Flynt appeared on PBS’ Newshour last night, in a segment focusing on political developments in Syria. Please access the video here.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
FLYNT LEVERETT ON SYRIA
About The Race for Iran
Archive Highlights
- WHAT MIGHT MARTIN LUTHER KING SAY ABOUT U.S. POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST TODAY? On April 4, 1967, King delivered an address, entitled “Beyond Vietnam: A Time To Break Silence”, at Riverside Church in New York City. More than 40 years later, it remains one of the most searing analyses we have ever encountered of the temptation to hegemony which, time and again over the last 60 years, has lured the United States into ill-conceived, highly destructive, and ultimately counterproductive foreign policies.
- MOVING BEYOND REGIME CHANGE IN AMERICA’S MIDDLE EAST POLICY We do not believe that the United States needs regime change in Tehran to improve its relations with Iran. To do that, the United States needs to pursue smart diplomacy with the Islamic Republic’s current political structure—diplomacy, that is, which treats the Islamic Republic as Iran’s legitimate government, seeking to defend and enhance Iran’s legitimate interests. This is something that no U.S. President since 1979—not even Barack Hussein Obama—has tried to do.
- ASHURA IN ISTANBUL AND TEHRAN: WESTERN JOURNALISTS CONTINUE TO UNDERESTIMATE IRAN’S SOFT POWER We have previously warned against underestimating the extent of Iran’s “soft power” in the Arab world. But those doing the chattering would also be well advised to ponder that America’s closest Arab allies—Egypt and Saudi Arabia—are entering a period of political uncertainty because of impending changes in top-level leadership, and are, in any event, losing influence across the region (Egypt even more than Saudi Arabia, but the trend is clear in both cases).
- WHY SHOULD IRAN TRUST PRESIDENT OBAMA? A sober examination of the Obama administration's interactions with Iran since President Obama took office in 2009 reveals a dismaying mix of incompetence and outright duplicity that has done profound damage to American interests and credibility.
- Video of the Leveretts on Charlie Rose Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett appeared on The Charlie Rose Show.
The Authors
Flynt Leverett
Hillary Mann Leverett
Key Documents
- Turkey-Brazil-Iran Nuclear Agreement
- UNSCRs
- IAEA Reports
- Iranian Proposals
- Western And P5+1 Proposals
- Energy and Economics
- Resources on US Policy
- Videos
- Rules and Regulations For www.RaceforIran.com
Archives
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
http://english.irib.ir/news/middle-east/item/73528-bahraini-forces-rape-kill-female-poet
Bahraini forces rape, kill female poet
A female Bahraini activist who has composed anti-government poems has been killed, after being arrested and raped by Manama forces.
According to Press TV, Ayat al-Ghermezi, 20, had recited her poems, in which she slammed the ruling regime and Bahraini Prime Minister Khalifah Ibn Salman al-Khalifah, during protests in Pearl Square in the capital city.
Shortly afterwards, Ghermezi received an influx of insulting and intimidating letters and emails, but when she referred to the police to report the threats, she was insulted and mocked by officers, her family says.
In late March, security forces raided Ghermezi’s home twice, threatening her family to reveal Ayat’s whereabouts, otherwise they would “destroy the house over your heads, by the order of high-ranking officials.”
After the security forces coerced Gehrmezi’s family into disclosing her hideout, the family heard no word from her, Ayat’s mother said.
When the family started searching for Ayat, the police told them they have no information about Ayat and tried to force them to confirm through a letter that their daughter had gone missing.
In mid-April, an anonymous call was made to Gehrmezi’s family, informing them that Ayat was in coma at an army Hospital.
At the hospital, doctors confirmed that Ayat had gone into coma after being raped for several times.
Eventually, the physicians’ efforts failed to save Ayat’s life and she died at the army hospital.
This morning (Tuesday April 19th) on NPR’s Morning Edition they spent a long time describing the protest in Syria. Ok we hear about protest in Syria, protest in Libya, protest in Egypt, protest in Tunisia, even protest in Bahrain. And of course Rachel Maddow and others will cover protest in Iran. But never ever ever do we hear about Palestinian protest on NPR or anywhere else in our MSM. Palestinian protest against Israel’s occupation and illegal settlement building and expansion have been going on for decades. Decades of silence
Syrian Government Forces Fire On Protesters
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning-edition/
All:
More on Syria:
http://nationalinterest.org/node/5188
All:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-04-17/-how-americas-failure-to-knock-out-libyas-gaddafi-emboldens-iran-north-korea/#
The crucial line is the last where NATO is explicitly positioned as a global (and not a European) Axis Power miliatray alliance.
Castellio says: April 16, 2011 at 2:10 am
My response:
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
Pirouz_2 says:
April 16, 2011 at 10:45 pm
“And lastly I have no problem in saying that I have a very distinct Persian accent when I speak English, having no accent is neither a source of pride nor a source of shame. Feeling proud of having no accent only indicates a deep feeling of insecurity and race related inferiority complex.”
of course, it’s right to be proud of your Iranian identity. but I kind of feel my guess was right. that you did not do “dokhtarbazi” enough (at least not in the west) so to know the importance (and perhaps the tricks) of doing what you have tried to make me a fool or desperate. I am sorry that you had to accept somebody against your will at the time of “khastegari”!! ;) I would be glad to teach you a few tricks (specially in the city that I currently reside), but alas it’s too late for you as you will have to wait to be put in your grave soon (with your ideas, if any, too).
JFYI, I do talk to my family in Mazani (a pure one, something perhaps you won’t be able to understand) at home, to my Iranian friends with Farsi, and to foreigners in English, all equality at the same level pretty much. if you still have “a very distinct Persian accent”! after more than 30 years of living in the U.S, then instead of feeling pride, you should feel something else. that’s why probably you have became so obsessed with imperialism, the U.S, or anything western probably.
PG;
As I said before I find your conversation extremly “band-e tombooni” (for the lack of a better word to translate, let’s call it “shallow”) and therefore this is my last message to you and I will waste my time on you no more.
I don’t reveal my educational background and my age, because I find it very much beneath my dignity to rely on such things when I am making an argument.
And lastly I have no problem in saying that I have a very distinct Persian accent when I speak English, having no accent is neither a source of pride nor a source of shame. Feeling proud of having no accent only indicates a deep feeling of insecurity and race related inferiority complex.
Try to grow up.
Empty says: April 16, 2011 at 5:29 pm
I do not think it profitable to engage in mockery of empirical observations; however inconsistent they may be with one’s prejudices.
Yes, I am brilliant, I have known that since I was 19.
Empty,
!
fyi,
RE: “I must conclude that you have no first-hand experiences with any of these things nor any relevant observations, no? You have lived, but not observed, I am afraid.”
Well actually, my request to you was a humanitarian request. I figured if some women cannot be brilliant themselves, they could at least watch your brilliance at work and realize what they could have been. Frankly, it’s a win-win situation.
Empty says: April 16, 2011 at 4:55 pm
I must conclude thaut you have no first-hand experiences with any of these things nor any relevant observations, no?
You have lived, but not observed, I am afriad.
When Awakened speech you hear,
Do not say “It is false.”
The Words beyond your Comprehension lie,
There is the fault.
fyi,
RE: “I wonder if Nature endows some young women with a bit of brilliance to encourage young men to court them and once that is accomplished, takes away that brilliance?”
These statements are quite useful. Please continue making them and, if possible, increase their frequency. Once a day would be sufficient.
Kathleen, thank you.
When Norman Finkelstein wrote, “This Time We’ve Gone Too Far,” Israelis took the wrong message, or refused to take the message.
Israelis did not kill Vittorio Arrigoni, Salafists killed Vittorio as part of a scheme to gain the release of Salafists imprisoned in the Levant.
But Israel is responsible for the war.
Israel is responsible for the oppression of the Palestinian people.
Israel is responsible for the blockade of Gaza that Vittorio Arrigoni was attempting to break, in the name of humanity.
Many Jews in the US are responsible for the siege of Gaza and the death of Vittorio Arrigoni, just as surely as if they had his blood on their hands. Noah Pollak, American Jewish director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, of which William Kristol is a member of the Board of Directors, mocked the death of Vittorio Arrigoni.
The United Nations is responsible for the presence of Vik and other members of ISM in Palestine; as Vittorio says in this video, Why must private citizens from other nations do the work that UN is chartered to do? Why isn’t the United Nations enforcing its own laws and protecting the Palestinian people against the aggression of Israel?
The United States and its support for Israel in its murderous aggression against the Palestinians people and its manipulation of is role in the United Nations is responsible for the death of Vittorio Arrigoni.
Over its long history, Italy has been occupied by many different kings and tyrants; to the Italian people resistance to tyranny by all manner of creative or subtle or passive-aggressive means is a way of life; as Vittorio Arrigoni said, “resistance to tyranny is in my DNA.”
Israel, you have pissed off one Italian too many. THIS time you’ve gone too far.
The tombstone of my Grandparents reads: “Fiorangelo and Vittoria; Requiescant in Pace.” Rest in Peace, Grandfather Fiorangelo and Grandmother Vittoria.
Requiscat in Pace, Vittorio Arrigoni.
A must watch
Why?
Stay Human
Vik Vittorio Arrigoni has been murdered in Gaza
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VLDgplzWFs
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/world/africa/17rebels.html?hp
QUOTE:
The effort [to find a haven for Gaddafi] is complicated by the likelihood that he would be indicted by the International Criminal Court in the Hague for the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988, and atrocities inside Libya.
… About half of the countries in Africa have not signed or ratified the Rome Statute, which requires nations to abide by commands from the international court. (The United States has also not ratified the statute, because of concerns about the potential indictment of its soldiers or intelligence agents.)
END OF QUOTE.
In other words, what they need to find for Gaddafi is a country that declines to abide by the commands of the International Criminal Court. Easy enough to solve that problem. Now for the tough part: Which would seem more like home to Gaddafi – Arizona or New Mexico?
Speaking of Pan Am 103, Moussa Koussa, long suspected of having intimate first-hand knowledge of the bombing, and especially of Gaddafi’s hand in it, has been at the disposal of Western authorities for several weeks now. Pan Am 103 was reported to be a key topic of discussion. Am I the only one who draws conclusions from the utter absence of any reports about the results of that interrogation?
fyi @ 2:41:
This morning a friend and I discussed a passage from the writing of another friend. Here’s that passage:
begin quote:
“[I need you help for my friends.]
“But not for yourself?”
“What’s a self?”
“What do you mean? You’re not asking me seriously, are you?”
“I am. [My friends are] in my thoughts, in my heart. Is that not part of my self? Isn’t your girlfriend part of your self in that way? Isn’t that one reason why you’re happy, because another, whom you respect, is part of yourself?”
end of quote
I read the passage to my friend, and he said, “Sometimes it’s hard to draw the line: when have you helped enough? How many selfs are we required to take on?”
I couldn’t answer that question. I feel compelled to take on the US Congress, AIPAC, organized zionism; I am eager to advocate for the entire, conflicted, crazy nation of Iran. I want to reform American culture and politics.
before noon.
But I have no interest in engaging in childish and demeaning conversation with you fyi. My self is too precious to me to squander on such a fruitless endeavor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/world/africa/17rebels.html?hp
QUOTE:
The Obama administration has begun seeking a country, most likely in Africa, that might be willing to provide shelter to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi if he were forced out of Libya… The move by the United States to find a haven for Colonel Qaddafi may help explain how the White House is attempting to enforce President Obama’s declaration that the Libyan leader must leave the country …
BUT DON’T MISTAKE THIS FOR INTERFERENCE WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY’S INTERNAL AFFAIRS:
“We learned some lessons from Iraq, and one of the biggest is that Libyans have to be responsible for regime change, not us,” one senior administration official said on Saturday.
fiorangela says: April 16, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Your attempt at irony is both commonplace and irrelevant.
I think it will be a good idea to accept Reality as it exists and plan accordingly.
I do not deny that there the light of intellect animates many youneg girls at an early time in their lives but by the time of puberty, these young girls become interested, for the most part, in being young women and exploring womanhood.
I do not find anything objectionable to that change in orientation.
But intellect, a mental muscle, will atrophy like any other muscle or organ that is not used for an extended period of time.
And then there is also this:
I wonder if Nature endows some young women with a bit of brilliance to encourage young men to court them and once that is accomplished, takes away that brilliance?
fyi @ 1:58pm wrote:
>>”[The percentage of women with such charactersitics is evenless, probably for evey 100 males there is 5 such females.]“<<
The percentage of males who have given birth to- and raised to maturity the greatest thinkers, the most liberally educated and intellectually curious people — males, female, and transhuman(are you there, Richard Steven Hack?), is not probably but absolutely, for every 100 females there is [sic] zero such males.
Castellio says: April 16, 2011 at 12:30 pm
I believe that people like myself who are naturally curious and can benefit from a liberal arts education and for whom ideas are alive are less than 2% of the population of the world; regardless of race, class, religion, and national origin.
[The percentage of women with such charactersitics is evenless, probably for evey 100 males there is 5 such females.]
In fact, to this day, the traditional Higher Schools (for Islamic Sciences) in Iran accept and subsidize all applicants but, over the years, sift through their students and only encourage the gifted to continue on to become Hojjat al Islam etc.
For the vast majority of mankind, narrow technical education is all that is needed after high-school. That is, a course of study at the end of which students could actually do something useful in the wrld: becoming engineers, laboratory technicians, artisans, audi/visual technicians, nurses, physicians, statisticians, lawyers and few other such such things.
In fact, I go further and state that the traditional high school education with its mini-Liberal Arts curriculum in Iran, in Israel, in US, in UK, in Germany, in Korea, in France and other places, is a vast waste of resources for at least half of those who are forced or required to attend it.
Demand for educational credentials is not driven by the natural curiosity and desire for knowledge; rather it is driven by a misguided desire for gaining credentials-based equality with one’s betters.
[Now, of course, it has also become a meal-ticket; in the parlance of the Americans.]
Do you seriously think that a student graduating from the University of Southern Illinois in the United States is of the same caliber and of the same intellectual achievement as the one who graduates with a First Class from Oxford’s Christ Church College?
Pirouz_2 says:
April 16, 2011 at 11:37 am
There is no need for Khastegari! life has so far been a very good one without that. somebody with my status has plenty of options, in Iran and the west (and I speak English far better than I write, almost without accent!, my money and job status is more than fine :D). I am also not ugly, “fyi” can confirm that. and very outgoing too. when you can change easily with almost no cost, why like you stick to one?! at least, not as yet. it’s too soon. this is also part of the changing culture of the youth that an old man like you might regret not being able to catch up.
Fiorangela,
Bravo. If foolish “supporters” of Israel in the US Congress would put in first place the interests of the American people and the true best interests of the Israeli people, things would be easier to resolve. The “threats” to Israel are largely created by Israel itself.
fyi,
Carlos Lozada’s comments on Mearsheimer’s book would have been better if he had made clear it emerged Iraq in fact posed no threat to the US or the UK. Instead, Lozada seems to infer the Iraq War was justified even if Bush and Blair lied through their teeth to set up the invasion.
earlier I posted a string of Tweets from/to Nathan Pollock, the head of the Emergency Committee for Israel. The tweets mocked the death in Gaza of Italian peace activist Vittorio Arrigoni.
Here’s what Pollock’s “Emergency Committee for Israel” says about itself:
“The Emergency Committee for Israel seeks to provide citizens with the facts [we and the Reut Institute, the MFA, and the hasbara committee have determined] they need [and to ensure that no other facts reach the American people] to be sure that their public officials are supporting a strong US-Israel relationship [and to remind them of the negative consequences of failing to support Israel]. The Committee’s mission is to
educate[dominate the propaganda field in order to keep] the public [appropriately misinformed] about the serious challenges to Israel’s security and about what elected officials in this country are doing and should do SHOULD do? Why? in order to meet those challenges.In 2010, Israel faces an increasing threat from terrorism supported by hostile regimes that refuse to accept the Jewish State. Iran continues its pursuit of a nuclear weapon and its support of terrorist groups. Syria continues to arm Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon with ever more modern weapons. And Hamas, with Iranian support, continues to hold hostage the people of Gaza, refusing to renounce violence or recognize Israel’s right to exist. [ora pro nobis. the recitation of the above is like the Litany of the Martyrs recited on Holy Thursday, to which pious Catholics respond 'ora pro nobis.]
