable, even outrageous; or because Ahmadinejad was, as everyone could have guessed, not willing to uphold the sanctity of the prevailing mythology regarding a certain Sacred Cow?
The final point:
Newt Gingrich, among many other FOX fans, was quite upset that President Obama shook the hand of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez when the latter approached to offer him his book (which has become a best-seller since then).
In his criticism of the President, Gingrich went on say that Obama should not have responded that way to people who “hate America”, among whom the “Newt” included the Iranians, the Chinese and the Cubans!
Well Newt, for your information, they don’t hate America; they despise people like you and the lobbies that support the likes of you. Just remember; we do not hate the Moslems either; only people like Ben Laden who truly want to do us harm. Isn’t that true, Newt?
Does Mr. Gingrich truly believe that the Iranians or the Venezuelans “hate” America and wish to harm the Americans? This man, the former Speaker of the House and a prominent political figure here, supposedly an educated scholar (PhD in History) is blinded by hatred and bigotry so characteristic of rednecks in gray flannel suits.
The hardliners in Iran who, according to Trita Parsi, oppose any rapprochement with the United States do not have to resort to charging poor Roxana Saberi with espionage to torpedo the efforts; the likes of Newt Gingrich provide them with ample pretexts.
Note: Please click on the "Other" button to read a very timely article by Paul Craig Roberts.How much more do we owe you now, Bibi?
April 15
If it weren’t so disgustingly transparent and intellectually insulting, the charade currently staged by the new Israeli regime would deserve the Golden Globe Award for the best comedy routine of the year.
Exhibiting genuine concern over Iran’s “existential threat” against the Jewish nation, the gravest since Hitler’s time as Mr. Netanyahu has put it, the new Prime Minister is now hearing innuendos voiced by the international community and, worse yet, even by grand daddy, the United States, about a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian dilemma. How unfair could things get; oy vey, how much more hardship is Israel expected to tolerate and sacrifices to make?
While the new Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, parades as honest and sincere as any radical Likudnik could possibly get by his unbending defiance against any Israeli commitments to peace, the Good Cop Netanyahu grimaces, bites his lip, and hesitatingly indicates his resilience to at least consider peace talks with the Palestinians – in his own terms, naturally; and you better believe it, at a price, of course!
But for now, any peace talk must be put on the back burner and all attention refocused on the Iranian threat. After all, what good is any peace negotiations toward a two-state resolution when the very existence of not just Israel, but also the Palestinians, is threatened by a nuclear armed Iran? Those “mad mullahs” would nuke the whole area if their nuclear arms project were not stopped, and as soon as possible, even though their own country would be devastated in turn. Isn’t that what suicidal zealots would do?
So, Vice President Joe Biden says that he doesn’t believe Israel would attack Iran preemptively! He should shut the hell up and not attempt to spoil the plot, dammit! Doesn’t Mr. Biden understand how the scenario is written? Didn’t anybody brief Mr. Biden on how the game is to be played?
The whole plot revolves around not just the possibility, but the real probability of Israel taking matters in its own hands and stopping Iran’s nuclear advances before it is too late. If the new Likud regime if forced by the Grand Benefactor to not embark on such a clearly justifiable act of preemptive action, the reward better be worth this self-sacrifice.
And what is this we now hear about Congressmen John Conyers and Geoff Davis introducing a resolution calling for President Obama to reach an "Incidents-at-Sea Agreement" with Iran in order to avoid a catastrophic conflict resulting from some “accidental” mishap? Are they really serious? Don’t they know anything about choreographed accidents?
Here is what the whole pot boils down to: For Israel to continue to get whatever it demands, and more, certain factors must be allowed to play their parts, both on the ground and in the public domain. Chief among these factors is the perpetuation of the perception of some ominous existential threat against the Jewish state. Currently, it is Iran that has been playing that vital role quite convincingly, thanks mostly to the Israeli propaganda machine and the American mass media and the puppets-on-the-string within our Congress. Iran has also been quite obliging in that regard. Ahmadinejad’s inflammatory trades against the “Zionist Entity” has helped move the scenario along considerably. This, despite the fact that the Iranian president, no matter what his opinions or utterances, has no authority to formulate foreign policy or to mobilize for any military action.
Another factor is the rather bizarre depiction of the Jewish state as some form of democracy and an extension of Western moral and ethical values worth protecting.
Yet another misperception is the belief that Israel is on the same footing as the United States in the fight on terror. Israel has managed very convincingly to portray the Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas, as a terrorist group, while masking the state’s own mass terrorism, approaching genocidal dimensions, against the Palestinian populations and their homeland in the cloak of legitimate self-defense. Shame on us if there is, in fact, some moral and ethical equivalency between American values, morals and ethical standards and those of the Israeli regimes.
Finally, Israel has never been, is not now, and will never be, willing to abandon the fundamental visions of a “Jewish” state in favor of a one-state solution, where the non-Jewish populations would ultimately outnumber the Jews, especially the imported Ashkenazim of European and Russian origin. At the same time, the concept of a two-state arrangement, meaning a contiguous viable Palestine side by side with Israel, is no more than a mirage created by the Zionist state and its supporters to appease the international community and cover up Israel’s ulterior agendas. Israel will not concede a meaningful proportion of the lands and the resources the settlers have taken over in the West Bank and Jerusalem. The Israeli regime will put the blame, as it always has in the past, on the Palestinians for “not missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity” in reaching any agreement toward a resolution.
As this theatrical drama unfolds, we shall see how the “peace-loving” Israeli regime receives its well-deserved rewards for the resilience and accommodating attitude shown by its new leader, Bibi Netanyahu, who had so graciously and generously opted to override his own gut feeling and his nation’s rightful entitlements in order to give peace a chance.
Thus, the floodgates of financial aid in grants and loan guarantees will open up again, now wider than ever. What’s more, since Bibi has agreed to not attack Iran unilaterally, Washington will now be obligated to increase economic pressures on the common enemy, Iran, and to provide Israel with unprecedented quantities of the latest offensive and defensive weaponry.
Also, since the failure to reach an agreement with the Palestinians will be due purely to their own incorrigible attitude, Israel cannot be held responsible for any violation of human rights, international law in any action it might take against those troublesome barbarians.
One word of caution, though, to Bibi and his cutthroat team: Beware of some quite unpleasant consequences if you push your luck too far!
If you decide to stage an “accidental” mishap to create more tension between the American forces in the region and Iran, make sure the incidental mishap is not serious enough to ignite the powder keg. In other words, since both the American administration and the Iranian leadership are party to your charade, consult with them before any “accident” is staged, in order to avoid unexpected or undesired consequences.
YOU ARE RIGHT, MR. OBAMA;
NOW PUT THE SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT
March 22, 2009
President Obama's Norooz (Iranian New Year) message to the people and the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran was hailed as a groundbreaking effort, a clear departure from the Bush administration's stance, in reaching out to Iran. America's hand, as promised earlier by Mr. Obama, was stretched toward Iran, hoping to encounter the unclenched hand of Iran from the other side.
While most Americans are primarily concerned with the economic downturns affecting everyone's lives these days, some do go past the diversionary trivia saturating the news and entertainment media and do pay attention to other global events that could prove consequential to the welfare of the nation. Among such events is the US/Iran relation which has come t o the fore with the announcement of America's new foreign policy tactics and strategies under the new administration.
It is in the opinion and editorial pages of the newspapers and TV commentaries that we find reactions to and analyses of Obama's message to Iran and Iran's response to that gesture. And the few among the public who do show interest in such developments have seldom anything to go by other than what could be gleaned from the same news and entertainment media in the first place. In this circular catch 22, it is not surprising that a recent AOL survey finds that 80% of the respondents consider Iran a "threat" to America! It is safe to say that better than 80% of Americans cannot even locate Iran on the map of the world.
It is in this kind of atmosphere that President Obama's message to Iran is being hailed as a grand gesture of magnanimity in America's part, and a new opportunity for the Iranians to shake the hand that is stretched out to them in earnest – or else!
Or else?! Let us see if "or else" is embedded in Mr. Obama's message to the Iranian people.
The general tone of the President's message is quite friendly to the point, at times, of sounding almost condescending, and that is where the tone of the message becomes less than 100% sincere. And, in between all the candy coated phrases we can clearly detect the "iron hand" that is also candy wrapped, with no effort to actually disguise its true contents: The President warned Iran that it cannot "take its rightful place in the community of nations……. through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization." This is clearly implying that the President has not let go of the long-running accusations against Iran of supporting terrorism and the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Aren't we looking at the Carrots-and-Sticks strategy approach all over again – offer the donkey some carrots from one hand and make sure the animal sees the stick in your other hand?
Well, Iran does not perceive itself as some donkey facing its benefactor, an errant schoolchild being gently reprimanded by the school superintendent, or a disturbed patient under the care of a psychiatrist. No negotiation or attempt at a rapprochement can ever take place, not just with Iran, but with any other sovereign nation big or small, if one side insists on playing the dominant role and dictating the terms. This method has not worked to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian problem, and will not work in resolving the apparent impasse the United States faces with Iran.
Here, of course, I am analyzing and commenting on the first stage and clearly the superficial aspect of America's new approach to the Iranian government, as well as Iran's expected response, which would be just as superficial and for public consumption, to Mr. Obama's message. As I have expressed before in my previous articles on this subject, I am quite hopeful, if not 100% convinced, that real and honest negotiations have been and are taking place behind the scenes.
Contrary to what the mad-dog media pundits, the neoconservatives, Zionist lobbyists and Israel-firsters portray, the so-called "Mullahs" that govern the Islamic Republic of Iran are not a bunch of 10th century Islamic fanatics ignorant of the workings of the modern world. The average seminarian in the city of Qum knows more about the current world affairs than the opinionated pipsqueaks, Sean Hannity or Glen Beck, of Fox TV.
Iran's source of authority, Ayatollah Khamene'i, who has the last word on major policy decisions of the country, including matters of foreign policy, did not send an official reply to President Obama's Norooz message but, instead, referred to that message within the context of his own Norooz greetings to the people of Iran during his visit to the holy city of Mashhad.
Mr. Khamene'i could have easily sufficed by an official thank you message returning Mr. Obama's complements, accompanied by a short response which would read in part: …And yes, we also agree that America can not regain its rightful respect in the eyes of the international community and its place within the civilized world through the show of its might, threats of war and regime change, intimidation and interference in the affairs of other nations, but rather through peaceful actions and show of respect for the international law, demonstrating America's true greatness.
This way, Mr. Khamene'i's reiteration during his speech in Mashhad of old grievances , such as the American supported attack against Iran by Saddam Hussein, the downing of Iran's passenger jet by an American warship in the Persian Gulf, the withholding of billions of dollars of Iran's funds for three decades, etc., would have been unnecessary. This is especially true when, as we have seen numerous times, a lengthy and needlessly detailed speech provides ample fodder for reinterpretation, misinterpretation and deliberate distortion by the overzealous analysts, most with their own ulterior motives. A perfect case in point was the speech by Mr. Ahmadinejad of Iran about the "Zionist usurpers", which has become firmly established as his declaration to "wipe Israel off the face of the map."
Finally, in response to the Israeli President, Shimon Peres, who so shrewdly piggybacked his own Norooz greetings to the Iranian people with that of President Obama, the Iranian President Ahmadinejad, not Ayatollah Khamene'i, should have replied: We understand very well your gesture of goodwill toward the Iranian people, hoping that they would rise up against their regime and establish a more progressive and friendly society conducive to a peaceful and constructive relationship with their neighbors and the region. Likewise, I, as well as the large Jewish community of Iran, the largest in the Middle East outside of Israel, similarly wish that the progressive, intelligent and peace-loving people of Israel would topple the radical rightwing Zionist regime that continue to bring mayhem and devastation to the region as well as to the honorable Israeli people, and replace it with peace-loving, fair and honest leaders that your ancient civilization deserves.
Needless to say, the Israeli President's message to the Iranian people was not only a rather amateurish redundancy, it was a counterproductive gesture by a senior politician whose diplomatic skills are quickly fading with the onset of senility. To the Israeli leadership's surprise, the White House was clearly displeased with that incidence.
Walking the Tightrope over Burnt Bridges
March 15, 2009
Suppose, just suppose, that President Obama does, in fact, understand the historical backdrop and the machinations of America’s policies in the Middle East, especially as they relate to US/Iran relations. And again, suppose, just suppose, that he does intend to do everything in his power to change the course that has led the United States into the quagmire of the Middle East and has damaged America’s prestige and credibility worldwide.
Finally, suppose, just suppose, that the President sees the solution to at least the most urgent or pressing difficulties we face in that area in coming to terms with the Iranian government as the most influential powerbroker in the region.
Now let us examine what options are available to the American administration to implement such a dramatic policy shift that is so diametrically counter to the general public’s perceptions and, sadly, the expressed views of America’s representatives in the Congress.
For thirty years now, Iran has been portrayed to the American people as not only an enemy of the United States, but also as a threat to the peace and security of the Middle East. It has now become common knowledge among most Americans that the Islamic Republic’s “crazies” are trying to develop atomic weapons in order to wipe America’s friend and ally, Israel, off the face of the map. The current Administration has, quite obligingly, found no “acceptable” alternative but to extend economic sanctions against Iran for another year, and to continue to portray Iran as a threat to American interests.
Responding to a faint call to realities on the ground, we hear the President indicating some flexibility in the Administration’s attitude and approach regarding Iran by saying, should the Iranians unclench their fist, they would find America’s hand stretched out toward them. But, sadly, all signs, we are told, indicate that Iran’s hand remains stubbornly clinched.
In the meantime, the voices of dissent, although very seldom heard on the mainstream media, shall continue to do their “thing”; their raison d’être being nonstop criticism of the Administration’s policies, regardless of who or what political party is in charge, rather than in offering sane and workable alternatives. The dissent alarmists are furious, for instance, that someone like Dennis Ross, the well-known Zionist neocon, has been chosen by the State Department to deal with the Iranian “threat”. It is as though, many have remarked, we are sending the fox to care for the henhouse.
Hillary Clinton is also viewed as a hawk in dove’s plumage, harboring hostile feelings toward Israel’s antagonists, particularly against the Iranian regime. Her response to Israel’s decision to double the number of its illegal settlements in the West bank, as well as the most recent destruction of Palestinian homes in Gaza, as simply “unhelpful” is a good example of her kowtowing to Zionist demands. Just “unhelpful”, Mrs. Clinton!? Was the Holocaust also simply an “unhelpful” event in the course of international events, Mrs. Clinton?
But this shameful and cowardly behavior on the part of America’s new Secretary of State, and the selection of a Zionist hawk, Dennis Ross, as the point man in dealing with Iran, as transparently counterproductive as they might seem at first glance, may prove to be the most effective way to address our concerns regarding Iran.
I would rather not repeat what I have already elaborated on several times in my previous articles. Instead, let us offer an alternative to Mr. Obama’s choice of a Secretary of State, as well as the envoy to negotiate with the Iranians.
Let us have Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the former Democrat Party presidential candidate and, for a change, an outspoken voice of opposition to the former administration’s hardline approach toward the Middle East, as our Secretary of State. As for the envoy to negotiate with Iran, Syria and Lebanon, let us pick the former president Jimmy Carter, who, now that he does not have to pay a political price for his honest views, has gained a new respect among Israel’s designated enemies in the Middle East.
I am sure Alexander Cockburn of counterpunch.com and Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com and their respective contributors would cheer the new selections. Iranian commentators and analysts and Iran sympathizers would be equally happy to see honest brokers at work to bring about a harmonious and mutually beneficial conclusion to three decades of absolutely unnecessary rift between the two nations.
Now, let us see what the odd-man-out, Israel, is up to before our new dream-team starts its work.
Those who have cared to read beyond the front pages of our major newspapers may have come across a recent development that never received any attention by the network news organizations. According to the new Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, Iran does not have enough enriched uranium or the technology to make an atomic weapon. This confirmed the older intelligence estimate announced about a year ago that Iran was at least three years away from the capability to produce an atomic bomb, even if Iran chose to do so. Just a few weeks ago, however, announcements were made by the Pentagon and a “revised” intelligence estimate that Iran could be very close to acquiring the materials and the technology to make a bomb. The Israelis are barking already that Iran has passed the point of no return in acquiring the bomb.
It would be naïve, if not downright stupid, to think that people such as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen, the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chief of the National Intelligence Admiral Blair, or the CIA officials are not on the same page as far as the status of Iran’s nuclear developments are concerned. The contradictions we see in various high-source statements must, therefore, be purely politically motivated.
It is easy to understand why the Israelis behave as though they are sure that Iran already has or is about to have the feared atomic weapon and the means of delivering a death blow to the Zionist state. They have already announced over and over again that, should it be deemed necessary, Israel would take out Iranian installations with or without the help or approval of the big daddy. They, of course, know fully well what repercussions such an action would have against America’s interests in the region and worldwide.
The current Israeli military chief Gabi Ashkenazi is due in Washington to heighten the state of alert regarding the Iran threat. Meanwhile, Mr. Netanyahu , the new Prime Minister designate, is raising the alarm signaling a pending war against Iran, Hezbollah and other sources of concern for Israel.
This heightened frenzy by the Israelis and their staunch supporters here in the United States, AIPAC and its subordinate Zionist organizations, as well as the influential Jewish-dominated congressional committees overseeing America’s Middle East policies (not just a coincidence, by the way!), all point to their concern over any shift in Obama administration’s attitude toward possible reconciliation with Israel’s designated enemies. The accounts of the recent House Financial Services Subcommittee meeting that addressed the issue of economic sanctions against Iran is a good example of how the few passionate supporters of the Likud regime steer the policies of the United States to serve Israel’s objectives.
The House Subcommittee had also invited the head of National Iranian American Council (NIAC), Trita Parsi, as a guest to express his constituents’ perspective on the effectiveness or the merits of economic sanctions on Iran. Even the venerable Dr. Parsi was clearly cowed into expressing accommodating statements in his report:
“In recent years, we have also seen what seems to be a specific targeting by the Iranian government of Iranian Americans. Esha Momeni, an Iranian-American student born in California, was imprisoned a few months ago while visiting Iran to write a Master’s thesis on the country’s vibrant women’s movement. Roxana Saberi, an Iranian-American journalist with NPR and a Miss America finalist, was arrested a few weeks ago while working in Tehran and is still being detained in Evin prison. In both cases, the human rights of these young Iranian-American women were violated by initially denying them legal counsel and by holding them without revealing the charges against them. And the 2007 imprisonment of Dr. Haleh Esfandiari, Director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, is of course known to all.”