Despite these threats, Israel has made unprecedented concessions in the name of peace, [bullshit. ora pro nobis] unilaterally withdrawing from territory, supporting Palestinian aspirations for an independent state, and offering to engage without precondition in talks with the Palestinian Authority.
Still, the current administration in Washington seems determined to extract ever more concessions from Israel, and to respond to each setback in the peace process by placing more pressure on the Israeli government. This policy of making one-sided demands on Israel has failed to produce progress and has only emboldened Israel’s enemies.
At the same time, the American people overwhelmingly favor a policy of strong support for the Israeli people and their democratically elected government.
We know that, when provided with the facts, the American public will support those public officials dedicated to maintaining a strong US-Israel relationship and committed to keeping Israel safe and secure. The Emergency Committee for Israel will engage in the public debate about U.S. policy toward Israel, and will keep the public informed about the votes, statements, and records of their elected leaders so as to help hold them accountable to the pro-Israel voters they represent.
in other words, based on the dreck of an organization that Pollock stands for, no one should be surprised at Pollock’s mockery of the death of a peace activist who came from another country to aid a besieged people to reclaim their dignity, with the lived, spoken, and written philosophy of “Stay Human.”
Word to Israel and its supporters: GET human.
Eric,
Yes, what a surprise. A UNSC resolution is obtained, that clearly does not provide for regime change, and proponents of the resolution then want to stretch it, or in effect ignore it, to achieve their object which, if stated at the outset, would have been blocked. Not a good thing, clearly.
fyi,
(Re: Comments in Washington Post about Mearsheimer’s book) – - John F. Kennedy knew that there was no “missile gap”, during the 1960 campaign against Richard Nixon. He artfully skated the edge of truth, with tacit approval of CIA to gain advantage (and likely to win).
From Yahoo News:
QUOTE:
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said a new UN resolution to push Gaddafi into quitting is unnecessary.
“We think that given his behaviour, his savage repression of the population, Gaddafi has lost all legitimacy to stay in power,” Juppe said in Paris.
“That is the view of the United States, of Great Britain, of the 27 member states of the European Union, of the Arab League, and there is no need for a new Security Council resolution to enact this principle.”
“We also recognize,” Juppe added, “that any new UN resolution would have a snowball’s chance in hell of avoiding a veto by Russia or China, who are very upset that we have gone far past the limited mandate of Resolution 1973.”
END OF QUOTE.
OK, I admit it: I made up the last sentence.
FYI writes: “The idea, as far as I can tell, originated in the envy of the lower classes for the education and refinement of the upper classes. The theoretical foundations of this demand was the idea of equality of all men.”
You believe that the desire to read and write was based in envy, is that right? There was no natural curiosity in the lower classes, no desire to improve how they did things by sharing knowledge in the ways knowledge is shared?
fiorangela says: April 16, 2011 at 11:16 am
They are Armenians.
Persian Gulf says: April 16, 2011 at 10:33 am.
I am not unsympathetic to what you have stated.
I think very many of Iran’s problems are quite common; what is not common is the Nekbat Islami, the Pharisee oppression of the population to achieve some sort of Fantasy Shia life in Iran.
That has to be shattered; and Reality will do so as it is doing now.
Since the French Revolution, demand for education as a political right of the masses has been a constant feature of all political dispensations all over the world. The idea, as far as I can tell, originated in the envy of the lower classes for the education and refinement of the upper classes. The theoretical foundations of this demand was the idea of equality of all men. But we all know that some people are more talented and gifted than others but that was not politically acceptable to the masses.
Within a century of the French Revolution, there were too many people with credentials all over Europe and it was then that the state became the employer of the last resort. Even today, in France, the graduates of the various Ecoles are hired by the French State to do the work that can be dome in 1 hour over a month (I am not joking).
And as Europe went, so did the rest of the world. By 1960s, the outlines of a global crisis in education had become discernible. Low quality post-secondary education had become widely available to the populace at large all over the world while, at the same time, demand far out-stripped the supply. All over the world, you had over-production of bachelor (License) degrees, Masters degrees, and Doctoral degrees. While the quality suffered, quantity increased.
You can see this in US with tens of millions of young men and women with worthless bachelor degrees in Liberal Arts (mostly humanities), American Culture, Business, Accounting, Marketing, and General Studies etc. Just like their analogues in Muslim states – Bachelor of Islamic Studies etc., these degree recipients cannot perform any useful work but people want these degrees; it is a political right. And out of concern for charity and for social stability fake jobs are created for these people all over the world.
As a consequence, holders of doctoral degrees pushed those with master degrees from jobs that they were performing, the master degree recipient pushed the bachelor degree recipients out of their jobs, and likewise the high school diploma recipients were displaced out of their jobs by bachelor degree holders.
This crisis will need to proceed to its logical end; all degrees becoming worthless and the ability of state or private sector to create fake jobs for these degree holders exhausted. This already is happening in the United States where more and more graduates are being recognized by to be unemployable.
In a way, it is ironic. The Medieval universities in Europe and in the Near East never granted a degree and were very selective in whom they permitted to stay beyond a certain level. The rabid egalitarianism of the French Revolution put an end to that.
apologize — I’m listening to the hearing on Muslim Brotherhood and, instead of shouting at the walls in my house, I’m pounding on my keyboard —
Rep. Luis Guttierez, D Illinois (Chicago) was very well-spoken. Good guy — if you’re in his district, give him your support. Myrick tried to undermine him — another suggestion that Guttierez ‘goes against the goad.’
Rep. Mike Thompson of California seemed to me to be on the fence; he seemed to be trying to be fair. If you’re in his district, make the case to him for an American foreign policy that complies with American Constitutional mandates and values, and advances AMERICAN interests. Much of his campaign financing comes from wineries, plus McKesson pharmaceuticals, so he might not be entirely dependent on Israelist sources of finance and support.
Rep. “Dutch” Ruppersburger of Maryland (tho sadly, not my district) asked the question that elicited the key information: the critical nexus of US-Muslim Brotherhood-Egypt’s future is Israel.
Lorenzo Vidino, one of the five expert witnesses, conceded that point. Vidino is a young, hotheaded ideologue who is trying to make his PhD pay off. Say a prayer to the Madonna or the lares and penates (or invoke the ostracized Pat Clawson) that Vidino discovers that intellectual integrity pays better long term dividends than pandering to the elites of the moment.
PG;
“I said that I am an engineer, whatever that means. I have my bachelor, masters and ph.d degrees in an engineering field in high ranking universities. I have also published enough, far more impressive than what a normal person in my age can achieve (and more to come). my profs in the west (and in Iran too) always consider me a very knowledgeable person in the subject regardless of the publications as does the industry that I have partly done the project for. so to say you don’t UNDERSTAND your own field is very absurd and to some extent ridiculous no matter who you are. I have always said that I am a very normal person and nothing is special with me. ”
Why your mama should be very proud!! Mention that stuff for when you go to Khastegary, not as a part of discussion on Iran’s progress.
I am sorry but your conversation has sunk so much to a “band-e tombani” level that I withdraw from this conversation.
You want to make fight go find someone else I am here to discuss, not to make childish fights.
From LA Times:
“At the docks in Benghazi, ships were being loaded with guns and humanitarian supplies for Misurata.”
Hmmm, I wonder why Gaddafi won’t let ships loaded with humanitarian aid dock at Misurata.
The metal parts of my son’s drum set — the cymbals, ‘high hats,’ etc., were Middle Eastern brands — Shirikjian, if I recall correctly: exquisitely tuned by people who claimed their place on the world stage 3000 years before the beginning of the Christian era, based on their ability to smelt iron.
Tarek Masoud used a finely crafted rhetorical knife to eviscerate Robert Satloff and Nathan Brown, and to perform a ‘tummy tuck’ on Committee chair Sue Myrick, forcing her to suck in her spleen and pretend she approached the topic with a fair and open mind.
THE THRESHOLD QUESTION IS THIS: How is the Muslim Brotherhood important to the interests of the AMERICAN people, or is it important to Israel, and only by that linkage impactful on American policy?
The secondary question become, does that linkage of US policy to Israel result in a distortion of US foreign policy in the Middle East to the extent that the interests and wellbeing of the AMERICAN people is diminished?
Ms. Myrick: your mandate is to support those policies that support the “pursuit of happiness” of the AMERICAN people, not of Israelis, and not of American Jewish people as a group in preference to the American people as a whole.
Paul, Right this minute, on C Span I, an “exceptional” hearing before US Rep. Sue Myrick’s committee on Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/TheMusli
oh my god, every body tune in RIGHT THIS MINUTE: Tarek Masoud is brilliant!
paul says:
April 16, 2011 at 10:41 am
Arnold, I think you are being ridiculously naive about elections. They are all too easy to manipulate. Ask the folks of Haiti, to mention just one example, where elections amount to US appointments, as only US allies are allowed to run.
Israel makes that much harder to do in its region than it is anywhere else in the world. We have not seen only-allowing-US-allies-to-run successfully pulled off anywhere, even Iraq under US occupation. Also not Lebanon and not Palestine effectively under Israeli occupation. The Muslim Brothers won their first contest against pro-US forces when the constitutional referendum just passed in Egypt.
We may get a civil war in Syria and Syria may be unstable for an indeterminate period but there will never be contested elections that result in a pro-US Syria, and I’m pretty sure the US and the parties aligned with it know this.
Arnold, I think you are being ridiculously naive about elections. They are all too easy to manipulate. Ask the folks of Haiti, to mention just one example, where elections amount to US appointments, as only US allies are allowed to run.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/world/africa/17libya.html?hp
“Libyan Rebels Say They’re Being Sent Weapons”
One must harken back to 1980, when US political leaders learned that Iraq and Iran would be fighting one another bitterly for what turned out to be an eight-year war, for any comparison to the bliss that must be felt by present-day US leaders at this good news: the prospect of yet another Middle Eastern nation that will be torn apart by fighting, possibly for years and years, its people beaten down so far that it will be an easy matter for the US to step in when the dust clears, remove whichever tough guy last remains standing, replace him with some right-thinking puppet, and get back to business.
Years ago, a teacher I deeply trusted invited me to a concert of jewish music that her chorale was giving. At the end of the concert, the whole audience was asked to stand for the Israeli national anthem. Remember, this concert took place in America, not in Israel. I enjoyed the concert very much, but was shocked to see virtually the entire audience rise to attention for a foreign national anthem. It still shocks me to think about this today. I felt that the whole purpose of the concert had shifted from being a celebration of jewish culture to being a kind of ritual of loyalty to Israel. Why must admiration for jewish achievement be conflated with loyalty to Israel? Even for people who aren’t jews and don’t live in Israel! I think it’s important to fight this conflation.
Vittorio Arrigoni, Italian Pacifist supporter of the Palestinian Cause, Slain in Gaza
Noah Pollack, Director of Emergency Committee for Israel, mocks his death:
http://twitter.com/NoahPollak
POLLACK: ” My condolences to the anti-Israel crazies mourning their ISM friend. We who do not work with terrorists will never understand your pain. about 15 hours ago via TweetDeck
@ibnezra Aw, sorry fella. Maybe if you work hard enough, Hamas will name a street after you, too. about 15 hours ago via TweetDeck in reply to ibnezra
3. jstrevino If a full-on collaborator like Vittorio Arrigoni is murdered, I have a difficult time urging Israelis to make peace on faith in goodwill. about 18 hours ago via Echofon Retweeted by NoahPollak
4. Turkey says new flotilla “not Ankara’s concern.” :http://bit.ly/g8GsCl Quote to keep in mind if it ends up on bottom of Mediterranean 7:44 PM Apr 14th via TweetDeck
6. People like @MitchellPlit are more concerned abt a Western terror supporter abducted in Gaza than they’ve ever been about Shalit. #clarity 4:26 PM Apr 14th via TweetDeck
7. That Italian anti-Israel activist abducted by jihadis in Gaza is pro Shalit abduction. Figures. :http://bit.ly/gnidlB #epicpoeticjustice 4:19 PM Apr 14th via TweetDeck
8. Jihadis in Gaza have abducted an Italian to extort ransom from Hamas. The Italian? A terror-supporting ISM activist. #poeticjustice 2:26 PM Apr 14th via TweetDeck
9. georgehale Kidnappers of Italian citizen Vittorio Arrigoni say they will kill him tomorrow unless Hamas releases all Salafi prisoners 2:16 PM Apr 14th via web Retweeted by NoahPollak
10. ngomonitor No wonder #Goldstone dumped them: @HRW @KenRoth @sarahleah1 continue to prop up #Hamas w/false claims of Israeli “indiscriminate attacks” 10:22 AM Apr 14th via web Retweeted by NoahPollak
11. BDS’ers so crestfallen that Bob Dylan is ignoring them they’re quoting his lyrics back to him. :http://bit.ly/hTWuhF #heartache 1:41 PM Apr 14th via TweetDeck
12. it’s official RT @SpeakerBoehner: Will be a great honor to invite Israeli PM Netanyahu to address Congress next month :http://bit.ly/eHU43b 1:04 PM Apr 14th via TweetDeck
13. “Iron Dome is the start of a process in which Israel runs away from the fight without attaining victory.” The start? :http://bit.ly/ho473v 1:02 PM Apr 14th via TweetDeck
14. Kredo0 New House bill would force to UN retract Goldstone Report or face US de-funding – :http://goo.gl/ORDlH 3:36 PM Apr 13th via web Retweeted by NoahPollak
15. PA’s Fayyad declares, “now is the time to be masters of our own destiny”; then requests $5 billion in aid. :http://bit.ly/eT5agC 10:34 AM Apr 13th via TweetDeck
16. @mattduss @Ibishblog Do you mean to tell me that a UN report flatters the Palestinians & incriminates Israel? I just can’t believe that. 10:25 AM Apr 13th via TweetDeck
18. keithurbahn drinks w/ @michaeljtotten & freedom posse heavies @EliLake @NoahPollak @philipaklein @adesnik. Leveretts now calling their IRGC handler. 7:46 PM Apr 12th via web Retweeted by NoahPollak
20. Israeli foreign minister gives radio interview from the bathroom, flushes toilet on air. :http://bit.ly/gnh3Cd 7:10 PM Apr 11th via TweetDeck
fyi says:
April 15, 2011 at 3:49 pm
I generally agree with what you say except your point regarding complain. when you live there, it looks very silly to complain. I say this over there too. but the situation would be different once you permanently live here. it is, in fact, easy to test it. you are almost retired as far as I know. with your achievements and knowledge, links, somehow wealth … you will have a very high status here, a relatively luxury life I would say. you will be praised everywhere you go. you can simply be a consultant for few hours and enjoy your life in this perfect land. I also think living more than 3 decades in the U.S is more than enough. you have seen the world over many times and did what a beginner like me may dream of. So, come here and live for at least 2 years, not even more than that. I am not sure if you can convince your family to do so. it’s generally easy to criticize a big segment of a society, like what pirouz_2 does blindly, but to live in their situation is a different story. we should like for others what we like for ourselves, and should not like things for others that we ourselves reject. I don’t think it’s fair to condemn a relatively huge number of your country of origin.
for example a few days ago, I was talking to a friend’s family. he has a M.Sc degree from Sharif in a field that is hot (energy efficiency), and has been working full time for more than 7 years now. he is also a very active person an runs a business as a second job. he also teaches at Azad Univ. his wife also works in a good company. but they told me they can’t even think of buying a house with years of down payment in near future (forget about political stuff and social freedom which is their inherent right). his wife said when we are young and can’t have the basics required for our education, time of work…then what would be the point to get them after 40 or 50 something? shouldn’t this people get what they deserve for? is it fair, if they complain, to say it’s just a typical nagging; or typical middle-class mentality….
how could science and technology be in the agenda of Reza Khan when the absolute majority of the society was not even able to read and write? pretty much the same goes for his son. the booming population mixed with the culture of competition (somehow Cheshmohamcheshmi), and the importance of knowledge in the society made the the policy of expansion of the university a necessity for the IR (at least in terms of quantity). it was somehow inevitable to do this minimum job.
let me talk about a story. we were talking with a group of people at Sharif Univ. last week and coincidentally we were talking about the IR’s record in the above areas. somebody said, rightly so I think, it’s like “internet”, Islamic Republic CAN NOT say that look I brought internet to Iran (no matter it sucks!). this was inevitable and a global force. we are a relatively rich country. we are not Somali…. and we have a culture that traditionally appreciates science.
in fact, I believe we have a golden generation (between 1365-1385) that somehow resulted in the “growth” of the scientific stuff pirouz_2 occasionally refers to. when this generation dies down, through brain drain…., we will have to deal only with the debris.
pirouz_2:
I don’t really know why you make things complicated. it’s, indeed, you that brings irrelevant issues to the discussion. I say what I see in the streets in Iran right now. withing a few days, these observations will be nil. as for the degree, I raised a very simple issue; that was to know whether or not you have a degree in engineering and up to what level. if you have, let us know and it will be the end of the story, almost. does this really have anything to do with the suppression of the Shah’s era or anything else?
I said that I am an engineer, whatever that means. I have my bachelor, masters and ph.d degrees in an engineering field in high ranking universities. I have also published enough, far more impressive than what a normal person in my age can achieve (and more to come). my profs in the west (and in Iran too) always consider me a very knowledgeable person in the subject regardless of the publications as does the industry that I have partly done the project for. so to say you don’t UNDERSTAND your own field is very absurd and to some extent ridiculous no matter who you are. I have always said that I am a very normal person and nothing is special with me.
you said that I am old, somehow older than you and you have to respect me (it’s a pseudonym name for me after all). respect for me is mutual. if you don’t respect me, no matter what your status, knowledge, wealth and age are, I have no respect for you. as simple as this. you also constantly talk about events of 30-40 years ago (which I have neither the interest nor any illusion. for me those events are part of history. I understand that those events loom high in your self-identity, but I have no feelings about them even though I have a little sympathy to say the least) as if they occurred yesterday. last but not least, if we take your age at least 25 to remember political stuff in that detail and add 30-40 years to it, then you calculate what your minimum age would be with the margin of +-10.
More thoughts on Syria:
Nobody in the Middle East is going to be able to get a majority of any population to vote to be a US colony. Not Iraq, Not Syria, not Lebanon, not Egypt, not Bahrain, not Yemen, not Libya.
Elections which lead representative governments in any of the current US colonies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait and others will ultimately leave those countries in the anti-colonial independent camp, more or less aligned with Iran and Turkey and in each case much more effectively hostile to Israel than the current US colonies.
In some cases, notably what we now call “Saudi” Arabia after its colonial dynasty and also possibly Jordan, the installation of representative governments would alone immediately bring Israel’s viability as a state with a guaranteed Jewish political majority into question.
But the word “ultimately” skips over the reality that if conditions of chaos are created, then even if the people of the country would vote to be in the independence camp, then a country can be taken off the board for an interim period. This is what we’ve seen in Iraq which voted to align with Iran but is not nearly as effective a player it might have been if it had transitioned smoothly from Saddam’s rule to representative government.
(If the United States want to say this chaotic and destructive period in Iraq post-Saddam was a mistake, it was a very convenient mistake from the US and Israeli point of view. This chaotic and destructive period was also the natural and predictable consequence of the US’ initial efforts to impose Chalabi or Allawi as Iraq’s Mubarak and its later flirtation with the idea of breaking the country into smaller pieces.)
But I’m close to completely confident that independence factions (a combination of the Muslim Brothers and remnants of Assad’s regime come to mind) will have enough support to outvote pro-US factions in any eventual fairly contested political contest in Syria. Nobody in the region has any reason to expect any other eventual outcome.
The US colonies – Saudi Arabia, Jordan and pro-US factions of Lebanese politics in coordination with the US and each other – ultimately on behalf of Israel – possibly are aiming to take Syria off the board, and to take advantage of the period between now and “ultimately”. If Syria descends into the type of chaos we’ve recently seen in Iraq, it will be unable though still willing to effectively support parties like Hamas and Hezbollah.
I can’t see any US aim in Syria other than that.
Assad is going to have to either win a contested national election against an opponent with resources or leave power over the medium term. For the sake of Syria, I hope that state is reached in a graceful way rather than a chaotic and destructive way.
If he fails to do that, the US and Israel – supported by the colonial structure the US maintains in the region – may succeed in turning Syria into Iraq.
Corey Balsam, is a Canadian Jewish human rights activist with the Alternative Information Center. Recently, he delivered a speech at a seminar, entitled ‘Jewish Diaspora: So what’s so attractive about Zionism anyway?’
Balsam recalled that he himself was once a Zionist; but he said that upon deep-felt reflection on the extreme situation in Israel, after visiting the country, he decided that he couldn’t reconcile the situation in Israel-Palestine with human rights.
“I couldn’t support Israel on the one hand and talk about human rights on the other,” said Balsam.
He added that as Israel comes to be identified as an apartheid state, more Jews in North America don’t want to be associated with it. In response to this dwindling support, the campus has become an important recruiting ground for Zionism in the Diaspora. Birthright – a ten day free trip to Israel for Jews in the Diaspora – is an important recruiting technique on campus.
Balsam himself went to Israel as part of the Birthright program. He said continuity is the goal of this program, in order to ensure the next generation avoids intermarriage; and the program is enjoying a degree of success.
“Studies have shown that people who went (on a Birthright trip) are more likely to marry Jewish partners, have babies and support Israel.”
He credits organizations such as the Jewish National Fund (JNF) – a quasi-government non-profit organization – which was awarded the Israel Prize in 2002 for lifetime achievement and special contribution to society and the State of Israel – with enhancing Zionist support in the North American Diaspora.
Jews in the Diaspora are taught that they must contribute money and lobby for the survival of Israel.
“The Jewish Federation of North America is the largest philanthropic organization in North America, next to the United Way. JFNA raises $60 million a year in Toronto.”
“It’s the idea of a safe haven: Israel as an insurance policy in case something goes wrong. They believe the Holocaust could happen again and they have to be vigilant against antisemitism, real and imagined. Keeping antisemitism alive allows them to continue to make sense of Zionism in the Diaspora.”
While early Zionists sought an escape route from antisemitism in Europe, Balsam said the fathers or Zionism such as Theodor Herzl and Max Nordau believed in the hegemonic white ideals of Europe and thus they modelled Zionism after European colonialism.
“Theodor Herzl saw the Israeli state in Palestine as an outpost against (non-White) barbarism,” Balsam said.
At the same time, because Jews were discriminated against in Europe – where they couldn’t own land at the time – Balsam said Zionism allowed them to become “white” in Palestine.
“It allowed them to climb the social hierarchy because they were on the borderline against the Arab world.”
About 80 per cent of the land is reserved for Jews – Palestinians can’t own it.
Many of the roads are restricted for Israelis only. Palestinians must remain in the villages where they were in 1948, with no right to expand, while Israeli settlements on Palestinian land are constantly expanding.
Meanwhile, the Zionist movement continues to make inroads in the Diaspora in North America. Balsam said that in the 1940′s Zionism was marginal in the Diaspora communities of North America, where most Jews were leftist, working class and not that connected with Israel; but this all changed after the 1967 war.
“Jews around the world were captivated to stand behind Israel … After 1967 the B’nai B’rith and Canadian Jewish Congress became more focused on Zionism.”
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/corey-balsam-i-cannot-support-israel/
Tabler dominated this conversation by slipping in attacks and villifying the Syrian government, he was more assertive than Flynt and Tabler remained unchallenged on his imaginative claims. I understand the need to be politically correct, etc. But this guy was not interested in providing a scientific opinion, it’s best to use the same rhetoric.
This is for FYI… a Professor of Chemistry at University of Copenhagen.
http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/03/controlled-demolition-during-911-only-conclusion
Bit by bit.
http://profit.ndtv.com/news/show/brics-to-replace-dollar-credits-with-local-currencies-149845
It’s a rite of passage, all presidential candidates pass through Israel. Mostly it’s about money,” says Dr. Norman Finkelstein.
Israel got the ‘Keys’ to White House
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/israel-got-the-keys-to-white-house/
Rd;
“When we’re kids and listening to our parents talk about their experiences as a kid back in the turn of century. They used to say, they’d go to school on foot, in 10 ft snow, over 10 miles.. on barefoot!! So they’d tell us stop complaining about school bus, or what not. :-) ”
LOL…nice story. But:
Apparently I haven’t made my point very clear, and I think it is my fault for not clarifying it properly.
Let me put it this way, from me to my child (ie next generation):
Unless you understand that “change” does not necessarily have to be from a school bus to my private autombile (ie. your parent’s), it is quite possible that the changes that you will cause (based on your fantasies) will result NOT in riding my private automobile or even walking on bare foot, but rather in carrying out the carriage of our neighbour’s children to their school with bare foot!!
pirouz_2 says:
“I don’t understand why you think I am talking past over PG.”
When we’re kids and listening to our parents talk about their experiences as a kid back in the turn of century. They used to say, they’d go to school on foot, in 10 ft snow, over 10 miles.. on barefoot!! So they’d tell us stop complaining about school bus, or what not. :-)
What happened 10 years ago, or 30 years ago or 3,000 years ago has relevance in historical analysis. However for the growing population, what is relevant is how they are utilizing their adulthood experiences. I can appreciate the points you are raising re those who always complain.. fair enough.. I can also appreciate PG’s points and the growing population who have their own perception of what they expect.
When there is disconnect between the experienced (parent, older, government) generation and the growing younger ones, is usually the cause for discontent. Those parents who are able to care for their kids properly, are better able to transfer their experiences to the younger ones, just as much as learning from theirs kids growing experiences.
Time is always changing and it does not stay constant. The younger generations will always have a different experiences and set of realities to live with than the previous generation. This is true of small families and just as much with societies and governments. Shah, mobarack, etc. govs had serious flaws and faced fatal ends. That will happen when generational gaps (matter of speaking) is developed and its realities are ignored.
The children of the revolution were supposed to purify the society as apposed to the older generations defect caused by exposure to the old regime. However, that reality does not appear to be entirely true. [now, it is excused as certain minority of society]. I can appreciate the security concerns, etc.. however, one can not ignore there are new ‘kids’ and new realities on the ground. Sweeping it under the carpet will not do.
All:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/john_j_mearsheimers_why_leaders_lie/2011/03/09/AFqk88jD_story.html?wprss=rss_style
The application to Mr. Obama’s treatment of the Turkey-Brazil_iran deal is straightforward.
Mr. Obama (and EU leaders) evidently thought that he was going to benefit the United States (and EU) by intensifying an economic/political/diplomatic/intelligence war that Mr. Bush had statred earlier; fully expecting to win.
What is unknowm to me is the expected time interval to winning.
Persian Gulf says: April 15, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Comparison with South Korea must include the fact that she is a semi-sovereign show-case state for the United States.
Furthermore, Korea’s primary-school attendance, in 1943, was 47%. In Iran, the same ratio was reached in 1976 (if my memory does not fail me).
Moreover, Koreans are at least an order of magnitude harder working and more diligent than Iranians. Korean people are not accustomed to hand-outs from the state and then complaining about the color of sky.
In regards to Science and Tenchology in Iran: at least for the past 15 years it has been on the government’s agenda. Before it was not.
PG;
First of all calm down and be polite. I hope you won’t ask where you started to sound very rude this time?
Look you know nothing about me, you don’t know my age, you don’t know my educational background and quite frankly all that is irrelevant to the subject at hand. If you feel the need to keep mentioning your education I recommend that you make a website or perhaps even better to give out a newspaper ad so that everyone can see what a great scholar you are compared to the rest of humanity then we would shut up in awe in the presence of your genius.
Instead of mentioning your degree and giving it as an evidence of the validity of your argument try to come up with some “evidence”.
You have misunderstood a lot of things that I have said, first and foremost I never intended to bring your class background into this subject. My point was about a general trend in the Iranian upper and middle classes. By the way, I myself belong to middle-class. So when I criticized the Iranian middle class I was not criticizing you personally.
Now, you say:
“I know and talk to daily HERE (again here not in the U.S) are the ones you think are the core of the scientific progress. I have gone to graduate school in Iran (its best technical school, in fact) and to one of the best schools in the west too. I have done research in both systems, worked with both by all means (I did work with the industries of both systems to a lesser degree).”
I am not quite following your point, are you trying to tell me that R&D is much more developed in the West? If that is the case, then that is a statement of the obvious and it hardly needs mentioning, I don’t think that anyone here (least of all me) is claiming that Iran is at the summit of the global science or technology. You must differentiate between the present level of science and its RATE OF GROWTH.
And if that was not the point you were trying to make then there remains only one option and that is that you feel a need to keep talking about your high level of academic achievements. Well in that case I would say: congratulations on your great achievements! I am sure your mother feels very proud.
“the (imaginary) power of the scientific growth that you think is unleashed, which is in fact the case somehow, was mainly due to the booming population.”
It is not my imagination, it is the fantasies made up by science-metrix, Institute for Scientific Information and National Science Foundation. But then again none of the people involved in writing those reports has gone to Iran and talked to your professors, so probably they are just raving.
By the way, the most absurd thing that you could say is that the scientific growth is a result of the booming population! To that I really don’t know how to answer except that perhaps in Afghanistan and Somalia, they should bring a ban on the usage of condoms to bring about a boom in the scientific growth!!
“the best of that generation (who produced most of what you consider our greatest scientific progress of all time) are either residing outside of the country or in the line to get out if not already depressed (what has been obtained out of those scientific progresses is for you, (the great man of our time that even knows (with perhaps no practical engineering experiences) in an engineering field much more than somebody who is an engineer himself at the highest level!), to explore). “
I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say here except that you feel desparate to insult me. If you are saying that the most important scientists of Iran have left the country and we are left with Ahamdinejad and Daneshjoo alone, then in a simple matter of 2 or at most 3 years that “imaginary” scientific growth which the pure fantasy of science-metrix, Institute for Scientific Information and National Science Foundation will go down the drain and our scientific progress will be the same as it was during the time of the Shah (or perhaps even less, as it did become much less in the first 15 years of IR). And that will be the time (IF IT HAPPENS) that I will agree that what I said is no longer valid.
Until such time: THE MOST RECENT (AND ALSO THE RELATIVELY MOST RELIABLE) DATA SUGGESTS THAT IRAN IS SHOWING THE HIGHEST GROWTH RATE IN THE WORLD!
If the facts do not suit your paradigm then I suggest that you question your paradigm instead of denying the numbers.
“from what you say, it sounds as if you didn’t expect any progress at all! our population doubled over the past 3 decades. we used to have one of the most youthful population of the world…. Compare the date at the end of the Shah’s era with 32 years (1327) before in the same country too. and we are still benefiting from the educated people of that time. I can bet, 2 decades by now, with the current situation, you won’t be even talking about it. if nature let me be alive till then, I will report for you and people of this section!”
No I never said that we should settle down with any progress. In fact no matter how much you progress you should always try to achieve more. But that does not change the fact that our global ranking is much better than the time of Shah.
If you compare our scientific growth rate at the time of Shah to that of similar countries and compare our growth rate again with same countries right now, you will see that we are doing significantly better.