“My prepared remarks today will focus on how America’s objectives with Iran can best be achieved – ensuring a peaceful Iran that contributes to regional stability, that does not develop a nuclear bomb, and that ceases to support militant organizations.” (My emphasis)
Was Mr. Parsi implying agreement to the accusations leveled against the Iranian regime, even though he had chosen his words rather carefully?
Had Dr. Parsi not been prepared to show this kowtowing to the prevailing propaganda lines, his own future as an occasional guest on news talk shows, as well as the future of the organization which he is so ably heading, would be in real jeopardy.
I personally feel sorry for Trita Parsi and don’t envy his position. I am, however, quite confident that we are not seeing another Fuad Ajami in the making.
Another case in point: The latest effort by the hard core rightwing Israel supporters in the United States was to torpedo the nomination of Chas Freeman , as the Chair of the National Intelligence Council, which oversees the production of National Intelligence Estimates. Chas Freeman was nominated by Admiral Dennis Blair for the post, precisely because of Mr. Freeman’s extensive Foreign Service background and independent voice, to ensure honest and impartial appraisal of developments that would concern America’s security interests.
But the lobby doesn’t want any honest and impartial appraisals of the situation that might disagree with Israel’s contentions. Steven Rosen, who was indicted for espionage for Israel in 2005, was a long-term official at AIPAC, and is now involved with its satellite organization, Middle East Forum, spearheaded the campaign of defamation against Mr. Freeman. Senators Chuck Schumer and Joseph Lieberman then organized their lobbying efforts in the US Congress to stop this nomination.
Well, they succeeded. It now remains to be seen what might become of Admiral Dennis Blair who had dared to appoint an honest man who was not Israel-loving enough to a post that might have a bearing on American policy in the Middle East.
OK! Now imagine how the Israeli lobby and its supporters in our Congress and the media would react if our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had exhibited her honest reaction to Israel’s announcement to double the number of illegal settlements in the West Bank or the latest atrocities committed against the Gazans. Would rumors then quickly circulate that Mrs. Clinton and North Korea’s Kim Jong-il have had an illicit relationship of some sort, and that the Clinton Library was receiving a percentage of moneys from the sale of North Korean nuclear technology to Al Gha-eda?!
Now let us go back to the theoretical or, better put, theatrical postulate of having the Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and the former President Carter somehow pass through the Zionist minefield and report for duty in handling our negotiations with the Iranians. The lobby and its supporters would quickly conclude that Mr. Obama might be putting America’s best interests in the region ahead of Israel’s agendas.
This is certainly not going to sit well with Israel’s hardliners such as the Prime Minister designate Mr. Netanyahu or Avigdor Lieberman, the head of Israel's far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party. And, there are other knuckleheads who lack the diplomatic knowledge or the shrewd bargaining skills of Israel’s top leaders, whose basic aim is to gain for Israel whatever perceived advantage they can at everybody else’s expense if need be. Just as the biggest danger in nuclear proliferation is in portable weapons falling into the hands of isolated rogue terrorists, the danger here is in a few Israeli hardheads triggering some event in the Persian Gulf that would drag the United States and Iran into a real confrontation. Nobody wants that; this would benefit no one, not even Israel.
To avoid such an eventuality, it would be imperative to maintain the posture of accommodation to whatever Israel demands in order to appease potential troublemakers. If a confrontation with Iran is to be avoided, Israel’s ultra hardliners must be satisfied that their expectations and requirements are not negotiated away in any arrangements between the United States and Iran.
Israel ’s demands are quite clear and have never been in doubt, ignored or unattained:
1- Indefinite postponement of any land for peace agreement with the Palestinians, with the blame always on the Palestinian inflexibility. Israel is not ready, willing or even able to move out of the West Bank and dismantle its settlements anytime soon.
2- Containment of both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, while keeping them as aggrandized sources of nuisance to further legitimize Israel’s aggressive operations whenever they are deemed necessary.
3- Remaining the recipient of the lion’s share of financial, diplomatic and military aid and support from the United States.
4- Remaining the unchallenged military power in the region.
By successfully portraying itself as an indispensable ally of the United States, under constant threat of annihilation by America’s own enemies, and chastised by other unfriendly states around the globe, Israel has managed to create such a convincing narrative in the minds of most Americans that parallels the status of a religious faith.
Today, if one were to ask the average American if he or she could name at least one advantage America’s passionate attachment to Israel has brought to our nation, the response would likely be an incredulous look of disbelief as though one had just questioned the existence of god!
In the face of the foregoing, how could the Obama Administration approach Iran in a diplomatic dialogue with any hope of success in any other way than maintaining the façade of the prevailing political rhetoric while engaging in some serious horse trading in the background?
I may be too optimistic, overly Machiavellian, or really naïve, to think that the hardline rhetoric from the White House, Hillary Clinton’s non-conciliatory remarks against Iran and her appointment of the Zionist lobbyist Dennis Ross as her front man to deal with Iran are all steps necessary to engage Iran in a meaningful rapprochement, without alienating the pro-Israel forces who could torpedo the whole process.
The Iranian side, no doubt, has its own very similar dilemma in “unclenching its fist” toward the stretched hand of the United States.
Unlike their American counterparts, the Iranian people have not had the luxury of a self-delusional belief in the freedom and openness of their news media and access to honest information. It is not out of prejudice caused by propaganda or an endemic sense of paranoia that the Iranians attribute their social and economic ills, directly or indirectly, to Iran’s relations with the United States: directly, as a result of economic sanctions and diplomatic pressures; and indirectly, because of the threats against the security and territorial integrity of the country, which continue to strengthen and legitimize social strangulation, postponing reforms toward normalization and true democracy.
Again, unlike their American counterparts, The Iranians view the state of Israel as an illegitimate child adopted by rich and powerful parents and nurtured to grow into an arrogant bully who pushes its weight around and, whenever necessary, throws a temper tantrum to get whatever it demands.
Iranians, therefore, blame Israel’s stranglehold on America’s foreign policy apparatus as the mechanism responsible for the widening rift between the two countries. They did not have to read John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt book, the Israel Lobby , to reach that conclusion. For this reason, any reconciliation with the United States that might entail the appearance of submission or capitulation by Iran or the abandonment of Iran’s legal rights in the eyes of Iran’s leadership and parliamentarians would prove unattainable. While the Iranian people who have been suffering increasing social and economic pressures are much more ready to exchange some of their ideological points of contention for pragmatic or material relief, the leadership, as is the case with their counterparts in the United States, is obligated to maintain its defiant façade. Behind all the saber rattling and chest thumping by both sides, sober negotiations could bring about a degree of understanding and mutual accommodation that would benefit all. My hope is that the balancing act on the tightrope stretched over the burnt bridges will succeed in bringing about positive results for both Iran and the United States. The alternative is too horrible for all concerned to think about.OBAMA, THE FOREVER-ENTITLED-ONES AND IRAN
January 26, 2009
In today’s Iranian or Iranian-American community, it would be difficult to find a more interested and dedicated group than the National Iranian American Council that is actively working to improve the relations between the United States and Iran. Trita Parsi, the Council President, has continued to contribute to this organization’s mission with his writings, appearances and interviews.
Dr. Parsi’s excellent article, Israel, Gaza and Iran: Trapping Obama in Imagined Fault Lines, appearing in payvand.com on January 17, 2009, is an example of his measured and balanced analyses for which he should be congratulated.
No doubt, if a resolution of the US/Iranian relations is in fact the desired objective of both parties to this ongoing, internecine conflict, anything that might exacerbate the rift between the two states should be avoided.
At first glance, this conclusion seems so commonsensical as to leave no room for skepticism or argument. But, as I have tried to explain in my more recent writings, appearing both in payvand.com and my own web site, intellectualdiscourse.com, Iran and the United States are not the only players on this stage. It is Israel and Israeli interests in the United States that have been and continue to be at the helm of America’s policies in the Middle East. In better words, the United States administrations, whether run by the Republicans or by the Democrats, will not be able to adopt policies in the Middle East that do not, first and foremost, serve Israel’s perceived interests, as misguided as those perceptions might be.
Given that premise, we must include Israel into any major equation that deals with the prospects of a new approach to Israeli-Palestinian agreements or a rapprochement between the United States and Iran.
At this potentially pivotal juncture in history, the presidency of Barack Obama has helped project rays of hope for long awaited changes in America’s policies and conduct toward the Middle East, if not the greater Islamic world. While the Islamic world, particularly the Middle Eastern nations, are anticipating a positive shift in America’s approach, any meaningful change in the long-established trends could be easily interpreted as a potential shift in policies not welcome by certain recipients of America’s unequivocal support.
It is not only Israel that might be concerned about a significant change in America’s approach to Middle East affairs. America’s so called friendly, moderate Islamic friends - friends of convenience, that is – might be equally at risk of losing their favored status should the United States decide to adopt a more honest policy of promoting freedom and democracy in that region. There is, however, a major difference between the two.