And again population growth causes problem rather than helping the situation. In fact I can tell you that had our population not increased –assuming that everything else staying the same- our todays progress would be much better.
By the way brain emigration happens everywhere. Most people even in countries such as Germany or France would stay there if they had the opportunity to teach at MIT or Caltech. This is very normal scientists try to go where they have the best opportunity to do leading edge research and no one is denying that in terms of leading edge research the West is far ahead of Iran. I am talking about GROWTH not about the current state of science in Iran!
“btw, go and check some of the east Asian countries for the real progress in their respective societies and compare them with the imaginary scientific growth you are talking about. I remember, this was a topic that one of my ex-profs explored in an internal conference at the time that I was a graduate student in Iran filed with the kind of the pride you have now. I remember, he was then talking about our publication record being way higher than some of those countries. we are definitely now manytimes higher than them in terms of scientific growth. I just don’t know why our students spire to go there!”
That is because you don’t understand the difference between the terms “scientific growth” and “the current scientific level”.
The two are very different. Growth means at what rate your scientific output is increasing, current scientific level on the other hand means where you are standing at the moment. If a country with a low scientific standing shows SUSTAINED scientific growth it inevitably means that it will catch up with the countries which have a lower rate of growth.
In the end I should say I really don’t care about your social base (or your level of education) and that has nothing to do with our discussion. You should probably talk about those stuff when you go to Khastegari! LOL
…”Compare the date at the end of the Shah’s era with 32 years (1327) before in”
I meant “data”, 1325 and not 1327. originally I thought to talk about 3 decades period. it doesn’t really matter. we can talk about 1320, or even 1300.
nahid:
I didn’t know Irankhordo even needs explanation! just compare it with South Korean companies in the same period. and the story goes.
Persian Gulf says:
April 15, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Is this article fake or poeple like you made it , with all hardship Iran is going that is magnificent that shows the engineering progress.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/03/review-the-iran-khodro-samand-venezuelan-spec-no-you-can%E2%80%99t-have-it/
pirouz_2 says:
April 15, 2011 at 12:15 pm
with all due respect, please stop making b***s***. You have no illusion what is the true situation of Iranian universities, it seems. I am at the helm of what you are naively talking about. and many that I know and talk to daily HERE (again here not in the U.S) are the ones you think are the core of the scientific progress. I have gone to graduate school in Iran (its best technical school, in fact) and to one of the best schools in the west too. I have done research in both systems, worked with both by all means (I did work with the industries of both systems to a lesser degree). the (imaginary) power of the scientific growth that you think is unleashed, which is in fact the case somehow, was mainly due to the booming population. the best of that generation (who produced most of what you consider our greatest scientific progress of all time) are either residing outside of the country or in the line to get out if not already depressed (what has been obtained out of those scientific progresses is for you, (the great man of our time that even knows (with perhaps no practical engineering experiences) in an engineering field much more than somebody who is an engineer himself at the highest level!), to explore).
from what you say, it sounds as if you didn’t expect any progress at all! our population doubled over the past 3 decades. we used to have one of the most youthful population of the world…. Compare the date at the end of the Shah’s era with 32 years (1327) before in the same country too. and we are still benefiting from the educated people of that time. I can bet, 2 decades by now, with the current situation, you won’t be even talking about it. if nature let me be alive till then, I will report for you and people of this section!
the quality of education sucks, at all level to be fair, now compared to just a few years ago. I mean, high schools and primary schools are almost f***ed up generally speaking. bachelor degree is diseased (I say this bc I have friends who in fact teach at different schools here. the best of their classes leave the country, a big portion of the rest are not really professionals based on its true meaning. even IR says that). it’s still possible to find some sort of quality in the graduate level (theoretical aspect to be specific) which is itself impinged with other factors; the major ones being brain drain and also lack of meaningful research environment. thanks to the oil money, we can still take pride of something imaginary. btw, go and check some of the east Asian countries for the real progress in their respective societies and compare them with the imaginary scientific growth you are talking about. I remember, this was a topic that one of my ex-profs explored in an internal conference at the time that I was a graduate student in Iran filed with the kind of the pride you have now. I remember, he was then talking about our publication record being way higher than some of those countries. we are definitely now manytimes higher than them in terms of scientific growth. I just don’t know why our students spire to go there!
I didn’t want to explore it for different reason(s). I recommend you stay there and as well stay in your course of fighting imperialism!! an old man talking nonsense.
btw, you are by no means in the position to question my social base. you can’t be part of a social class all your life and at the same time criticize it. if anything, I still have that privilege to some extent. one can’t put me fully in a specific class (well, except the upper income one!). whatelse could you say if “nagging” did not exist in the English language? what you basically say is most of the educated people here, who are indeed dealing with what you only see as numbers, don’t understand and only you understand from a far distance, Mr.Smart! well, continue that path I recommend. you are at the end, naturally I mean, almost!, it’s not fair probably to disturb you. it’s too late to change mind. I shouldn’t have written this perhaps.
Rehmat,
Interesting post regarding Abraham Feinberg and Zalman Shapiro. And details on how they gave crucial support to Israeli nuclear weapons programme. The thefts of nearly 800 pounds of plutonium or enriched uranium from US gov’t sites in Pennsylvania were never properly investigated.
France was Israel’s original supporter in its quest for nukes, against opposition from the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. Israel was helping France in its civil war etc in Algeria.
masoud,
The best part of a million people died in a totally unnecessary war, thanks in no small way to John Brown’s religious fanaticism. Slavery would have ended in the US without war, in any event. Abraham Lincoln wanted to issue bonds to buy out the slaveowners’ equity in the slaves (valued at $800 million in 1860). This was the obvious way forward, but delusional fanatics like Brown helped prevent it from going forward.
Rd. says:
April 15, 2011 at 9:12 am
Rd;
I am extremly busy at the moment and therefore I don’t have the time to talk in detail. I just want to say that I don’t understand why you think I am talking past over PG. What I say is a very simple critique of PG’s complaints. The state of Political freedom (AND ALSO scientific growth) in a country must be evaluated compared to TWO things:
1)its own past state (to find out how much it has progressed compared to its own past)
2)the state of all other countries in the world and how much they have changed in the course of time.
If there is visible progress compared to both its own and also compared to the world then “complaining” turns into “adolescent nagging”. I am NOT accusing PG of adolescent nagging, this is not about PG, I am criticizing a very visible -and in my opinion major- trend in the Iranian middle and upper classe. This adolescent nagging becomes extremly dangerous especially because of the reasons that I will explain later (next weekend hopefully), I believe that most of these adolecent and meaningless naggings are the result of a viscious assult by the western neo-liberal camp on Iran and is being directly guided by the Western propaganda without having a sound basis.
The situation is very similar to the situation of the Eastern block countries towards the end of the cold war, where people of the Eastern block had a completely delussional image of the Western socio-economic structure and the Western wealth (and its feasibility for being applied on a global scale) and that eventually led them to a disaster!
If people are reduced to nagging adolescents they may lead to change, but not every change is good, a lot of changes end in disasterous results.
I must say however, that there is a big difference between eastern block and Iran though, in the eastern block countries the nagging adolescents constituted a much larger part of the society as compared to today’s Iran (thank god!)
fyi – You forgot to include occupied Palestine among the Muslim world which the western powers should withdraw. I am sure, Muslims can solve their problems among themselves without killing Christians being used a ‘scapegoats’ by Israel.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/us-lying-for-war-is-kosher/
Empty says:
April 15, 2011 at 9:15 am
I realy enjoyed reading your comment, thanks
Eric A. Brill says: April 15, 2011 at 10:09 am
The best thing that the Axis Powers can do in Libya in particular and in Muslim world in general is to leave.
All they can offer is more war, misery, and chaos coupled with a shrill demand to Muslims to Learn to Love the Jewish Fantasy Project in Palestine (which kills a 2 or 3 Muslims every day there).
They have no positive program whatsoever and once they pack and leave they will not be complicit in all these disasters.
C.J. Chivers’ piece in the New York Times yesterday reported that a 6-year old girl was injured by shrapnel from an incoming missile or mortar shell. An accompanying photo showed a very young girl on an operating table. This photo strikes me as solid evidence that supports claims that Gaddafi’s attacks are killing or wounding innocent civilians.
Most Western journalists physically based in Tripoli now appear to agree, however, that civilians are also dying from the NATO strikes on the city. I strongly suspect that the pilots who drop those bombs on Tripoli, and the Libyan troops who fire mortars into Misrata, sincerely hope they won’t kill or injure any 6-year old girls – in other words, they are not “targeting” civilians. There nevertheless is no question that war is very hard on civilians. The sooner a war ends, the better for civilians. Those who press for more assistance to the rebels, so that they can continue this war, should bear that clearly in mind.
It’s worth repeating: The longer this fighting lasts, the harder it will be on civilians. That is why the US should have allowed negotiations to occur before sending in the bombers. That is why it should have allowed Libya to seat the first, or at least the second, of its recently designated UN representatives so that the matter could be debated in the UN – and possibly even resolved there; that, after all, is what the UN is supposed to be good at. That is why NATO should have allowed the African Union to send in its negotiators right from the start.
And that is why the US should now consider a solution that doesn’t require, as an absolute non-negotiable starting point, that Gaddafi and his sons leave the country. That simply is not a responsible position, especially in light of the parties’ relative positions on the battlefield. What leader in his right mind would simply give up when he’s not only winning, but winning with only minimal resistance from enemy troops for whom the label “Keystone Kops” would be an entirely undeserved compliment?
Those who press for military aid to the rebels may indeed be “saving lives” if, as they often claim, Gaddafi would otherwise roll into Benghazi and start hacking up innocent women and children. The analysis indeed would be different if we really had evidence – rather than baseless conjecture – to believe that would happen.
But even this very sad story about the 6-year old girl doesn’t provide evidence that Gaddafi has done that or would do that – any more than it proves the US would do that when a NATO bomber drops a bomb on a civilian area in Tripoli, as it’s indisputably done. What the story of this 6-year old girl does show, however, is that continuing an unnecessary war results in unnecessary civilian deaths. That we know for sure. What those who would like to help the rebels prolong this senseless fighting claim – that doing so will “save lives” – is, by contrast, irresponsible conjecture.
Eric – get a hold of this news, looks like the NATO does not have enough precession killing plane
“BERLIN – NATO failed for a second day to find new ground-attack aircraft for the fight against Moammar Gadhafi’s forces in Libya but Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Friday he expects the additional planes soon.”
“NATO’s top military commander, U.S. Navy Adm. James Stavridis, has said there is a growing need for precision attack aircraft to avoid civilian casualties as Gadhafi’s forces camouflage themselves and hide in populated areas to avoid Western airstrikes.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110415/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nato_foreign_ministers
Photi,
*please note, if I have mis-quoted, mis-typed, or have errors and typos, etc. all are un-intended. I take full responsibility for my mistakes and apologize in advance.*
RE: “I was likely letting a bit of frustration escape me as I have been either a participant or observer in many discussions where comments are said by Muslims that do not make any sense to me.”
Your frustration is understandable. We have to be vigilant in multiple fronts which is not easy but not impossible either. Some outright oppose the progress in these areas and openly fight it (from within and from without). Some don’t oppose but don’t help either. Some pretend to help but engage in sabotage. Some are trying to do something but are still learning and gaining the appropriate skills and make a lot of mistakes (as they should) in the process which are then used as batons by others to hit them over the head and sing the “I told you so” songs. And there are also some who sing the song of hopelessness (they read Ayeh_e Ya’as). But none of these, in my opinion, should serve as an excuse to give up (again, I prescribe sabr [active patience] and jihad [struggle] Enshallah).
RE: “For instance, “Islam does not need capitalism,…”
I have heard similar arguments and I do think that sometimes people who present them may not have a full understanding of what it means and thus may not be able to properly defend their positions. Here is my view (broken, incomplete, and flawed as it may be). In general, when I have reviewed the “-isms” of any sort (be it capitalism, feminism, environmentalism, socialism, individualism, humanism, etc.), that which precedes the “-ism” becomes the point of reference at the expense or to the determent of all other players/stakeholders. For example, when “capitalism” is used as a framework to explore, plan, design, implement, evaluate, etc. “capital” becomes the focal point around which all other interests revolve. Ecosystem interests, human interests, societal interests, animals/plants/earth/air/water/soil interests are then, to a greater or lesser degree sacrificed at the alter of “capital” and increasing it. Everything is then measured with the yardstick of “capital”. This approach is unjust and not sustainable. Same holds true with “environmentalism”. Many times, I have been caught in the middle of arguments (at time not so constructive) between the “environmentalist” who put the environment at the center of the universe at the expense of communities, poor people, immigrants, etc. and then the communities who accuse them of worrying about trees and animals more than people. So, there too, the interests of what they conceive to be “environment” are fought for at the expense of all others.
So, in that sense, to have a “God-centered” worldview is to basically say no to all these other “-isms” (elahs) so that a balance of interests (be it human, animal, plants, etc.) are strived for. These, I think, are the very fields in which rigorous and sustained scholarship based on principles of Islam could make tremendous progress.
RE: “The way I look at it is that Islam provides guidelines, and as long as individual Muslims live up to their responsibilities according to Islam, then their science will accordingly reflect those guidelines.”
I agree.
RE: “As an outside observer, it appears to me the disputes are less about science and more about control.”
My observation is that it seems to be about a “balance of control”. If Iran could achieve that balance, she would be already ahead of all “-isms” even in the very way this process is materialized. The ironic part of the whole thing is that, unlike what is portrayed by the west, there is no one powerful person or group or institution. No one side is powerful enough (soft or hard) to overpower the other sides. In a sense, it reminds me of how the planets are suspended in the universe and moving in their “orbits” with a balance achieved by centripetal force where the center is invisible.
RE: “The Islamic Republic is resisting a powerful enemy, so the control issues are to be expected. It comes back to the whole security dilemma. Once the Islamic Republic is secure, I want to believe with all my ideals that the Islamic establishment will be more tolerant towards reasoned and dissenting debate.”
Because I am more inclined to be a systems thinker rather than a linear thinker, I think these other developments can and should occur in parallel just as a person develops. While the immune system is increasingly strengthened to ward off infections and foreign invaders, the nervous system, human cognition, the heart, lung, etc. develop. I see them as complementary rather than in competition. BUT imagine if a body is in the middle of a really dangerous infectious disease outbreak and the cells and organs of the body are “stimulated” to fight the immune system cells and attack each other. That is not wise.
RE: “I have wondered now for a few years why an environmental movement does not take shape in Iran. With Islam’s emphasis on humans being custodians of the Earth, why is there not a lot of effort at reforestation and such activities by the Iranian public?”
I think there is a lot of incorrect assumptions among people that need to be addressed first. In terms of ecosystem management, a lot of misconceptions have to explored. For example, people usually lump together dry land, eroded land, sand dunes, and deserts all into one connoted term: desert. Deserts have their own ecosystems and, in fact, they cover 1/3 of biodiversity in the planet (more than any other ecosystem on earth which includes tropical/subtropical, etc.). Correct desert management can be tremendous help in stabilizing sand/dust storms and prevention of particulate matter pollution, organic production of medicinal plants, insects, and animals, and so much more without to much need for the most scare resource in semi-arid and arid regions: water. Wisdom is not in reforesting the desert but to protecting the natural forests and protecting the deserts and gradually changing the nature of eroded “sand domes” to functioning lively deserts (in my professional opinion). This topic is huge but it was just an example.
RE: Are these things going on and i just don’t see them?
I think a lot more is going on than it is advertised.
RE: “Environmentalism” would add an important component to Iranian civil society.”
I lumped this together above with the discussion of “-isms”.
Persian Gulf says:
Pirouz_2 says:
Just a simple observation on your discussions.. fwiw..
It seems that you both may be talking past one another as in talking in different time zones. For some of us, the older generations, the events of 30-40 years ago have a certain reality. However, for the newer generations those very events may simply represent a page in history. Not that it necessary has no value, rather it simply dose not have the same sense of reality as it does for the older generation. For the new generation the reality is, what they experience in Iran today vs what they perceive / compare life in other parts of the world.. not that either one is wrong, just your base of discussion may be in different time zones. This may be a simple symptom of generational gap, where there exist little interaction between the older and the younger as they grow.
Liz,
Consider it done…
Flown-in Imperialist reminds me of ChrisE who was/is the sidekick of the well funded Scott Lucas. I have no respect for any of these three people, but it would be fantastic if our good friend Bussed-in Basiji would delete a couple of words here and there.
Pirouz_2 says:
April 14, 2011 at 3:23 pm
same goes with me as I am gonna have a tour of central and western Iran.
I think, it’s about changing language over the generations.
and I don’t remember you telling us that you are an engineer yourself. if you are not an engineer in the related fields, then again SIMPLY speaking you can’t claim to know better than me in my own field, like it or not.
as for freedom of expression, political freedom …., I think you have ignored this fact that generally democracy needs “institution” so we called it “institutionalized democracy” and based on this your notion of progress, whatever that means, makes sense. but it does not make sense to say hey look we could talk up that point in the past and up to this point now. that’s why I believe, it’s meaningful to fight for freedom not democracy. freedom is a God given gift to mankind. you can’t deprive a population of their basic right of freedom of expression simply because a few decades ago a repressive regime did not even allow you to explore a political system in academia. I can either say something or not say that. there is no middle ground here. if I can’t talk about a public figure and criticize him/her, then I do not have the freedom to express my thoughts, as simple as this.
Eric,
Indeed. My wife tells me I’m the most handsome man in the world and of course I believe her :)
Eric,
What’s with the silent treatment?
Bussed-in-Basiji:
“there is serious debate among experts about who [Dr. Marandi or I] is more handsome.”
You must be very handsome if that debate is occurring.
“John Brown was a murderous religious fanatic, who helped bring on the greatest catastrophe in the history of the US.”
What? The end of slavery?
Maybe, being Iranian, I’ve just got a soft spot for “murderous, religious fanatics”.
Photi says: April 14, 2011 at 8:49 pm
The Custodianship/Vice Regency was before the Fall of Adam. It applies not to the current situation of mankind.
There has been persistent and focused effort at reforestation in Iran )and environmental protection) since the time of the Shah by the various Iranian governments.
Very many people are quite aware of these problems but greed, stupidity and expediency thwarts many of these efforts.
Conisder: For 50 years Iranian government has attempted to reforest the Zagros mountains. But there it goes aganist the endemic poverty of people who cut the shrubs and trees to make charcoal.
In another case, the water basin is being so rapidly depleted through deep wells tha the land has actually sunk. But the water is needed for agriculture and for industry and for human consumption.
Another reason for nuclear reactors and desalination plants powered by them.
Islamic polities are intrinsically intolerant since Islam is a religion of common people without hierarchy. That is, over the centuries, common people gave vent and expression to their naturl envy of the more sensitive souls and the finer intellects among muslims and killed or otherwise suppressed them. In this task, they had no better friend that contemptible thinker called Al Ghazzali (unfortunately of Iranian stock) who assured Muslims that they were best no to think.
Empty,
Developing a methodology so that it adheres to Islamic principles is a noble task, i did not mean to sound so dismissive of the ethical considerations of the Muslims. I was likely letting a bit of frustration escape me as I have been either a participant or observer in many discussions where comments are said by Muslims that do not make any sense to me. For instance, “Islam does not need capitalism, we have Islam.” Or, “Islam does not need democracy, we have Islam.” The way I look at it is that Islam provides guidelines, and as long as individual Muslims live up to their responsibilities according to Islam, then their science will accordingly reflect those guidelines. As an outside observer, it appears to me the disputes are less about science and more about control. The Islamic Republic is resisting a powerful enemy, so the control issues are to be expected. It comes back to the whole security dilemma. Once the Islamic Republic is secure, I want to believe with all my ideals that the Islamic establishment will be more tolerant towards reasoned and dissenting debate.
I have wondered now for a few years why an environmental movement does not take shape in Iran. With Islam’s emphasis on humans being custodians of the Earth, why is there not a lot of effort at reforestation and such activities by the Iranian public? Are these things going on and i just don’t see them? “Environmentalism” would add an important component to Iranian civil society.
Many of America’s Israeli agents are known to public but there are many more who never made the news. Two of such disloyal American Zionist Jews are Abraham Feinberg (died 1998) and Zalman Shapiro, the former president of NUMEC.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/israels-secret-agents-in-america/
Empty, the apology is accepted. I will read your response more carefully. Thank you.
Rather, “otherwise, I would have corrected it.”
Castellio,
Sorry. I copied and pasted and didn’t see I had dropped the “am” part. Otherwise, I would have corrected. Also, what I wrote wasn’t meant to be an attack. Please read it carefully if you care to. If not, that’s fine too.
Empty…. My exact quote was “… am I seeing the historical limits of Islamic thought?” It was a question, meant to query, in context, a previous post that said East Asians “live in the Age of Darkness – in Jahiliya”.
You, for reasons that go beyond the context, reply that “This statement/assertion/rhetorical question posed by Castellio is a symptom of an intellectually naive at best and arrogant/corrupt at worst of a western worldview.”
It’s you that claims, falsely, that I have made an assertion, or asked the question rhetorically. And then you decide to quote it again, and this time leave out the question entirely. You write: “Your exact statement was, “I seeing the historical limits of Islamic thought?”
But that wasn’t my exact statement, was it? It was “… am I seeing the historical limits of Islamic thought?” You misquoted for your own purposes.
And your subsequent attack based on your initial dishonesty is just silly. Hang the sign of enemy on someone else, or better yet, don’t rush to hang it on anyone. Question yourself.
masoud,
John Brown was a murderous religious fanatic, who helped bring on the greatest catastrophe in the history of the US.
…I don’t know how it got “bold” but it did…oh well.
Castellio says,
RE: “Empgy at 6.59 am… it may be my inability, but I don’t grasp the question you are asking. I think you are telling me that ‘the other’ in all non-Islamic societies are treated badly by the elites of those societies. Is that right?”
No. Your exact statement was, “I seeing the historical limits of Islamic thought?” It was not about Islamic societies. Your assertion was “Islamic thought”. In order for you to reach this conclusion, what you needed to have done first (albeit subconsciously or perhaps consciously — only you would know) to assume that:
1. A limited sample of posts by fyi and BiB were in fact based on Islamic thoughts. In order for you to have done this, you needed to be fully familiar with “Islamic thoughts” and know the reliable books of references (Kotob_e Marja’). You did not cite; nor did you express your lack of familiarity with them. Why this tacit assumption?
2. I also did not see them present any evidence (from Quran, Nahjolbalagheh, or other well-accepted books) that indeed their words are based on a collection of valid reliable evidence from any of the sources. Therefore, the question raised in my mind (and I hope it is raised in your mind as well), was what compelled you to refer to the limits of “Islamic thought” without granting to “Islamic thought” the same courtesy (not even asking for more) of scholarly work, critical analysis, and scrutiny of evidence? Why this tacit discriminatory approach?
3. “Thoughts” are potentials. Ever expanding, ever evolving potentials. As long as people exist, thoughts are going to exist and expand. Why would you assume that “Islamic thought” would reach it’s “limits”? By contrast and what is not stated by you but implied by statement (whether you are aware of it or not) is that other “thoughts” have not reached their limits and the potential would continue.
That one line could be deconstructed and the tacit assumptions rooted in supremacy of western worldview could be further explored. As I said, it’s rooted in that worldview.
RE: the concept of “other”, it was more in “otherness” of ideas. Allow me to use an analogy to clarify. Suppose you have a bus, a specific bus route, and specific bus stops. It doesn’t really matter if the bus driver is black, white, yellow, purple, or blue. It doesn’t really matter if the driver is man or woman, Muslim, Christian, or Jew; atheist or agnostic. He or she could drive that bus so long as he or she sticks to the pre-determined route. Full stop.
People argue about diversity and tolerance and are pacified by bringing into the game a black or white or what not person. That person can play so long as he or she plays by a set of pre-determined rules. Navigating (intellectually for instance) in that system is like driving in the twists and turns of Rocky Mountain roads. By design, if you dare to deviate from the pre-paved road (with a bit of shoulder left), you’re going to hit the mountain or drive over a cliff. Yes, after hundreds of years, you’re allowed to drive on that road if your black, native american, woman, immigrant, etc. But, I dare you to present a dramatically diverse idea.
Now, all this brings me back to the assertion in question that is: “even in the most so-called intellectual and academic circles in Europe and the US (forget about many ordinary people from whom one can see far more affection and tolerance unlike what is often falsely portrayed) intolerance for “different” ideas is so institutionalized that the views of “the other” cannot see the light of the day let alone to form a foundation for actual economic/socio-political development.”
Photi,
I haven’t been following your conversations closely, but I do understand were you are coming from. I’ve spent over 90% of my life in Canada, and there is a huge pressure to choose between identities. I’ve got plenty of Canadian friends, and they don’t seem so bad, and besides, Canadian’s have done a mess of great things: insulin, penicillin etc… Everyone is born and lives somewhere, what’s the point of being negative all the time, right?
But at the end of the day, i’m living in a country that goes to war at the drop of a hat for no other reason than to lend support to the most monstrous empire currently in existence, covers up it’s shameful history(and ongoing actions) against the natives that once lived here and allies itself with the most retrograde racially charged societies. All those great people I know are part and parcel of a society which either agrees whole-heatedly with those policies, or couldn’t be bothered to change them and hence implicitly supports them. I can’t really lie to myself about that. So at the end of the day, I can’t ever identify myself as a Canadian patriot, even though I can appreciate the work of Canadians who have done a lot of good.
I think if I were an American, I would have the exact same stance. There are Americans who are definitely worthy of praised, but they are usually reviled as un-American traitors like Malcolm X or John Brown or Harriet Tubman. They sometimes have their legacy appropriated from them after they die, to serve the same ends they spent their life fighting against, but it’s important never to give into revisionist history. To say you are ‘anti-American’(or not pro-American) isn’t to say that you oppose people of a certain race, or religion or who live within certain geographical borders, or that you’ve given up on them, but that you oppose a political identity with a very concrete history and track record.
Masoud
Bussed-In Basifi,
I think Iran would be a far happier place with 80 or 90 million people, as compared with 200 million or more. Tehran with 50 or 60 million people? A nighmare.
Egypt already has probably 30 million too many people.
Many upper class and other Brits think the UK would be happier with 5 0r 10 million fewer people.
FII (Jadid),
No you guessed wrong, I’m not the awesome and great Dr. Marandi (may God bless him). However my English skills are superior to his (just kidding around Dr. M if you are reading this) and there is serious debate among experts about who is more handsome. He is much better behaved than I am, I’m more the dangerous rebel type.
Oh yeah and just on principle I have to tell you to kiss my ass, given the dirty imperialist name you have chosen. Would love keep chatting you old imperialist bastard, but it’s getting late in Tehran. Shab be kheyr.
Fyi- “Thos who talk of greater Iran and the 3000 year history etc. must be able to explain, at a minimum, why Azeri Turks can be part of the Greater or Lesser Iran and why Pashtuns, the descendants of Rustam’s troops, are not”
If the Pashtuns are so appalled by the Iranian cultural influence, then you need to explain why their president a Pashtu travels to Iran to celebrate the Norouz, by the way you make a good example why this two Iranian ethnicities are bonded to gather, that is because of some epic figure like Rustam of Sistan (which is a hero in both countries and for all Iranian culture including the Azari, Lur and Kurd just see how many name their sons Rustam) regardless of how politically the current or past governments did not see eye to eye. Same as Iraq’s Saddam case I wrote. Do you only think of Talaban when you think of Pashtouns, would you only think of Saddam Bathi Iraq when you think of Iraq relations with Iran, which one of Pashtouns neighbors do you think culturally and language wise are closer to Pashtouns, Indian or the Iranians and Kashmiris.
I think the best way to see who is influenced by what culture is how one names his/her child, case and point Iranian expatriates in west. , by the way I don’t consider that Islam is not part of Iranian culture, all the evidence point that in the last 1400 years it is, best example is Ferdousi himself which was a Shih Muslim according to Dr. Khaleghi.
Bussed-in Basiji, so you’re a university prof in Iran, albeit a very foul mouthed one from what I’ve read here on this blog, but hey, no problem there, to each his own. Your English is superb. Why don’t you tell us your real name? Could it be Seyed Mohammad Marandi? Just guessing …
Photi,
I don’t have a problem with granting all Shias Iranian citizenship. Also as someone pointed out if you observe the map you will see that their is territorial cohesion of Shias from Bahrain, Saudi Arabi, through Iraq, up to Azerbaijan and over into Khorasan. If you look t Iran itself, it’s current identity was significantly shaped in the Safavid era where Shiism was the glue that held together Persians, Azeris, Arabs and Lors. So I think there is room for expansion in the future.
Also as I discussed with James before you joined us, I estimate that Iran could support a population of 200 million. Ahmadinejad recently said population of 130-150 million is a long- term goal.
In terms of being Shia and American, I said that at some point these things can become contradictory and you will have to choose. At some they will become irreconcilable and this has nothing to do with “citizenship” but your level of imaan.
Don’t doubt that when the Imam comes, the major part of his forces will be this very Islamic Republic of Iran which raised his flagged in the darkest era of the ghaybat. Choosing this nation now is choosing the Imam. This place called Iran has been central to God’s revelation and God’s prophets since Hazrat Adam (as) and will remain so until the return. We are professionals in this matter, this is what we do on earth and other nations do other things.
Photi says,
RE: “if things weren’t so obviously screwed up in the Middle East then the obvious would not need to be said.”
1. The discussion was about western social sciences and their limits and challenges to be used to explore concepts that have both material and non-material underpinning thus the need for development and nurturing of these fields based on Islamic principles.
2. In addition, why to ask a certain question, how to ask it, and to what end, for what purpose, and how to get to the answers are all considerations of ethics. The ethics of research, too, I argue, needs to be developed based on Islamic principles.
As I understood, our exchange was not about “how things weren’t so obviously screwed up…etc.” The question is, for example, whether you/I/we believe there is a need for an Islamic scientific research ethics to be developed or not. What would it look like? How would it be different from human ethics considerations, for example, developed and implemented in western institutions? Research ethics in US institutions are “defensive” by design. That means, by design, they are not to protect human subject (though that is the claim). They are, however, designed to protect the institutions and individual researchers from future litigation. Why is that? How about treatment of animals? How would an Islamic ethics in research be different than its western counterpart? When I read the Hadith by Imam Ali (a.s.) that “Never you mutilate any human or animal even if the animal is a rabid dog” [Source: Nahjolbalagheh, Sobhi Saleh, Letter #47], how is that operationalised in research ethics that requires a researcher to mutilate an animal, while conscious, to see the nervous system response to pain in various parts of the body? These are just a few examples of extremely important questions, in my view, an Islamic scholar could explore, research, and develop frameworks and guidelines. There is no Islamic H2O versus non-Islamic H2O. The chemistry of water does not change based on Islamic or non-Islamic research chemistry. However, beyond the physiology of thirst, what does the phenomenon of “thirst” mean to you as a Moslem and a Shi’a?
Persian Gulf:
My next reply will have to wait until next weekend. Until then this is my last message.
“Did I insult you? show me how and where? I just showed you that what you said does not make sense. ”
Look it is not about the words themselves it is about the tone that you adopt. One example could be a comment like “Please be more careful when you speak to me”
or “خلاف به عرضتون رسوندن عزیز”
“You CAN NOT simply claim to know better than me in my field, which is probably far from yours.”
First of all I am not sure how you “assume” to know what my field is.