While the reliance of those “friendly-moderate” regimes on the United States for their very survival guarantees their loyalty and compliance, the situation is reversed in Israel’s case. The United States must continue to pay heavy ransom to Israel to keep it from creating situations that would drag us into extensive and expensive new involvements in the region. Simply imagine an Israeli Special Forces group operating covertly in southern Iran, firing an Iranian marked rocket at an American aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf. Or, suppose Israel does drop a couple of American made bunker-buster bombs on Bushehr nuclear power plant; just enough to force some reaction from the Iranians.
For this reason, the new Obama administration must make every effort necessary to convincingly demonstrate America’s unwavering support for the Jewish state, lest the “Forever Entitled Ones” (I am coining a new phrase here) decide to force the issue!
The sad fact of the matter is, President Obama’s hands are just as tied as were his predecessors’ when it comes to accommodating Israel’s wishes, wishes that are never presented as requests, but increasingly as demands, for which the Israeli political leaders have often claimed credit with pride!
It certainly doesn’t seem as a simple coincidence that every time Israel embarks on some action that triggers global outrage and condemnation, the American public is drowned in a flood of pro-Israel propaganda. Rallying public sentiment in the United States forms the backbone of Israel lobbyist’s methodology. In this effort, the media and even the Administration voices have always participated quite enthusiastically. This collaboration has much less to do with an honest expression of sentiment with Israeli actions or policies, but everything to do with the American public’s perceptions about the Jewish state; positive portrayals that have long been injected into the American public’s psyche and solidified in our nation’s collective subconscious.
As long as this collective subconscious about the Jewish state remains alive and functional, Israel’s agendas, whether legitimate and honest or egregiously opportunistic and even detrimental to America’s best interests, will receive the American people’s support and, hence, the American administration’s endorsement.
Let us assume, as I have done, that President Barack Obama is aware of all this and is truly interested in changing the direction of America’s policies in the Middle East. His first order of the agenda would logically include addressing three main issues: Pakistan/Afghanistan, Iran, and Israel-Palestine. I actually believe that the Iranian case deserves a more critical attention, as everything else in dealing with the region’s dilemmas is peripheral to this core issue.
Now look at the potential ramifications of a détente or understanding between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The domino effect of a mutually advantageous cooperation between the former antagonists would extend to almost all areas of turmoil and concern where Iran’s influence plays a major role, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and even to Gaza.
At first glance, the whole world, and not just the entangled populations of the Middle East, should welcome the new spirit of peace and cooperation. Before long, questions will be raised here in the United States as to the merits or the necessity of maintaining heavy military presence in the Middle East at exorbitant costs to the taxpayers. Next, without an imminent “existential threat” from a belligerent Iran and its surrogates, the international community, including the United States, would have to put pressure on Israel to come to terms with the Palestinian nation; and the disturbing issues of land-for-peace, the pre 1967 borders, the illegal Jewish settlements and the status of Jerusalem would all surface again.
We cannot have that; can we? What; no more land grabbing and slaughtering in the guise of self-defense for the “Forever Entitled Ones”? And, no more unlimited and unquestioned financial, military and diplomatic support by the United States, no matter what Israel does? No, not if Israel and its supporters here can help it!
In short, the fear of potential or perceived terror attacks against America has justified the creation of the gigantic Department of Homeland Security with its enormous budget. Similarly, the perception of threats against our strategic interests and our allies, particularly Israel, in the Middle East has continued to play its role in maintaining a strong military presence in the region.
Oh, by the way, there’s oil there, too.
Fortunately for Israel, the threat of terrorism from dissident Palestinian activists (terrorists, if you prefer) will remain a real concern as long as their grievances are not properly addressed; and properly addressed those grievances won’t be, as long as Israel can remain under America’s diplomatic protection.
The questions should be, one: Can we find some way of justifying our military budget and presence in the Middle East so that our strategic interests there would be safeguarded, without resorting to creative scenarios that might backfire as real threats? Two: How can we step on common grounds with Iran and work toward matters of mutual interests?
The answer to the first question lies in the resolution of the second, wherein I beg to differ from most other observers of the Middle East affairs, including Dr. Parsi.
I believe the “perception” of threat against American interests, in particular against Israel, would serve three purposes at the same time. 1- It justifies America’s presence in the region to promote and protect our national interests. 2- It provides Israel with all the excuses it needs to “react in self-defense” by any means at its disposal, even if it means committing what the rest of the world would regard as genocide. Constant “perceived” threats against Israel would also justify what Israel truly seeks; uninterrupted unequivocal financial, military and diplomatic support by the Big Daddy, as well as an indefinite postponement of any meaningful resolution of the Palestinian grievances. 3- And most importantly, parading as a constant threat against the Jewish state, the Islamic Republic of Iran avoids real collision with the United States. This last point needs further clarification.
Neither the United States, nor Iran and, most significantly, nor Israel, would want or would benefit from a real military engagement. What the Israeli regime is after is a continuation of the atmosphere of threat against its existence by regional troublemakers and particularly by a potentially nuclear-armed Iran. This charade happens to also serve America’s current strategy of maintaining a heavy military presence in the region to protect against assaults on vital Persian Gulf petroleum lanes.
A perceived Iranian threat, therefore, serves the purpose perfectly well, alleviating the need to embark on any actual confrontation that would be potentially disastrous for all concerned.
It is behind this veil of theatrical threats, accusations and counter accusations that real negotiations between the United States and Iran might result in a new understanding and cooperation. But this approach would only work if Iran continues the charade as a belligerent, hostile threat to the region’s peace and security.
Perhaps unwittingly, the Iranian President Ahmadinejad is actually helping ward off the danger of an Israeli or American attack on Iran by his inflammatory and defiant rhetoric against the “Zionist Entity” and its supporters!
As I have pointed out in previous articles, Obama’s choices of the supposedly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State, and the often talked about Dennis Ross or another staunch Israel-supporter as his potential envoy to negotiate with the Iranians, point to an understanding of how this diplomatic show should be staged in order to be convincing enough to all parties concerned.
I shall have my fingers crossed, but won’t be holding my breath!
THE CRISIS IN GAZA
A MINOR TREMOR OR THE PRELUDE TO ARMAGEDDON?
The Graveyards Are Also Very Peaceful!
January 12, 2009
Peace is actually a very ambiguous concept. One can imagine men and women, young and old, dressed in pastel colored robes, smiling, dancing, singing, and lovingly hugging each other in some surreal earthly paradise. One could also bring to mind a cemetery where the eternally silent dead and buried are not expected to rise in protest or take up arms against those who put them there.
What about justice? Justice only serves the living; for the dead, it is too late. Furthermore, what is justice, anyway? That is a very peculiar concept in its own turn. Could justice be defined other than what serves the interests of those who self-righteously define it? Think about that for a moment.
It was necessary to start with the foregoing introduction to put the turmoil in the Middle East in proper perspective.
Israel, we are told and are fully expected to accept, had no alternative but to respond to the continuous rocket launches by the “terrorist” Hamas against its civilian populations. The “fact” that Israel is responding to Hamas rocket attacks upon the Israeli soil cannot be disputed. However, is this “truth” the whole truth or is it only a vignette, a partial sentence chosen from a lengthy paragraph and removed from a broader context that would paint a completely different picture of the whole issue?
Even President Elect, Barack Obama, is quoted as having said that, were his own house, where his two small children sleep, attacked by rockets, he would do everything in his power to stop it.
A gun-toting burglar who is confronted by the angered homeowner wielding a baseball bat might also shoot the fellow and claim quite correctly that he did so in self-defense!
Historically not that long ago, bands of “savages” were attacking peace loving settlers who had risked life and limb to realize their dreams in the open plains of the New World. In the eyes of these newcomers, their entitlements to the land were more than legitimate and legal; they had the blessings of the Almighty, as well. It was much later that those “savages” turned out to be human beings with their own entitlements and mandates from their own gods or higher spirits.
But, what was taken away from the unwanted inhabitants of the land was never returned to them. Instead, what remained of the original tribes were granted token “reservation” rights and left to their own, effectively clearing the Federal Government from any direct responsibility for the welfare of those disenfranchised humans.
Is this the future of the Palestinians? Everything seems to be pointing in that direction.
Some wonder why the Arab World is so remarkably silent about this most recent massacre of the Palestinians and in some cases even supportive of Israeli actions. The answer is: It is not the Arab World that is complacent, it is the leaderships of the Arab nations, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the wealthier small Emirates that find their own personal or tribal interests in falling in line with the mandates of the global superpower and the guardian of the Jewish state.
Not only do these “friendly, moderate” Islamic leaders blame Hamas for the current escalation of Israeli violence, they also blame Iran for its support for that democratically elected party that represents the great majority of the Palestinian people, both in Gaza and in the West Bank. These “leaders” of the Arab nations prefer to regard Hamas’ rival, the so-called Palestinian Authority and its president, Mahmood Abbas, as the true voice of the Palestinian nation.
Well, Mahmood Abbas, representing the Palestinian Authority, believes in “negotiating” for some perennially nondescript peace settlement, ultimately leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state next to Israel; of course we are talking about the kind of a Palestinian state that Israel would prefer. Hamas and, in fact, most Palestinians, on the other hand, see that kind of a two-state solution as neither feasible nor desirable.
In a masterfully disguised stroke of diplomatic genius, the Israeli regime has continued to appear as magnanimously in favor of peace negotiations toward an ultimate two-state solution. This subterfuge accomplishes three tasks at the same time: First; it makes Israel appear as the good guy in the eyes of the international community, at least in the West where it counts. Second; Israel knows fully well that endless negotiations, as demonstrated in the past, would lead nowhere. And, third; the blame would, as always, be put on the Palestinians for their unreasonableness and stubborn defiance.
The sad fact, however, remains that neither a compromised or capitulated two-state solution, the kind that Israel would accept, nor the pipedream of an ultimate one-state alternative, is destined to guarantee the Palestinian nation a meaningful statehood. As long as Israel is not willing to give up anything it has thus far gained, or make any concessions worthy of the name, the dream of a contiguous, independent Palestinian state remains just that, a dream.
And as long as Israel continues to enjoy unlimited and unequivocal support of the United States, whether openly expressed as official American policy or extended even in violation of America’s own laws, it would be foolish to expect Israel to behave other than it has been doing all along.
The following link to the full text of an interview conducted on Democracy Now is quite revealing.
Now the Likudniks in Israel, best represented by Netanyahu who is likely the next Prime Minister, and their American counterparts and staunch supporters, people such as John Bolton, are trying their best to implicate Iran in the current crisis in Gaza. Even the highly respected very senior! political analyst, Daniel Schorr, could not help himself but to comment in an interview on Public Radio that the Hamas/Israeli conflict is actually a proxy war between Israel and Iran.
But wait just one minute, Mr. Schorr; if this is a proxy war between Iran and Israel because Iran has provided the Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas, with some money, arms and other aid; then this is actually a proxy war between the United States and Iran, because the United States has been providing Israel with practically everything it wants, and some!
Implicating Iran is also intended to negate or nullify the Palestinian nation’s own legitimate cause for its decades-long struggle against occupation and Israeli tyranny. Were it not for Iran and its interest in giving Israel a hard time, we are supposed to believe, the Hamas movement or the Palestinian cause would cease to exist!
Another even more pathetic effort in implicating Iran in the current crisis is the allegation that Iran has supplied the Palestinian resistance movement with the missiles that have been raining down over Israeli towns. Well then, if these makeshift paper tubes and stovepipes filled with explosives that cause as much damage as some of the more potent July 4th fireworks are examples of Iran’s missile technology, why are we so worried about the Iranian missile threat that is supposedly aimed at Israel, Europe and even the United States, for which the United States is erecting anti-missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic?
Is this perhaps also reflective of Iran’s alleged technological advances toward building its nuclear bombs?
Many commentators and analysts see the increasing tempo of hostile rhetoric and actions by Israel as a prelude to some preemptive strike against Iranian targets, possibly before the new administration takes office in Washington. Last year’s bold and clearly illegal Israeli aerial attack on suspected Syrian nuclear facilities was interpreted by most observers as a signal to Iran as Israel’s real target!
I would like to invite the readers to review my previous articles dealing with this charade in my web site, particularly the last three articles: Sept. 30, November 10, and November 23, 2008, appearing in the Home Page.
Even though all fingers seem to be pointing toward Iran as the next target in the Israeli and American crosshairs, the likelihood of any military engagement with Iran remains quite remote, at least in my mind.
The new revelations that the Bush administration warned Israel to refrain from attacking Iran’s Bushehr nuclear facilities is yet another attempt clearly aimed at portraying Israel as honestly and justifiably concerned about an Iranian nuclear attack to wipe it off the face of the map. Creating, exaggerating and perpetuating such portrayals help Israel’s real agenda of convincing the American taxpayers that it deserves all the economic, military and diplomatic support America could muster, making especially sure that the Obama administration would not dare initiate policies that might jeopardize Israel’s uniquely advantageous position.
As an Earth Scientist living in Southern California, I cannot help but draw parallels between the potentials for a major magnitude earthquake along the San Andreas Fault and the possibility of a disastrous war with Iran. As long as intermittent smaller tremors help release the tension in the earth’s crust along that fault zone, the occurrence of a catastrophic earthquake becomes less likely.
Similarly, when smaller scale disturbances provide the regional glutton with enough to satiate its enormous appetite, the urge for triggering a cataclysmic Biblical Armageddon would be diminished.
OBAMA AND IRAN
Part II
November 23, 2008
In the first part of this two part series, Obama and Iran, I tried to demonstrate that Obama’s choice of well-known Zionist hawks, Rahm Emanuel and Dennis Ross, may well point to a positive change in the American administration’s attitude toward the Middle East, particularly regarding relations with Iran. Obama’s choice for the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, the New York senator and quite convincingly, at least as far as appearances go, as pro-Israel as anyone in the Democratic Party, should reinforce this belief. Although this seems ironic at first glance, a more careful analysis would support my conclusions.
I based my arguments on certain undeniable, albeit disturbing to many readers, realities that cannot be simply wished away. Any suggestions as to ways to overcome America’s dilemmas in the Middle East must take into account the limitations imposed on the system by such realities. These include the following:
1- America’s historical bond with Israel has been referred to as a passionate attachment, a one-sided love affair or, more correctly, as a parasitic symbiosis. Whatever we call it, this umbilical cord cannot be severed without causing severe convulsions for the host body or even creating a catastrophic situation in the Middle East.
2- The Israeli regime is fully aware that aggression against Iran under any pretext by Israel would draw the United States into a protracted and costly military involvement which it can ill afford.
3- This military engagement with Iran would not serve America’s best interests and would be catastrophic for Israel as well and, in addition, would cause tremendous damage to the already faltering global economy.
4- In view of the above, it is logical to draw the conclusion that the increasing bellicose posturing against the Iranian regime we have been witnessing lately is only designed to appear as a real threat of war in order to appease the extreme Likud hardliners in Israel, as well as the hardcore ultraconservatives and the so-called Christian Zionists, in other words, the ideological zealots, here at home.
5- With the fear of, and the justifications in the public’s mind for, a possible Israeli preemptive attack on Iran, the stage is thus set for what I referred to in my previous article as “blackmail in the grandest scale” by the Israeli strategists who know that war is not what anyone wants, while the public perception of a threat of war accomplishes their objectives.
6- This ingenious stratagem guarantees that Israel’s interests, no matter how grandiose, would not be jeopardized no matter what kind of rapprochement or horse trading might take place between the United States and Iran.
7- If this analysis is correct, the roadway toward a mutually constructive rapprochement between the United States and Iran would be opened when the foregoing prerequisite under #6 above is met to the satisfaction of Israel and its American supporters in the US administration.
The Obama administration might have already started on the right track by appearing even more pro-Israel than anybody expected. Mr. Obama must be fully aware that any constructive dialog revolving around points of common interest between the United States and Iran can only proceed if diehard Zionist hawks are convinced that Israel’s interests are never compromised. Ignoring this truth would mean that any attempt at a diplomatic dialog would be torpedoed out of the water.
The fact is that Iran’s pragmatic or achievable best interests would not be counter to America’s realistic agendas in the region, and they do not necessarily conflict with Israel’s rational ambitions which include indefinitely postponing any negotiations or agreements regarding grand concessions to the Palestinians or the creation of a contiguous Palestinian homeland.
It might surprise the uninitiated in the workings of this multi-dimensional chess game that Iran’s support for the so-labeled international terrorists – Hezbollah and Hamas – is no different from America’s stated strategy of spreading freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Just as America’s agenda in that region has absolutely nothing to do with promoting democratic reforms, Iran’s support for Israel’s antagonists has nothing to do with Iran’s compassion for the Palestinians or fellow Shi’ites of Lebanon. In both cases the true motives are quite pragmatic: The United States uses the pretext of war on terror and promotion of democracy to pursue the underlying objectives of “securing the realm” for Israel and to maintain control over the oil flow from the region. The Iranian regime, on its part, has been using religious and humanitarian excuses to support the most troublesome thorns on Israel’s side, the aim being to make sure that Israel pays a heavy price for its misbehavior and to discourage the Israeli hardliners from embarking on a brazen adventure against Iran.
This conclusion is admittedly hard to swallow for the ideologically motivated Islamic hardliners and the Palestinian hopefuls who are enduring their own version of a tragic genocide in the hands of the former victims of the Holocaust and their descendants. Unfortunately, what is fair and just has seldom been the rule in the course of human history.
Similarly, acknowledging the true motives behind America’s involvement in the Middle East would not sit well with a large majority of Americans who prefer to believe that we are trying to stem the tide of international terrorism by promoting the concepts of freedom, democracy and human rights.
I concluded the Part I of Obama and Iran article by commenting that there are two realistic alternatives in dealing with Iran, and war is not one of them.
Before entering into this discussion, it would help to illuminate the true interests and strategic objectives of the United States, Iran and also Israel in the Greater Middle East region.
1- Currently, the biggest item of the agenda for the United States is how to extricate itself from the hellhole of its own creation in the war zones of the Middle East. The American people, rightfully concerned about the economic problems at home, are more anxious than ever for a quick withdrawal from that region, no matter what might befall Iraq or Afghanistan without our military presence. It is obvious, however, that such a withdrawal cannot be accomplished too rapidly or comfortably or, most importantly, without help.
2- The second point of major concern is the region’s energy resources that fuel global economies. Securing the flow of that oil, its allocations, quantities and pricing, could not be left to chance or at risk by local political disputes.