Secondly, what I said was a very straight forward thing: I am older than you are, and since you don’t seem to have too much information on the very recent history(30-40 years ago) of Iran (given the fact that you feel the need to rely on some sort of “hands on experience” which you say you don’t have) and I on the other hand because of my “hands-on” experience -if nothing else- have more information about Iran than you do.
Besides, go back and read my message once again, I said even if we assume that you are right and that the average engineering graduate finds real engineering jobs in the Iranian industry then that would prove my case even further. 30 years ago we were not even in a position to manufacture a niddle much less to provide our average engineering graduate with real engineering job opportunities in our industry.
“please don’t force me to make comments on things like scientific progress and so on. generally speaking, the quantity is increased, but like what Bussed-in Basiji said about the counter-productiveness (in his view) of Islamic teaching over the past 3 decades, the same goes for the areas you take a great pride of.”
Well I don’t think that I can make much sense from what you say because you are not speaking very clearly.
Look, all I am saying is this:
The scientific progress of PRETTY MUCH ALL COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD are assessed by certain organizations (I gave the name of some of them) based on the SAME CRITERIA.
They evaluate Iran’s scientific progress based on the VERY SAME criteria that they evaluate the scientific progress of India, China, S. Korea, Japan or Turkey. Is that a perfect system of evaluation? Of course not. That is why they keep modifying their criteria in evaluating the scientific progress of various countries.
As only ONE EXAMPLE, plagiarism in writing scientific papers (to be published in Journals) is a very well known fraud which is committed worldwide (and I know it from a very close friend of mine who happens to be acting as an editor for some scientific journals in the west that India -as just one example- has a much worse track record than Iran in plagiarism.) But it does happen without being detected and the fraudulently published articles get counted as that country’s contribution. Yet the standards are the same FOR ALL COUNTRIES. So unless you call into question the whole integrity of all major international scientific institutes and decide to go by your Iranian professor’s personal complaints and personal observations and discard the statistical data, you will have to understand that the concensus of pretty much all major scientific institutes is that Iran has the highest scientific growth rate in the world.
By the way if you actually read those reports together with their conclusions, you will realize that they are not just talking about the “number of papers”. The quality of the papers is also a very important factor which they do take into account (eg. number of citations which has been made by other papers to the specific paper whose quality is being evaluated). Again the evaluation systems are not perfect and people successfuly cheat BUT the same criteria apply to all countries, and if there is a cheating factor, it exists everywhere.
“political freedom is a myth here when you are not sure what will happen to you after the talk. probably you have a different approach, something far from common sense, regarding political freedom. somebody who lives in this country permanently can’t say what I said here in this forum which by no means can be considered as hostile to the system. even I can’t disclose my identity. you can lecture me for hours regarding the suppression of Shah’s era (which I have no hands-on experience whatsoever), but when I feel suppressed, your talk (even right on all front) loses its effectiveness.”
I don’t think that you are following my point AT ALL. Look I repeat:
Compare the country to its own past (say some 30 years ago) and then compare it to the rest of the world and how the rest of the world has changed since 30 years ago.
That is how you evaluate the progress of political freedom in a country!
By the way, yes I don’t think that we quite agree on the meaning of political freedom. If your country is in a state of civil war by the drug cartels (eg. Mexico), if some half of your country lives in huts made from tin can, if more than 300 million of your population lives with less than 3 dollars a day (eg. India), you cannot talk about political freedom no matter how many political parties or “independent” (!!) newspapers you have. You will be able in such cases to speak of political freedom for those who have the money to afford it.
kooshy says: April 14, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Thos who talk of greater Iran and the 3000 year history etc. must be able to explain, at a minimum, why Azeri Turks can be part of the Greater or Lesser Iran and why Pashtuns, the descendants of Rustam’s troops, are not
Fyi- “Now, it is too late for territorial expansion of Iran in any direction except East.”
Firstly lets understand, that based on official and practiced policy, Iran does not need to, should not and policy wise is not after expanding its territory in any direction. However Iran based on goodwill bases does, should and will expand its cultural and economic influence on all neighboring states as it has for thousands of years, which is the reason that all of Iran’s current neighboring population based on religion and or culture are in a way related and identifying with the goodwill of Iranians. Iran’s cultural or economic influence to its neighbors it’s beyond containment by anyone including Iranian governments (case and point Iraq’s or former soviet Muslim republics relations with Iran during the Shah’s era, that although politically was blocked but culturally and economically was rapidly expanded as soon as barriers were removed)
Fyi -“So you have a confused population in Iran where Shia, Iranic, Turkic, Muslim and other identities are struggling to find a mental and conceptual equilibrium.”
I don’t believe you have a conceptual understanding of religious and cultural bonding of 3 millennia of Iranian culture, be it before or after Islam, which has created a sense of immense cultural nationalism within the current Iranian society and to its immediate surroundings. This concept is what is called by professor Richard Frye “Iran Bozorg” or greater Iran.
Empty,
I guess if you have a problem with what i have said, then you can directly criticize what i have said. if things weren’t so obviously screwed up in the Middle East then the obvious would not need to be said.
Photi,
Yes. I have noticed that you are a master in stating the obvious.
All… I recommend the recent “Beware of Small States: Lebanon, Battleground of the Middle East” by David Hirst.
James Canning says: April 14, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Yes, I do not think that the force of Arab Nationalism could have been contained by the Ottoman Empire.
And certainly Qajar Persian was incapable of doing anything but barely surviving.
I heard that in Azerbaijan Republic, if you address young women in (Axeri) Turkish, they answer back in Russian since that is considered, by them, the language of progress! Those young women will not tolerate the oppressive strictures of the Islamic Disaster in Iran for any length of time.
The Central Asian Republics had been a net drain on the Slavic states of the former USSR. USSR should have gotten rid of them. Now, the subsidized Soviet era infrastructure there (both human and material)is disappearing due to lack of repair and maintenance.
We could have more states like the creole civilization of Tunisia there as a consequence.
“The one who is genuinely sleep, one can awaken by once or twice calling. The one who is pretending to be sleep cannon be awaken not even by playing a trumpet in his ears.”
–Translation/interpretation اونی که خواب هست رو میشه با یکبار صدا کردن بیدار کرد و اما اونی که خودش رو به خواب زده رو با بوق شیپور هم نمی شود بیدار کرد.
Empty, you just proved my point. Muslim social scientists have unique problems and curiosities to explore.
Castellio,
I was just thinking about it further and the sad fact remains that any attempts to fix Muslim academia will be nothing more than band-aids until security throughout the region is realized. Right now Islam is perceived to be under attack, and so until that perception changes dutiful Muslims everywhere will be in a defensive posture. This defensive posture permeates every corner of society.
Photi,
RE: “One of the problems with Muslim scholarship that I can see is that there is this meta-narrative which says the Muslims need to reproduce the Western social sciences but instead base those new Islamic social sciences on Quranic assumptions. This to me seems highly inefficient because basically what the Muslim leaders are saying is that they have to take a 300 or 400 year old body of scientific thought and work and reproduce it so it can be labeled as ‘Islamic Political Science’ or ‘Islamic Anthropology’ or whatever.”
Could you provide direct/indirect proxies (both tangible and intangible measures) developed through “Western social sciences” by which one could measure the Shi’a concept of “martyrdom” and its influence in one’s sense of self in relation to God, one’s sense of self in relation to society, and one’s sense of self in relation to “self”? Please be specific and provide citations. If none, please specify 1 or 2 social science theories and models that could be used in that exploration.
Photi writes: “A more practical approach to scholarship in the Muslim universities it seems would be to first get up to speed on the Western Social sciences, and then from there conduct the new research. If educated Muslims are conducting their own research, then their knowledge of Islam should guide new and interesting questions to resolve.”
Exactly so.
Empty says: April 14, 2011 at 2:00 pm
You are not negating what I have stated.
The $ 500 million was a one-time expenditure in furtherence of Iranian interests. It is qualitatively very different than being responsible for another 10 million souls for ever and ever.
And do not, for a momnet, think that every one in Iran supported that expenditure. In retrospect, given the state of war between Axis Powers and Iran. this was a huge mistake. It only helped Iran’s enemies by lessening their burden in Afghanistan.
Once could, however, be hopeful that draught and poor weather will rescue the situation for Iran by sinking Afghanistan into more misery.
Accepting Afghan refugees was both a humanitarian act and one that helped Iran.
The destitute Afghan workers have been the back bone of the construction industry in Iran.
nahid says: April 14, 2011 at 1:38 pm
In regards to Afghanistan, I would hope that the Iranian policy would include humanitrian considerations since there is already a fair amount of Iranization among the Hazara and also in Herat and the areas around it.
Iranians could certainly harp on the shared mythic past; the Alborz mountain of Arash fame is just outside of Mazar-i Sharif! But the current Iranain government would loath to give more emphasis to Iran-ness. I mean, they cannot even tolerate Chahar-shanb-e Soori!
Regardless, since Iran is in the state of economic/intelligence/diplomatic/political warfare with the Axis Powers and Afghanistan is the palyground of the Axis Powers at this time, there is little practical scope for charity that could help the people of Afghanistan.
That is, the more the people of Afghanisatn are made to suffer in the areas occupied by the Axis Powers, the better it is for the Iranians since this is another zero-sum game which would sap the strength of the Axis Powers.
In regards to Azerbaijan Republic: there is already a fair amount of cultural and economic/commercial intercourse. One problem is that the Shia message of Iran seems to find more resonance among the Azeris north of Aras river than the Azeri Nationalist message of the Azerbaijan Republic south of Aras river.
There is no reason, in my opinion, for Iran’s relationship with her neighbour’s to be any different than that of France: there are French speakers in Belgium and in Switzerland. There are Spanish speakers in the Pyrnees. The difference, of course, is that Iran is surrounded by states and leaders that envy Iran and are hostile to her.
Consider:
An Afghan student in Iran would go back home in 1973. Other Afghans would be criticizing him for speaking “Farsi” as opposed to “Dari”; as though these were 2 different languages.
Or the Southern Persian Gulf Arabs’ insistence on calling Persiulf “Arabian Gulf” and thus ito antagonize every sector of the Iranian society.
Or the Azeri Republic’s first act after independence which was to call for re-unification – at the expense of the Iranian state.
These are not acts of friendship.
RE: “You have put your finger on a crucial fact about the Iranian people. They do not want to share the oil wealth with anyone. Least of all with “barbaric” Afghans and “backward” Pakistanis. This is a limitation of the Shia Fortress Model.”
Iran’s assistance to Afghanistan Source: A. Wilde at: ;http://www.ag-afghanistan.de/files/Wilde.pdf
Excerpt: “Moreover, Iran is one of the most generous donors in Afghanistan and contributed more than 650 million dollars to the reconstruction process.56 Six years ago, Iranian road building companies rebuilt the highway connecting Herat with the border town of Taybad over a distance of 120 kilo-meters. The highway was inaugurated in 2005.57 The ever increasing volume of traffic visible to every visitor crossing the Afghan-Iranian border west of Herat, and the many Iranian traders applying for a visa in the Afghan consulate, was quite unthinkable in the recent past. Now, Iranian firms are not merely finding a market for their products, they are also investing in smaller companies and factories, establishing branches in Herat and Kabul, and building contacts to local traders and firms even in the provinces. Iran’s government supports these increasing economic activities by contributing to the reconstruction of Afghanistan’s infrastructure.”
Afghan Refugees
Excerpt: “The UNHCR estimated the expenditure of the Iranian state for the provision of health ser-vice, education, transport and basic goods to the refugees at $ 352 million up to 2001. This expenditure increased domestic social and economic concerns, leading to a forced repatriation policy in the 1990s.74 Since April 2007, more than half a million people have been sent back to Afghanistan, partly by force. At the same time, new migrants seeking job opportunities cross the Iranian border every day.”
Iran’s assistance to Iraq Source: ;http://www.irantracker.org/analysis/iran%E2%80%99s-soft-power-iraq
Excerpt:“The Iranian government and state-owned companies have invested heavily in Iraq’s reconstruction. In advance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s first visit to Iraq in March 2008, the Iranian government offered a $1 billion loan for projects in Iraq that use Iranian contractors and equipment. Iran’s state-owned companies have invested heavily in the Iraqi holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, which are home to some of the holiest shrines in the Shi’a tradition and host hundreds of thousands of Iranian pilgrims each year, According to the governor of Najaf province, the Iranian government has provided $20 million a year for construction projects aimed at improving the city’s tourism infrastructure.”
Iran’s assistance to Lebanon Source: ;http://www.lebanonwire.com/0708MLN/07081941LAT.asp
Excerpt:”Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, speaking last week via giant screens placed on a southern Beirut square, declared that his Iranian-backed group already had spent $381 million to provide temporary shelter for 25,000 families, restore infrastructure and buildings, and revive the economy.”
Iran’s assistance to Pakistan Source: ;http://happydisasters.com/2011/03/relief-efforts-of-the-2010-pakistan-floods/
Excerpt:“On 12 September 2010, Iran allocated an additional US $100 million for Pakistan flood relief. 51% of all relief distributed by International red crescent in Pakistan had been donated by Iran. Iran announced on Nov 08, 2010 that in addition to 5,300 tonnes of aid cargo shipped by Iran to Pakistan, the Iranian hajj pilgrims will donate money and the 103,000 slaughtered sheep of Iranian pilgrims to Pakistan.”
Iran’s assistance to Bolivia Source: ;http://www.irantracker.org/foreign-relations/bolivia-iran-foreign-relations
Excerpt:”Iran has also cooperated with Bolivia’s influential neighbor, Venezuela in several joint projects, including a $230 million loan to help Bolivia establish a cement company. Furthermore, the Islamic Republic, in 2007, went so far as to pledge $1 billion worth of aid to the country. Demonstrating the extent to which Iran and Bolivia have improved economic ties, President Evo Morales, speaking in November 2007, lauded Iranian investment and claimed that that his country relies heavily on Iran’s assistance in industry, production, and capital investment. In a move that could potentially serve to further enhance economic ties, after the United States suspended his country’s tax-exempt privileges in December 2008, Morales stated that he will seek to utilize Iran and China as alternate markets for Bolivian goods.”
Off topic with a touch of humour
Penis theft panic hits city
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/23/us-witchcraft-idUSN2319603620080423
(Reuters) – Police in Congo have arrested 13 suspected sorcerers accused of using black magic to steal or shrink men’s penises after a wave of panic and attempted lynchings triggered by the alleged witchcraft.
If Pak and Scott Lucas continue to exploit, distort and manipulate everything under the sun to discredit the owners of this site and the Iranian government, I will have no choice but to ask the sorcerers appear in this forum and use black magic on them…..lol
fyi,
Yes, border changes are more difficult as the years go by. Part of the reason is much more complex economic issues.
Singapore flourished, in part because it achieved separation from Malaya. But Malaya (Malaysia) probably gained as well from the separation.
I tend to see Azerbaijan as gaining from union with Iran, but of course expect to see no such thing. And there then would be the issue of Armenia and its enclave.
I think Turkey would have lost its Arab provinces even without its blunder (participating in First World War). Persia not strong enough to hold extensive Arab provinces. I think Russia is the better for the collapse of the USSR, though I recognise this is not Putin’s viewpoint.
One of the problems with Muslim scholarship that I can see is that there is this meta-narrative which says the Muslims need to reproduce the Western social sciences but instead base those new Islamic social sciences on Quranic assumptions. This to me seems highly inefficient because basically what the Muslim leaders are saying is that they have to take a 300 or 400 year old body of scientific thought and work and reproduce it so it can be labeled as ‘Islamic Political Science’ or ‘Islamic Anthropology’ or whatever. Are the Muslims this concerned about creating an ‘Islamic Chemistry’ or an ‘Islamic Physics’? Obviously there is more of a gray area in the Social Sciences, but the methodology does attempt to employ the scientific method in the acquisition of data. So let’s try to keep the wheat separate from the chaff.