3- The third matter of serious import is what has been happening in Pakistan and is likely to happen elsewhere if a sufficient measure of political and economic stability is not achieved in the impoverished and inaccessible tribal regions. In addition, an unstable Pakistan also means insecure borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which is the mountainous and mostly impenetrable stronghold of the militant extremists. The presence of the American and NATO forces in that area is not only unlikely to accomplish the task of eliminating the source of troubles there, it has been contributing to the turmoil.
4- Finally, America’s attempt to corral the Russian bear which is coming out of the post-Soviet hibernation is facing quite a challenge. Russia’s vast oil and gas resources, the increase in the price of these commodities, and Europe’s dependence on that source of energy, provide it with tremendous leverage. Even though the price of oil has been coming down in recent months, its relative value with regard to global economy remains substantially advantageous to oil exporting countries. It is imperative for Russia to play a decisive role in maintaining this leverage to sustain its economic growth and military strength. The decision to counter America’s plans of erecting missile defense shields in Eastern Europe by threatening to install similar or more elaborate systems of its own is a good example.
Iran’s pragmatic interests have little to do with what is interpreted, and most often deliberately so, from the leadership’s defiant, inflammatory statements. Contrary to how it has been portrayed here, Iran’s anti-Israel posturing has nothing to do with some deep seated anti-Semitism or hatred of the Jewish people. The fact is that the Iranians blame, and in my opinion correctly so, the Israeli regime and its powerful and influential supporters here for having prevented a rapprochement with the Unite States.
Historically, even the military coup of 1953 that brought down Prime Minister Mosaddegh’s populist regime and reinstated the Shah has always been blamed more on the British who, most Iranians believe to this day, convinced the “simple-minded, gullible” Americans to help carry out. There are, of course, diehard vintage leftists and younger radicals in Iran who do blame everything on American imperialism, but the prevailing view is that the rift between the United States and Iran has been extremely costly for Iran and, more importantly, unnecessary.
Again, the Iranian leadership blames what it refers to as the Zionist Regime, in other words, the Israeli leadership and its influence peddlers in the United States, for America’s hostile and unbending stance against the Islamic Republic.
At the same time, the Iranian people who have been on the receiving end of imposed economic sanctions blame the United States for creating the unsettling atmosphere in Iran that, ironically, legitimizes and emboldens the hardliners to increase their grip. This, it is widely believed, has thwarted the expected natural evolution of the post revolutionary Iran toward more opening and liberalization. Again, it is the Zionist influence that is held responsible for American administration’s ill will toward the Iranian nation.
Then, what are Iran’s “pragmatic” interests?
1- Of chief importance to Iran is a change in the United States’ openly declared hostility toward the Islamic Republic, including the officially expressed strategy, albeit in violation of international law, for a regime change, as well as open support for the opposition elements inside and outside Iran. American and Israeli Special Forces elements have also been active in sabotage and espionage work inside the country for some time. Even though threats against Iran’s security and territorial integrity have strengthened the power of the ruling clerical regime, it would be illogical to think that Iran’s leadership would actually welcome threats against the nation’s security in order to legitimize or increase its grip over the population.
2- Iran has been suffering economically as a direct result of sanctions imposed directly or through proxy by the United States. Even though economic setbacks have stymied growth and development and have contributed to joblessness and social hardships nationwide, the anticipated outcomes of a breakdown of social structure, discord and fragmentation of the nation and the collapse of the ruling regime have not occurred and are not likely to take place. The result has thus far been to give more power and legitimacy to the hardliners and also to fuel the anger and frustration of the public that blames the United States and those who steer America’s foreign policies for their problems.
3- Iran expects to play an instrumental role in formatting any restructuring of the Middle East. Iran has the most developed industrial infrastructure in the region, the richest mineral resources in addition to its oil and gas reserves, the largest population and a history of technological leadership. Iran’s southern coastline stretches the entire length of the Persian Gulf and its shipping lanes. In short, Iran cannot be marginalized in any policy decision or implementation that has any realistic hope for success.
4- With Iraq on one side and Afghanistan and Pakistan on the other, Iran is rightly mindful of sociopolitical developments in these countries. Clearly, the stability of its neighboring states is of prime importance to Iran. But the kind of stability that would be acceptable to Iran could only be achieved through Iran’s direct participation. If Iran is equated out of any grand arrangements made in Iraq, Afghanistan, even Lebanon, or on the issue of sovereignty over certain Persian Gulf islands, there would be no guarantee that such agreements would last the test of time. In other words, Iran’s concerns are quite legitimate and cannot be overlooked.
5- Finally, in any negotiation or dialogue between the United States and Iran, whether open to the media or held in secrecy, the Iranian side would not respond well if treated as the underdog. In a day when a small band of lightly armed pirates riding fifteen-foot fishing boats can hijack a supertanker carrying a $100,000,000 worth of crude oil in the high seas while the naval forces of the world’s greatest powers prove helpless, one should not underestimate the tenacity of any adversary, no matter how small.
To illuminate the last point, I would like to share a true event that I have recounted numerous times to my audiences:
Sitting inside a rather fancy establishment, my children’s place of business in an affluent mostly retirement community, I was somewhat alarmed to see a young teenager carelessly riding his bicycle back and forth in the pedestrian walkway. The kid almost ran down an elderly lady who was approaching the store, managing to miss her by mere inches.
I went outside and comforted the startled lady, and waited for the young fellow who was approaching me, pedaling ever faster and screaming with great joy. I stopped him and reminded him that his behavior was [unacceptable, in today’s diplomatic parlance] endangering the pedestrians and against the rules as posted on numerous signs around the shopping center.
He jumped on his bike, made an obscene gesture [rogue behavior], and resumed his high-pitched screaming triumphantly.
This was some twenty years ago, I was younger, quite athletic and very confident in my own prowess [a superpower] and my ideas of the right and wrong and how things should be.
The kid clearly represented a juvenile delinquent, a troublemaker with no concern for the rule of law or civilized behavior [in today’ terms, a terrorist !]. I, on the other hand, felt like a superpower and was definitely on the side of what was right and lawful. And I decided to take action [a noble cause].
The next time the kid came around I grabbed him and lifted him off his seat. Holding his bike in one hand, I dragged him to the parking lot and told him that was where he could ride his bicycle, and that if I saw him again in the pedestrian walkway I would break his bike [threat of preemptive strike before he could cause real harm].
Walking back to the store I proudly declared that I had finally taught the nasty little fellow a good lesson.
It wasn’t long before the same young boy, this time on foot, showed up in front of the store accompanied by four other teenagers [other members of the axis of evil], all carrying rocks in their hands and, I was suspecting, in their bulging pockets [weapons of mass destruction].
The scenario was quite clear; they were there to teach me a lesson. They didn’t have to do anything right then and there. And as long as I could stand vigil at the doorway, my presence would prove intimidating enough to keep them from doing what they hand in mind [military show of force]. But the business would close at around six O’clock [bringing the troops home], and who was going to protect the premises then?
In the absence of a security patrol, I thought of calling the police [the United Nations] and requesting help. However, I knew better. The police were not going to respond to a call that some young teens might be up to doing something wrong; they have more urgent matters at hand to worry about.
I had no doubt that soon after closing the business and leaving the area, every window would be broken, as well as much valuable showroom decoration, etc. The kids could even wait until nightfall to do their thing; they clearly had the upper hand.
I thought of going out and confronting them and perhaps slapping some of them around a bit to scare them off [very much like what Israel tried to do by invading Lebanon]. That, of course, would have been the worst thing I could have done [just as it proved for Israel]. Not only would I be in violation of the law for abusing the minors, nothing I could have done would eliminate the danger of them returning and damaging our property with impunity.
After the reality of the situation set in, the prospects did not look good, to say the least. Neither force nor the threat of force would work to our advantage. We could picture in our minds what the place would look like the next day or the day after, hundreds of dollars of property damage, mostly not covered by insurance.
I stepped outside, acted as though unfazed and totally in charge, I told the young troublemaker and another guy, the biggest of the group, to come inside, commanding the rest of them to get lost. The two sat down on plush leather seats, with surprise written all over their faces. I was now in charge of the situation. I began by telling them about the problem we were having with kids on bikes or skateboards harassing the residents, mostly seniors, and that the center did not have security guards to ward off the kids. I then told them that I had been thinking about hiring our own security patrol, and wondered if they were willing to take the job. I patronized the little fellow for his tenacity and vigor and the other guy for his physical size. They were clearly flattered and delighted. They agreed to monitor the frontage area in our section of the strip mall for five dollars a day each, plus a sandwich for lunch.
These delinquent kids did a job that an adult guard could not have done. After two weeks the older fellow came in and told us that his little buddy was taken back to the juvenile detention from which he had escaped, and he himself was tired of walking around as our security patrol and miss out on goofing around with his buddies.
The situation was defused quite peacefully with minimal cost for us and a good lesson in cooperation and responsibility for the two thugs.
This miniature exercise in diplomacy demonstrates how a seemingly no-win situation was resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.
Unlike those young teenagers, Iran is not a little rogue troublemaker up to no good, as so convincingly portrayed by the American and the Israeli administrations. If Iran’s legitimate needs and concerns are not acknowledged and respected, the repercussions will surely be far greater than few broken windows and shattered showcases.
Before offering opinions as to how a meaningful rapprochement between Iran and the United States could take place, we must seek and emphasize areas of mutual interest and see how they might outweigh points of contention.
1- Both the United States and Iran want to see an acceptable degree of political stability in Iraq and Afghanistan. The political unrest, ethnic and sectarian violence and economic uncertainty in its two neighbors have threatened Iran’s own security and internal stability. Granted, political stability and ethnic harmony in Iraq or even in Afghanistan as envisioned by the Iranian government may not parallel exactly what the American administration might have in mind. But if Iran’s exercise of influence can, in fact, help establish a sustainable equilibrium, sufficient pretexts would be provided for the American and allied forces to leave the troubled areas in a face-saving way.
2- Both parties are concerned about the situation in Lebanon and the Palestinian unrest. For the United States, anything that would heighten Israel’s anxieties is of major concern, as the proverbial tail that wags the dog. For Iran, support for Israel’s major antagonists, Hamas and Hezbollah, has been extremely costly financially and diplomatically. Under less paradoxical circumstances, wealthy fellow Sunni Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia or the Persian Gulf Emirates would be the ones to rise in support of the Palestinian resistance movements. But, as we know, these wealthy states, no matter how they pretend by shedding crocodile tears for the Palestinian cause, are our own de facto surrogates, subservient to our mandates for the sake of their own survival and continued prosperity. This has allowed Iran to fill the vacuum and use the opportunity to employ the Palestinian cause as a tool against Israel. Once the United States and Iran reach a reasonable degree of understanding, Iran’s relation with Hamas or Hezbollah will inevitably evolve into less expensive gestures of ideological empathy and token financial support.
3- In spite of any effort by individual oil exporting states or the oil cartel or OPEC, the price of oil is ultimately regulated by the international marketplace. Oil producers with substantial industrial infrastructure and populations need the revenues from their oil exports to sustain their economies. If the security of the main oil exporter from the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, is not jeopardized by a hostile neighbor or as a result of an expanded theater of war, this source alone would help guarantee a reasonable degree of control over any artificial fluctuations in the supply and the pricing of crude. With Iran in the fold, not only would this guarantee be more sustainable, Iran’s share of exports from the Persian Gulf would also be secured, commensurate with its economic needs. This, again, calls for mutual accommodations between the United States and Iran.
4- Finally, Iran would benefit more being allied with the West than throwing its future in the laps of the Eastern block. For the United States, Iran’s friendship and cooperation would prove to be a valuable asset far offsetting the costly and counterproductive and, sadly, unbreakable alliance with Israel.
As mentioned before, there are only two realistic alternatives for the United States to deal with the Iranian dilemma, and both approaches entail accepting Iran’s role as the regional superpower, which Iran is becoming sooner or later, anyway.
Alternative 1: This alternative would require as a first step the opening of diplomatic channels and engaging in serious dialogue without any preconditions whatsoever. Next is backing away from economic sanctions and trade barriers, especially now considering the global economic downturns. Finally, with the United States as a silent partner, arbiter and expediter, a measure of understanding could be achieved between the region’s military and economic powerhouses, Iran, Turkey and Israel, to secure the interests of all parties and those of the United States. In this case, there will be enough checks and balances between the members of the pact or the triangle of power to ensure the stability of the region. With this partnership and with Iran’s participation, the stability in both Iraq and Afghanistan can be achieved much more expeditiously and painlessly than anything the United States could do on its own or even with its Western allies.
Alternative 2: Here, the final step after resuming diplomatic relations and lifting of all trade barriers is for the United States to step back and allow Iran to exercise its natural role as the dominant regional power. The ball would then be in Iran’s court to exert its influence, and at its own expense, in Iraq and Afghanistan to establish the necessary political stability in the region in order to ensure Iran’s own security and economic interests. Whatever the outcome, there is no logical reason to believe that an Iranian hegemony over the region would necessarily work against the interests of the United States and, by extension, Israel. In the absence of an American or Israeli threat against its security, Iran’s realistic interests and those of the United States or Israel would not be mutually exclusive.
Years of negative portrayals and propaganda have instilled in the minds of the American public a distorted view of Iran and its ambitions. The most recent example is what has been selectively extracted from a report on Iran’s nuclear activities by the IAEA, and deliberately highlighted for maximum negative impact by the media.
The report mentions that Iran has thus far managed to produce some 1,400 kilograms of 5% enriched uranium. Iran is not only legally entitled to enrich uranium to this low-grade level necessary for fuel rods used in its perfectly legal nuclear power plants now nearing completion, all of that activity has been and will be monitored by the IAEA observers. But the alarmists contend that 1,400 kilograms of 5% enriched uranium could potentially be re-concentrated to enough 90%+ uranium isotope to make one atom bomb!
The idea that Iran could convert this stockpile to weapons-grade material under the watchful eyes of the IAEA observers and cameras, and proceed to make a bomb is stupid enough. Add to that ridiculous hypothesis the prospects that Iran would then want to use this one bomb that may or may not even work against Israel, Europe or America, and the level of paranoia created by this type of propaganda hype simply blows the mind.
It is in this kind of atmosphere that the new administration must reformulate its foreign policy in the troubled Middle East and, in particular, toward Iran.
In my opinion, the traditional dogs of war should continue to bark to make their presence known to friend and foe. In the background, at least for the immediate future, diplomatic efforts should be extended from both sides to iron out the obvious difficulties in the way of reaching some common grounds. This needless and destructive animosity between the two countries has gone on long enough. It is high time for sane, sober and mature thinking on both sides before the elements of the real axis of evil gain the upper hand.
In a true Machiavellian sense, Barack Obama has managed to corral his friends close to himself, and his adversaries even closer. This strategy might prove effective enough to marginalize and neutralize the efforts by the likes of the Likudnik mole, Joe Lieberman, to drag this country into another even more disastrous escapade for the sake of Israel. The irony in Lieberman’s kind of loyalty to Israel is in its similarity to the affection of a particular mama bear for its cub. When the mama bear saw a wasp circling around the baby bear’s nose, she picked up a huge rock and smashed it on the baby bear’s face! She killed the wasp, alright……………….
OBAMA AND IRAN
Part I
November 10, 2008
Obama’s election was no surprise here at home and has already been received with the approval and heightened expectations of the entire planet. This was partly because he is, in fact, the personification of hope, whether misperceived or not, but mostly because he promises a change from everything that was abominable about the Bush administration, particularly with regard to America’s bellicose global policies.
But, let us not kid ourselves. The gigantic ship of state cannot turn on a dime, and many or most expectations of a rapid and meaningful change in our foreign policies, especially pertaining to the Middle East, will be in vain. Clearly, the first order of business for the new administration will have to be the state of the economy, regardless of what is happening meantime in Pakistan or Iraq.
This is not to say that serious attention would not be extended to our foreign engagements, the so-called war on terror, the Israeli-Palestinian issues, security agreements with the Iraqis, and the concerns over Iran or Pakistan. But before the new administration is subjected to critical scrutiny, praised or condemned for its foreign policy successes or failures, one point should be kept in mind.
It is no exaggeration to say that America’s Middle East policies have been, and continue to be, Israel-centric. This means that no policy shift has thus far been possible if Israel’s objectives and agendas are not accommodated. Regardless of the justifications, rationale, or arguments for or against this trend, the fact remains that Israel’s interests, whether ill-perceived or not, have dominated this aspect of America’s foreign policy.
In most of my writings and addresses, I have maintained that this Israel-first foreign policy agenda has not only been detrimental to Israel’s own global image, safety and security, but catastrophic for America’s best interests in the Middle East. But even though the subject of American versus Israeli national interests are lately receiving more open coverage in the media and academic circles, hoping for this trend to change anytime soon would be foolish, to say the least.
This brings me to Obama’s choice of his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.
Ever since his selection as Obama’s Chief of Staff, dissident and anti-war web sites have been flushing out Emanuel’s family background, personal history and political record, alarmed that he is among the most hawkish pro Israel activists in the US Congress, has Israeli citizenship and has served in the Israeli army. The Arab world, meantime, is now dismayed that hopes for a more compassionate or at least a more balanced new American administration under Barack Hussein Obama have been quite premature. Some observers and critics go as far as claiming that an Obama administration will prove to be more pro Israel than the Zionist-Neocon run Bush administration.
What has been equally alarming is the great likelihood that another zealot Zionist and pro Israel activist, Dennis Ross, will be Obama’s advisor and front man in dealing with the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian issues.
No one could deny that Mr. Obama’s appointees with regard to his foreign policy objectives in the Middle East have extreme pro Israel profiles and track record. At the same time, setting prejudice aside, neither Dennis Ross nor Rahm Emanuel could be classified as political ignoramuses bent on wreaking havoc for the sake of some blind passion for the Jewish state; they must know as much as the best of us, and perhaps more.
So, what is it that we critics know and Rahm Emanuel and Dennis Ross must also know?
1- The power and influence of the Israel lobby over any American administration, whether Democrat or Republican, cannot be denied, over exaggerated, ignored or neutralized anytime soon.
2- Sentiment for Israel is so deeply entrenched within the American consciousness that any open criticism of Israel or its policies is viewed with suspicions of bigotry and anti-Semitism.
3- Being a Moslem or showing any sympathy toward the Islamic world, especially by any politician seeking a position or attempting to implement national policies is tantamount to political suicide.