A more practical approach to scholarship in the Muslim universities it seems would be to first get up to speed on the Western Social sciences, and then from there conduct the new research. If educated Muslims are conducting their own research, then their knowledge of Islam should guide new and interesting questions to resolve.
Israel finds nails used to Crucify Jesus
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/israel-finds-nails-used-to-crucify-jesus/
fyi
April 14, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Should Iran do satart cultural work in those part and show more economic interest to azari and west of Afghan, and what those cultural work consist of
James Canning says: April 14, 2011 at 12:54 pm
I believe that the absence of a strong Muslim state has been an inducement to Eastern and Western Christians to come into the Middle East over the last 100 years and play, really play, their fantasies.
This could have been avoided if there were a state from Hindu Kush mountains to the Mediterranean Sea.
The construction of such a state, at least at the present time, is not feasible.
What is feasible, is a politico-military alliance among a number of like-minded states that could deter imperialists from playing deadly games among Muslims – largely because they can.
I do not advocate the return of historical lands of Aran and Nakhchevan into Iran at the present time. 100 years of separation has altered both sides. Neither do I propose the re-incorporation of Western Afghanistan into Iran. It is not practical. Although I think it makes sense on both humanitarian grounds and on historical grounds. The Azeri Turks of the so-called Azerbaijan Republic and the Persians of Afghanistan should be very happy indeed to be part of Iran; taking them away out of their current squalor and isolation.
Castellio says: April 14, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Academics in the West supported Lenin, Stalin, Mao for decades because they were expecting these leaders to usher in the new secular Godless Heaven on Earth and thus complete the Enlightenment Project.
Their scorn for Iran and Iranian society is very welcome indeed; it indicates that Iran is not going their way; Praise be to God.
taxes.
Wilson’s doing.
ugh.
see you on 4/19
Your comments at 11.19 am point to one of the reasons many academics in western society ‘scorn’ Iranian society and will not support it. But you know that.
fyi,
Iran has the potential to be one of the richest countries on the planet. Whether this potential will be realised in the near-term is doubtful, however. Stability and economic development are obviously in the national interest. The Shah’s visions of annexing part of Pakistan (Baluchistan) may have made some vague sense decades ago, but surely Iran is fortunate to have its current borders. Unless you think Azarbaijan should still be part of a Persian Empire.
Empgy at 6.59 am… it may be my inability, but I don’t grasp the question you are asking. I think you are telling me that ‘the other’ in all non-Islamic societies are treated badly by the elites of those societies. Is that right?
B-i-B, I welcome your series of observations on the challenges of higher education in Iran. Your kind of quick, pithy comments from one implicated in the Iranian world is one of the reasons why I came to this board.
I admit, unfortunately, that I share your despair about the inability of the American people to see a way out of their own political impotence.
However, we have recently seen cracks. Belated, small, not victorious, but cracks nonetheless. Fiorangela, on this board, is trying to point to the better aspects of American history and leverage that in the current struggle. She’s aware that it was the Presbyterian Wilson who “gave away” Palestine, but that doesn’t negate how the Reformation helped shape the American revolution and its universalist aspects.
PG writes: “The discussion regarding social sciences is beyond the scope of this forum.” But actually, I think it is, at the level of cultural expression, at the heart of any future Iranian-Western rapprochement.
fyi
Thank you sir
Sorry Nahid:
meant to say “North and East”.
Photi said
In fact, the Muslims could probably use a little training on what it means to be a ‘citizen.’ If they (the Muslims) had a better grasp on that concept maybe the recruitment of spies in the various Muslim countries by the Mossad and the CIA would not be as fruitful as it appears to be now.. Many Iranians and Lebanese believe that there are superior to most of their fellow “backward” citizens, and would like to emulate Hollywood version of Europe and USA. I see many Iranians diaspora in Europe they try to be more European then ethnic Europeans like the Lebanese who try to make their mother tongue French!
nahid says: April 14, 2011 at 11:40 am
Safavids and Ottomans and Habsburghs, and Romanovs en xtended their territory by conquest since the lands of the state were unified in the person of the King; the King was the State.
This situation no longer obtains since people do not accept that principle. An example is Afghanistan, a state the was unified in the person of the King which cannot be unified on any basis any longer.
Safavids’ was the Shia Empire. The inclusion of more Arabic-speaking Shia from Iraq into their state made eminent sense to them. And the Arabs would have had no issue with it since Arab Nationalism was still centuries into the future. Additionally, the Safavids, who had resurrected the idea of (ancient) Iran, never could have foreseen how that idea would develop and cleave Iran from the Arab, Turkic, and Punjabi worlds.
Now, it is too late for territorial expansion of Iran in any direction except East. Arab Shia of Iraq do not wish to be part of Iran, they do not like Iran-ness of Iran but like the Shia-ness. The Azeris in the so-called Azerbaijan Republic – are a lost people. [Mr. Ahmadinejad calls Israel a fake country but he omits to mention that Azeri Republic is also fake.] Iranians do not want any Arabs in Iran. Just note that the man who brought Islam to ancient Iran, Khalif Omar, is a despised name among Shia all over the world, including in Iran. So you have a confused population in Iran where Shia, Iranic, Turkic, Muslim and other identities are struggling to find a mental and conceptual equilibrium.
The Mesopotamian plateau if a flatland surroundeded by mountains in the North and West. It could be controlled and defended by a line of defenses along these mountains.
In the South, there is no natural barrier between Iran and Iraq; people for centuries have come and gone as they have pleased. Basra sea traffic is vulenrable to interidction by Iran (or whatever state is on the other side of Shat Al Arab).
Empty,
I accept the quote. There is a tall order in front of Americans if we truly desire world peace. The effect any of us may have on our government is microscopic to be sure, but if no one attempts to move in that direction, then the society will not move in that direction, it is as simple as that. “Militancy” is not the only path to peace, especially when the path the lovers of peace want to stop treading on is the military path.
fyi
Would you please open this up a little more . I have not undersatand it
“This is also a limitation. Safavaids would have had no problem with Iraq being part of Iran.
From a military perspective, it makes a lot of sense”.
“Those who think they can and those who think they cannot are both correct.”
–By Someone
Photi says: April 14, 2011 at 10:39 am
You have put your finger on a crucial fact about the Iranian people.
They do not want to share the oil wealth with anyone.
Least of all with “barbaric” Afghans and “backward” Pakistanis.
This is a limitation of the Shia Fortress Model.
Of course, a truly bold approach would be to grant citizenship to anyone who wants to be Iranian. Certainly the children of Afghan refugees who have known no other country than Iran ought to be granted Iranian citizenship.
Nahid:
Not likely.
Nobody wants more Arabs in Iran.
Furthermore, the Iraqi Arabs, just like Iranains, are very aware of their oil patrimony and would fight to keep it for themselves.
This is also a limitation. Safavaids would have had no problem with Iraq being part of Iran.
From a military perspective, it makes a lot of sense.
Empty,
Can you say red herring? We were all born into our respective societies, we didn’t have a choice in the matter. Everyone has a responsibility (from the Islamic perspective) to help make his or her society better than they have found it. Americans have a huge responsibility to reign in their government no doubt. For you to list all those things my government does or has done wrong is suggesting that I personally am responsible for those wrong doings. There are 10 million muslims give or take in the US, the effective approach would be to embrace the society and government under which we live. Through hard work and effort, maybe one day those 10 million Muslims will be able to effectively use the power granted to them by virtue of being a citizen and use that power to help bring peace to the world. In fact, the Muslims could probably use a little training on what it means to be a ‘citizen.’ If they (the Muslims) had a better grasp on that concept maybe the recruitment of spies in the various Muslim countries by the Mossad and the CIA would not be as fruitful as it appears to be now.
Empty says: April 14, 2011 at 10:28 am
Muslim state are not a nurturing environment for producing scholars and for keeping them.
No work of scholarship on the historical genesis of the Quran can be performed in any Muslim state without the risk of death.
Work on early Muslim history is almost as dangerous.
And then you have situations in which scholars who worked on Imam Hassan or on the Nahj ol Balaqeh were murdered by a different Shia faction who objected to their published works.
Furthermore and with absolute metaphysical certainity I can assert that there is no specifically Muslim scholarship on New Testament, or on Old Testament, or on Vedanta, or on Zoroaster, or on Dhammapada. None.
The number of Muslim students that study Christianity, or American History, or Chinese History, or Linguistics, or Ethnography at any depth is zero.
This may be contrasted to the abundance of Western scholarship on Islam, on Hinudism, on Muslim and Iranian history etc.
The Iranian Government wants to develop a (Muslim) response to the Western scholarship by suppressing the study of those scholars in Iran.
It is not going to succeed, it only digs more deeply a graveyard for all things Islamic.
RE: “Bussed-in basij is trying to tell me that being American and being Shia are contradictory. I insist that there is no contradiction. Governments deal with the Dunya, Religions deal with the Akhira.”
If the structure of the government in a country is such that paying taxes is mandatory and the tax monies (instead of being used to help the poor, education, health care, etc.) are used to finance and kill innocent people, jail, torture, exploit, and oppress, would there then be a contradiction? If one builds one’s home and daily comfort on the broken bones, tears, and blood of millions of people who were “put down” first to make that possible, would there be a contradiction? If one drives one’s car to/fro work every day the price of gas in which is determined by how well the other nations and people are exploited and quashed, would there be a contradiction? If ones work as a researcher, let’s say in psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. is used to determine how well and how long a nation could deceive innocent people to submit to oppression at low cost, would there be contradiction?
fyi,
well in that case if Iran also claimed the territory lived in by majority shias, then Iran very well may have the money to do all those good things for the shias internationally as adding the oil of the Shia parts of Iraq, Bahrain and the KSA would give the Iranians about what, 75 % of the world’s oil reserves.
nahid, that was just a sub-comment from an earlier discussion. Bussed-in basij is trying to tell me that being American and being Shia are contradictory. I insist that there is no contradiction. Governments deal with the Dunya, Religions deal with the Akhira.
1. That “it has not been so” in the past is not a valid evidence that “it shall not be so” at the present and future.
2. That a particular group has been in slumber for centuries is not a valid excuse to continue the slumber and not wake up.
3. RE: “I do not find this level of dedication and persistence anywhere in the Muslim World.” Why is this used as an excuse to beat up over the head those who are “dedicating and persisting”?
4. RE: “This scholarship requires theoretical foundations that may take decades to develop. It may take centuries. There has to be adequate funding by the State; it has to first crawl by digesting the Revelation philosophically.”
This IS the point. Ongoing jihad (persistent struggle) and Sabr (patience) both of which granted by God and only God are the key. Enshallah it will work.
fyi said
Photi says: April 14, 2011 at 9:55 am
How that works? south of Iraq can be part of Iran.
Arnold Evans says: April 14, 2011 at 10:02 am
Yes, I agree.
On the other hand, the Alawites are not going to usher in a confessional-based governance system – the only system that could reliably govern Syria.
Photi says: April 14, 2011 at 9:55 am
This idea of Iran granting citizenship to non-Iranian Shias has certain possibilities in it.
Properly done, it could enlarge the territory of Iran considerably and create a much larger state which could then finally prevent Muslims countries from becoming the military play ground of non-Muslim states.
Empty says: April 14, 2011 at 9:40 am
The Iranian Government is trying to create new sciences of humanities by fiat. That is clesrly untenable because Muslim scholarship in many areas of human sciences either does not exist or is very meager indeed.
Consider:
In the field of Philosophy of History, there is only one single work: “Al Muqaddimah” of Ibn Khaldun and that is 600 years old. Now, that by an itself is not a bad thing: Dr. Turchin’s book, “Historical Dynamics” incorporates many ideas of Ibn Khaldun.
This scholarship requires theoretical foundations that may take decades to develop. It may take centuries. There has to be adequate funding by the State; it has to first crawl by digesting the Revelation philosophically – again. Next, it has to develop anew and/or adapt the Western scholarly methods needed for reliable investigation into human sciences.
And all of this over long periods of time and without fear of retribution from the State when and if unpalatable conclusions are reached.
I do not find this level of dedication and persistance anywhere in the Muslim World.
My feel for the Syria protests is that they’ve gone in the wrong direction. They seem to have militarized and it is very difficult to overthrow a sitting government militarily without huge amounts of direct outside assistance as in Ivory Coast or Libya.
A dictator who has not recently won a contested election cannot be presumed to speak for the people of the country, but if there are even somewhat credible claims of outside armed support for his opponents, that dictator can regain the higher ground of legitimacy.
The recent escalations in Syria make it seem more, not less likely that Assad will still be in power five years from now.
Bussed in Basiji,
I agree about what peace will have to mean for the Israelis and I highly doubt the Palestinians would ever concede as much as the PA has offered, but the fact remains that when the Palestinians are satisfied (which clearly would have to include Hamas) then Iran will accept that deal. This begs the question then, if Iran is willing to accept Israel when the deal is finally (if ever) made, why not make that more clear? Or is it already clear about the Iranian position and the Western media/governments are distorting that position? It seems like such an effective piece of anti-Iran propaganda when the media claims iran wants to destroy israel.
And about this choosing sides thing and ‘reconciling the irreconcilable’ i think you are just plain wrong and your view represents incomplete thinking on ‘citizenship.’
Let’s say there are 200 million shias in the world, 75 million who live in Iran. Is Iran prepared to give citizenship to the remaining 130 million shias throughout the world? Is Iran prepared to give us all the vote? Is Iran prepared to educate these 130 million, provide health care, disability when needed? You say there is a side to choose, but the problem is that most of the world’[s shias do not have a role to play in Iranian society so i am not sure exactly what it is the non-Iranian shias are supposed to choose.
When the Imam makes his call, all man-made governments will be obsolete, that includes the US and that includes the IRI. At the present time there is nothing to choose, so I don’t know what choice it is i am supposed to make. Can you guarantee that you will choose the Imam over Iran when he makes the call? Will it make any difference if I give you a warning about it now?
My own exploration into a sub-sample of courses in some of these programs (economics, social sciences, public health, and agriculture were the specifics I looked at) all were overwhelmingly based on western secular models and theories. I am yet to find the concept of “halal” that covers everything from pre-production, production, slaughter/packaging, transfer, distribution, and consumption in areas such as land use, animal husbandry and treatment, appropriate modern slaughterhouse design, etc, for example, used in the discussion of modern industrial agriculture. I would like to see, for example, how in the assembly-line style of slaughter based on Western models of industrial meat production the following Hadith is operationalized: “An animal may not be slaughtered while another animal is looking at the process.” [Source: Vasel-o Shia', Aseyd va Zebah Book, Article 7 of Abvaba'zabbah.]
The evidence is clearly NOT in favor of the argument that “hezbollahis have taken over everything.”
Pirouz_2 says:
April 13, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Did I insult you? show me how and where? I just showed you that what you said does not make sense.
You CAN NOT simply claim to know better than me in my field, which is probably far from yours.
please don’t force me to make comments on things like scientific progress and so on. generally speaking, the quantity is increased, but like what Bussed-in Basiji said about the counter-productiveness (in his view) of Islamic teaching over the past 3 decades, the same goes for the areas you take a great pride of.
political freedom is a myth here when you are not sure what will happen to you after the talk. probably you have a different approach, something far from common sense, regarding political freedom. somebody who lives in this country permanently can’t say what I said here in this forum which by no means can be considered as hostile to the system. even I can’t disclose my identity. you can lecture me for hours regarding the suppression of Shah’s era (which I have no hands-on experience whatsoever), but when I feel suppressed, your talk (even right on all front) loses its effectiveness.
One quantitative measurable way to settle the preceding debates is to provide the reading lists and curricula for courses in main sociology, economic, and arts and humanities programs in top 4 or 5 universities in Iran. Obtain the syllabus of each course, the background of the professor, and the reading list for each. Then, it could be determined whether it has been the western secular ideology in the driving seat to the Hezbollahi thoughts and ideology.