4- Israel can, if its leaders so choose, rationalize and ultimately legitimize any act of aggression, as it has numerous times, in the name of self-defense, all with impunity from international condemnations, as long as it can find sanctuary under the protection of the United States.
5- Any Israeli aggression in the Middle East will automatically implicate and involve the United States; the Israeli leadership is counting on that, and the American administration is fully aware of all the ramifications thereto.
As we have heard, the so-called Israeli-Palestinian peace process has no chance of reaching any positive milestones before the end of the current American administration. To actually believe that the process was even seriously pursued – ever – requires the cognitive faculties of an average tadpole. Of, course, one could always blame the Palestinians for never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity; The latest example being the “belligerent” Hamas torpedoing an accord with the more “cooperative” Fatah. What a pitiful joke that is!
The fact is that a Two-State solution has been a no-starter from the get-go as far as the Palestinians are concerned and as the Israelis have always expected, since many of their fundamental demands cannot ever be accommodated by the Israelis. A One-State solution, something that the Palestinians and, indeed, the Arab and the Islamic world would consider a legitimate and fair resolution of the crisis, where Jew, Moslem and Christian share in a democracy under one banner, be it called Israel or Palestine, would mean the end of the Zionist dreams of a Jewish state.
Meanwhile, the charade will go on indefinitely as the Palestinians continue their struggle under false hopes of statehood, and the Israeli regime adopts more draconian measures to “defend itself” while spreading its illegal settlements in the occupied lands. The United States government as the arbiter of the Palestinian-Israeli peace accord has, in its part, masterfully paraded as an honest and sincere broker in the minds of a majority of Americans by portraying the defiant Palestinians as terrorists who are supported by Israel’s enemies opposed to a fair settlement of the crisis.
All told, no peace accord is or will be in the making anytime soon. The prolongation of the status quo accommodates Israel’s agendas quite handsomely; thank you. With Israel successfully parading as a state under siege and supposedly threatened by monstrous regimes that intend to wipe it off the face of the map with nuclear weapons, not only is the United States obligated to extend any and all financial, military and diplomatic support for the beleaguered state, forcing it to make any concessions toward a settlement with the Palestinians in such dire circumstances would be expecting too much.
What a conveniently convincing scenario this is!
It now becomes abundantly clear why the appointment of the likes of Rahm Emanuel or Dennis Ross in positions of influence in steering America’s policies in the Middle East is of such vital importance. Just think: without such watchdogs to guarantee Israel’s interests, the Jewish state has all the prepackaged pretexts at hand to strike preemptively at Iran’s nuclear facilities or other sensitive targets. And, by doing so, the United States would be dragged into another quagmire with tragic consequences for the entire region and the world. This makes for a perfect stage for blackmail in the grandest scale: Israel will rightfully defend itself against an imminent existential threat unless, of course, we continue to feed Israel’s insatiable appetite to protect America’s own best interests.
We certainly do not want that to happen; do we?
It doesn’t take much of a brain to see that attacking Iran would spell disaster for the Jewish state as well. The Israelis know as do the American intelligence agencies that Iran does not have access to nuclear arms and, even if it did, has absolutely no reason or incentive to launch a suicidal attack on Israel. So, why would Israel want to launch a preemptive assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities if such an action is not necessary and, if carried out with or without America’s support, would prove catastrophic for Israel itself? The answer is, It certainly does not.
Admittedly, this charade might appear to be too Machiavellian at first. But if there is any merit in the old axiom that perceptions are more convincing than realities, Obama’s own statements regarding Iran, which sound even harsher than those of the current administration, and his appointment of Zionist hawks to deal with the Middle East, could be a masterful job of window dressing to justify and facilitate the White House and Congress’s policies favoring the Jewish state, even at the cost of abandoning the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which had been programmed from its very inception with planned obsolescence!
If the analysis outlined above is correct, there remain only two workable real-world alternatives in dealing with Iran, and no, they do not include waging war. I hope to elaborate on that subject in the next installment.
A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL CHESS GAME:
The Ongoing Balancing Act with Iran
September 30, 2008
The classic chess game is confusing enough for most people who prefer not to stress out over the shades of gray that separate black and white. Those who are familiar with the three-dimensional variant of the game appreciate its higher degree of complexity that requires greater concentration and expertise. Now try to imagine a multi-dimensional chess game that is played under unpredictably changing rules and where the outcome of the game is determined through some unorthodox fuzzy logic.
This, in short, is the game of international politics that is being played today on the chessboard of the Middle East.
For the uninitiated, the issue is as simple as two and two equals four: the Iranians are viewed as supporters of international terrorism and, in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they are suspected of developing nuclear weapons and long range missiles in order to destroy Israel and threaten Europe and the United States. To prevent that from happening, the United States must, first through economic strangulation, and should that fail, by military means, stop this menace before the "smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud" - a repeat of the Iraq scenario.
It is hard to argue against this kind of simplistic pseudo-logic: if it sells, sell it; and it has been saturation-marketed by the current administration with the support of our mass media, and will continue to be further emphasized at the Republican platform by John McCain and his pit-poodle. When it comes to Iran, the Democrats are coequal participants in this charade; they have to be.
To find the motivating force or forces responsible for the success of this hard-sell, or how this mindset was so well established among the American people, one must look for the major beneficiaries of this rather convenient portrayal of the Islamic Republic of Iran as the manifestation of evil.
Understandably, our presidential candidates and their running mates capitalize on the prevailing public sentiments, whether they personally believe in their own choreographed campaign rhetoric or not. For example, why is the Republican candidate, John McCain, so gung-ho for bomb-bomb-bomb-bombing Iran? I doubt if McCain is truly overanxious to set the stage for watering down the roster of war heroes like himself by attacking Iran. Or does he think that the Iranians are less capable of defending themselves than were the Vietnamese? Even though he must also cater to his party's unbending position regarding Iran, he knows better than to strive for another war or, better put, catastrophe.
We can dismiss Sarah Palin as some credible strategic thinker with any global awareness, even though her bite-me persona, thanks to the American Idol and WWF viewing audiences, might prove to have a dramatic effect on the outcome of the elections. But her counterpart in the Democratic Party, Joe Biden, is a different story. It might interest many to know that those who are interested in a constructive rapprochement between the United States and Iran are actually much more supportive of an Obama-Biden administration.
It seems, then, paradoxical that, during an interview with an Israeli reporter, the same Joe Biden claimed that he is, in fact, a Zionist even though he is not Jewish, and further confirmed his support for Israel. So, what's going on here?
Not long ago, Mr. Obama was also strongly pro diplomacy and for negotiations with the Iranian leadership without any preconditions. But it didn't take long for the young senator to learn his lesson, as well. He passed his final exam during his trip to Israel where he was duly "enlightened!"
To the uninitiated, again, this change of heart in Barack Obama, Joe Biden and even the formerly non-Zionist Sarah Palin, must have occurred after each was properly convinced that they must express the view that Iran is, in fact, the biggest existential threat to Israel, and a clear and present danger to America and the West, or else!
Of course, now when it comes to the issue of Iran in this presidential campaign, both the Democrats and the Republicans are on equal footing. No longer can the McCain-Palin match up appear to hate Iran more than would its Obama-Biden rival.
During the first presidential debate last Friday, the moderator asked the candidates to express their positions regarding possible dialogue with the Iranians. McCain twice pointed out that sitting across the negotiating table from a man (Ahmadinejad) who wants to wipe Israel off the face of the world would be out of the question. Obama never questioned where Mr. McCain had heard those remarks and, instead, responded that he had never said he would talk to Ahmadinejad, as he might not even be the real Iranian authority to talk to in the first place.
As Mr. McCain shook his head with a silly smile of disbelief on his face, Obama said nothing to dispute his older rival's clearly deliberate distortion of the facts. Why, because it would have been political suicide for him to do so.
To understand this political charade, we must clear the haze and look beyond the superficial. The question that must first be asked should be: Is Iran truly a threat to the safety and security of Israel, Europe or the United States? The answer is: It certainly can be. But a lion could also pose a "real and present danger" to a trophy hunter who wants to collect its pelt. If the lion had the mental capacity to foretell the arrival of the hunting party and its intentions, it would also sharpen his teeth and claws, fortify its den and prepare for the worst, come what may!
But is Iran really gearing up to initiate an assault on American targets or Israel? To answer this question we must distinguish between mere propaganda and the realities on the ground.
I would be foolish to assume that the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran, contrary to what is portrayed by the Israeli propaganda and the rhetoric out of Washington, consists of crazed suicidal maniacs. Therefore, it must be crystal clear to the Iranian leaders that the repercussions of any unprovoked attack, even on the most insignificant targets in the area, would bring about massive devastation to the Iranian nation. The question that begs to be asked is: What could Iran possibly gain by initiating an attack on Israel, or firing missiles into Europe or at American forces in the area?
Then, is it logical to think that the missile defense shield that the United States is setting up in Eastern Europe is actually to defend against a potential missile attack by Iran? The answer, again, is; Yes, it could theoretically be possible; but possible only in a retaliatory response after an American or European strike upon Iran.
It is actually laughable, if not so pathetic, that the administration officials of supposedly the most advanced civilization on earth verbalize such asinine hyperbole. The