PG,
I disagree, hezbollahis haven’t grabbed everything in the last thirty years. I don’t consider Moussavi, Khatami or Hashemi- and the educational policies they pursued in their eras- as hezbollahi. Moussavi and Khatami never were and Hashemi quickly fell back to the traditional kadkhodai ways and support from north Tehran westernized elites- instead of the religious majority- once in power.
PG, my view and experience of what happened in the last 30 years is very different than yours- and I experienced it, it was not simply something told to me- and my point is that an Islamic state has to support those who are trying to develop thought and theories based on the Quran and the Sunnah. The previous administrations of this Islamic state- despite the repeated instructions and guidance from Imam and Rahbar- have not supported this important and fundamental endeavour. When this admin started, all hell breaks loose because these people know that if this bastion of anti-Islam falls then they have nowhere left in this society- maybe with the exception of bohemian artists and actors. In that sense you are correct about the fear of those involved- but maybe not in the way you intended.
Contrary to you, I think that the monopoly in the last 30 years has been by the westernized seculars in the social sciences. And this has to end.
Bussed-in Basiji says:
April 14, 2011 at 6:49 am
you wrote: “I’m talking about politics, economics, sociology, international studies etc.”
I could guess what you wanted to talk. However, I were not (and still am not) sure what you want to say in these fields. as far as I know, except some sporadic thinking of Nezamolmolk, who else, in the whole Islamic history, has generated something even considerable in the field of politics that you want to teach? the same goes for sociology, and !international studies!? as for “economics”, I guess “fyi” has talked about it in this comment section before. your description of “history” as a field seems to be distorted. there is something wrong with the social sciences, but I am not sure you guys have a clear picture of the alternative or even the way to compensate the shortcomings.
let’s take your words right. you want to change the curriculum and the profs in the above fields. what percentage of the whole educational system are they? the basic restructuring of the system that we see here has little relevancy with your concerns, brother. what do you want to teach and who to replace is a secondary issue, it sounds.
Hizbollahies have been teaching us their unique(!) way in the past 3 decades full speed. everywhere you go in Iran you see their footsteps, and yet you are not satisfied with their presence. this is what people here (and now me) think is dangerous. a bunch of like-minded people grabbed whatever possible in the country. they have monopoly on every big aspect of a country called Iran and yet want to teach Iranians how to breath, how to talk, how to walk, what to read, what not to read,….
Libya is under attack by the western colonial powers for being one of the few world countries which has maintained its independence of the Zionist dominated world order. Under Mu’ummar Qaddafi’s so-called ‘undemocratic’ rule – Libyian have become economically the most well-off people in Africa with no foreign debts and free medical care and education.
The western warmongers, who are asking for Qaddafi’s head now, are the same who asked for Saddam Hussein’ head in the past – and are also after Ahmadinejad’s head – for country’s oil and Israel.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/muummar-qaddafi-in-his-words/
Great how everyone is starting to crap their pants about Saudi
Dear Leveretts, where is that insightful new analysis about increased US reliance on the Saudi absolute monarchy in the post-Mubarak Mideast?
ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04 /13/in_the_chaos_of_the_mideast_the_huge_question_remains_the_fate_of_the_saudis
Clyde also thinks we have a fundamental problem…
prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/13/bretton_woods_outlook_dark_for_america
“Empty” rather….
RE: “Well, when FYI writes “In regards to East Asia, I am afraid that for me, they live in the Age of Darkness – in Jahiliya.” and B-i-B relishes writing The Great Satan… am I seeing the historical limits of Islamic thought?”
This statement/assertion/rhetorical question posed by Castellio is a symptom of an intellectually naive at best and arrogant/corrupt at worst of a western worldview. I would like to see a single valid, reliable, and honest evidence to support a single material so-called “progress” made in sociopolitical/economic arenas that has had western or eastern thoughts (not fire power) as its guiding light. In what ways, for example, has the Buddhist thoughts been operationalized in tangible measurable sustainable ways to develop tolerance Muslims of India? Similarly, in what ways has the philosophical musing of Locke, Hume, Kant, and the like been operationlized in tangible measurable and sustainable ways to develop tolerance for anyone who is not “with you” in the West? In fact, even in the most so-called intellectual and academic circles in Europe and the US (forget about many ordinary people from whom one can see far more affection and tolerance unlike what is often falsely portrayed) intolerance for “different” ideas is so institutionalized that the views of “the other” cannot see the light of the day let alone to form a foundation for actual economic/socio-political development.
PG,
Most of what they have taught in these years was very low quality even if the quantity might have been a lot. I’m talking about social sciences, not primary or secondary schools or theology dept or even philosophy dept. I’m talking about politics, economics, sociology, international studies etc. History is taught in the most boring and uncritical way possible- as long as it doesn’t get the students to understand what huge historical advancements this society has made in the last 30 years.
And yes of course western thoughts in these branches have something to offer- as the Supreme Leader always mentions when speaking about this issue. The issue is with what framework you approach these deep matters. Unfortunately we have had an academic mafia that does not allow anyone to advance in these fields in the major universities unless they submitted to whatever western school they adhered to, whether leftists or liberal- as long as you were not hezbollahi. This is the problem. What’s the point of having a mullah teach at the universities if he has to teach the same crap as the secularized professors because that’s what has been approved from above. And that’s exactly what happened in a lot of places- hire a few mullahs for window dressing and continue the same crap as before.
And yes, Daneshgah Imam Sadegh and the seminaries have not done the job that was expected from them- with the exception of Ayatollah Mesbah’s institute in Qom (that’s why he is hated by the leftists in Iran). And if you listen to what Rahbar said in Qom, he complained to the gentlemen about the situation. And no I don’t want to educate the mullahs in the university, I want the seminaries to be strong and set the academic standards of society through quality work. The universities will be forced to respond instead of the current situation.
Bussed-in Basiji says:
April 14, 2011 at 4:07 am
The discussion regarding social sciences is beyond the scope of this forum. I am just surprised that you don’t see enough the tremendous amount of ideologues that the system inject into the population. I am talking about this being the source of dissatisfaction and disenfranchisement and yet you advocate more of the same. from the first step in school we have had a lot of Islamic teaching. In the society, Islam looms high, we have Muharram, Ramazan….time. I don’t think it was that much at the time of Prophet Muhammad! seriously, I don’t think the amount of Islamic teaching today is comparable with that time. دیگه از گوشهای ما داره اسلام میزنه بیرون. we have universities like Emam Sadegh, Emam Hossein…dominated fully by Islamic teaching let alone the many seminaries, all over the country, that educate Mullahs which often some of them end up in the regular universities to teach nearly 15 out ~140 credits designed for Islamic courses specifically for this purpose, and you guys want to shot down the little room available somewhere else. in social sciences, we have programs like Elahiat, Fegh va Hoghogh, Hoghogh is which dominated by Islamic dimension, history (again mostly Islamic one), Philosophy (mostly Islamic philosophy)…. It sounds like you want to educate Mullahs in regular universities. just be cautious not to produce people like Karoubi, Khatami, Kadivar…! :D
I generally agree with you that most of our social sciences have just been a mere digestion of others’ thoughts and somehow lack genuine ideas (which of course has some roots in the way the overall situation of the country is). however, obviously most of the western ideas have basics applicable to any human society and not just the western ones. so, in that respect, it’s a not a zero-sum game that you are advocating.
Castellio,
I think we agree on the diagnosis of the basic disease. However I have no faith whatsoever in the US political process nor the American people. All the facts about the way the US has been hijacked is public knowledge for years and yet the Amnerican people are too dumb, impotent and bloated to do anything about it…apparently. I say apparently because of course I hope that the Americans themselves will take care of it, but I just don’t see any evidence that would make me hopeful about this ever happening.
Also,
The basic class roster in social sciences hasn’t changed in over twenty years- thanks to Moin and the fossils and dinosaurs who kept their jobs because of his support. The Supreme Leader has repeatedly and publicily demanded that the situation change- then and now. And as soon as this admin tries to do anything, the janjaal o javsazi begins by the fossils and dinosaurs (some of which are certified traitors and should not be teaching) but who remain at their jobs and nurture the next generation of certified traitors. A purge in this context is the very definition of a sane policy.
Also,
The lefties and liberals say- well you’ve got Danshghah Imam Sadeq. The answer is well it’s not so clear if we ‘have’ Danesghah Imam Sadeq. The larger point is that creating a hezbollahi ghetto in Imam Sadegh, doesn’t resolve the bigger problem of developing and teaching social sciences based on Quran- which Moin, Hashemi and Khatami and company of done exactly jack squat about in 32 years. And remember two of these guys wear turbans.
Also,
Given that most of the tenured positions in the social sciences are monopolized by lefties and liberals, we are not able to get religious and hezbollahi students into PhD programs- which results that all new ‘elites’ are again westernized parrots who disdain there own history and culture. So again, a little purge is appropriate to create a little ‘balance’.
PG,
I don’t deny that some people are dissatisfied. But I have never, never experienced a time were some Iranians were not dissatisfied. It’s part of the culture. For the examples you brought, I can bring the same amount of examples of people who were able to get a good job, loans and their own businesses and are now making good money. Or people who studied in the west and came back and are now successful here- and no they are not religious nor connected to the government. Either way it’s anecdotal evidence and only proves to the exent that anecdotal evidence proves anything.
Also remember that in Iran the main governmental organization that controls universities is Shoraye Engelabe Farhangi. The Ahmadinejad admin. tried to get rid of the shoras and make the process one that is managed directly betweeen the ministry and the Majlis. But alas, Mr.Rasanjani and his friends in the the Majma’ shot this plan down- to defend their strangle-hold on academia. And that’s not even counting Daneshagah Azad.
For example, the Higher Education minister suggests the candidates for university president and then the Shora has to approve it. In other words, the Majlis has delegated its powers to the Shora. I for one think this sucks.
At one point Moin presented 13 candidates for the presidency of a major university- most of whom were idiots- before he presented a good candidate. A colleague wanted to teach a history class about the Iran-Iraq war, Aghaye Moin didn’t sign his request for 5 years. It has happened many times that I have suggested courses- not on the current class roster- and the answer has come back, well we need to send a request to the minister he has to approve it and then he has to send it to the Shora and then they have to discuss and approve it. At that point I usually say “Forget about it…(or more precisely “ahh just f…k it”).
In general we need a nice little purge in the social science depts. of universities and allow those professors who base their views on Quran and Islam to have some room- which they haven’t had so far thanks to Moin and company. In that sense I have no problem with trying to filter out professors who are hostile to Islam, the revolution or the concept of valiye faqih.
And for God’s sake the engineers have no reason to complain, they get all the money and attention- spoiled brats. Spending a sememster among the social scientists will help them appreciate their current situation.
B-i-B, I imagine it will get ugly.
My point is this: The malignancy of America has real internal reasons and mechanisms. They are systemic and repeated. A good study of how the American military budget, year after year, circulates in the major corporations and to whom the profits go, and how a tiny percentage of those profits then buys congress, will have a more beneficial effect on both the US and Iran than proclaiming the roots of American society are ‘evil’.
I look forward to the day when work written in Farsi is must reading for Americans trying to understand themselves, because it is more accurate, reasoned and empirical than what American academia can muster. In fact, that day need not be far off.
FYI… I understand.
You write “The security of the United States, in my opinion, does not require her current militaristic posture in the Muslim World. I do not see any margins in it for her.”
That is entirely true. The reasons are not those of security. They are cultural-economic.
Photi,
As far as I remember the last time there was an election among the Palestinians they voted for Hamas. It’s also interesting how Mahmoud Abbas refuses to hold elections which are years overdue (gee, I wonder why). So yes whatever the Palestinian people- not Abbas, Erekat or Fayyadh alone- decide.
Also remember a Middle East without Israel is different than a Middle East without Jews. Jews and Muslims (and Christians) have been living together in peace here for centuries (come visit for example Isfahan or Shiraz and you will see this empirically). It’s the Zionists and US and British imperialists we have problems with. The Zionists are not Jews and have to be eliminated from our area and the western imperialists have to be thrown out. No room for peace and compromise given the current behavior of the US, UK and Zionists.
Like I said, this issue is very problematic for someone who is trying to reconcile the irreconcilable (for example being American and being Muslim to the same degree).
I’m all in favor of alternative energy sources. As the Supreme Leader said, “The day we can cap our oil wells and earn our income from our knowledge, will be a blessed day for Iran”.
Castellio,
I don’t relish it, it’s just we haven’t seen anything but evil and deceit from America. Americans have to put there own house in order before outsiders decide to take care of this problem for humanity. And it well get really ugly if that happens.
Bussed-in Basiji says:
April 14, 2011 at 12:25 am
well, I am not affiliated with the reformist camp. I did say this in this comment section many times before. I am constantly criticizing the reformists even in the private meetings. however, what I see is, the other camp is relatively, again relatively, open compared to the current one. here are some of the questions that almost everybody should answer properly to get a governmental job, espcially a professorship (it’s a new regulation, and the first step in fact. I hope you know this):
آیا به نظر شما آیت ا… خامنه ای در انجام وظایف محوله موفق بوده اند؟ از بستگان نسبی و سببی شما کسی در دستگاه نطام جمهوری اسلامی فعالیت می کند و اگر هست در چه قسمتی؟ نظر شما در مورد اتفاقات بعد از انتخابات 1388 چیست؟ مشکل اصلی در حوادث اخیر از کجا ناشی شد؟ نظام جمهوری اسلامی ایران در دنیا در چه جایگاهی قرار دارد؟ سیستم ولایت فقیه چه جایگاهی در نظام سیاسی دنیا دارد؟ آیا شما و خانواده تان اهل نماز و روز و شرکت در نماز جمعه و راهپیمایی 22 بهمن هستید؟ مشکل کشور را در حال حاضر در چه می بینید؟ نظراتان در مورد گروههای سیاسی داخل کشور چیست؟ شرایط سیاستهای داخلی و خارجی ایران را چه گونه ارزیابی می کنید؟ شرایط فرهنگی دانشگاه ها را چطور ارزیابی می کنید؟ آیا به نظر شما دخالت عضو هیت علمی در امور فرهنگی دانشجویان صحیح است و اگر هست به چه صورت باید باشد.
و چند تای دیگه که من الان یادم نیست. اگر به نظر شما این از زمان دکتر معیین بهتر هست، پس اون موقع چی بود؟(ما که اون موقع هم تو بازی نبودیم) واقعیت اینه که برادر من شماها در این جامعه اکثریت تحصیل کرده جز اقلیت محض هستید(درست یا غلط را من تعیین نکردم. اکثریت هم باشید برای من فرقی نمی کنه. من اینها را گفتم که یکدفعه بلند نشید که ببینید نه تاک نشانی ماند نه از تاکنشان). خودتون را با اعداد انتخابات 88 گول نزنید. اون اکثریتی که به دکتر احمدی نژاد رای دادند از دست شماها و امثال شماها عصبانی ترند. توهم برتون نداره. این اکثریت الان خاموش فقط فکر کردند (و هنوز هم تا حدی فکر می کنند) که دکتر احمدی نژاد می تونه این وضعیت رو عوض کنه. نمی دونم چرا آقات محبوبیت هنوز هم رو به افزایش دکتر رو(حتی در بین مخالفان قبلیش) رو مال خودش می دونه(باز میگم برادر این وسط به من هیچی نمی رسه. من فقط واقعیت کاملا ملموسه جامعه رو دارم می گم.آقازاده، مرفهه بی درد یا ضد انقلاب وجز اصلاح طلبان هم نیستم. آقات 100 سال هم که باشه من چندان اذیت نمی شم ولی حتی تو این جامعه(شهرستان یا تهران) نمیشه از کار نسبتا خوب آقات در ایستادگی در مورد نتایج انتخابات و جمع کردن قضیه هم دفاع کرد). اونهایی که 20 سال پیش بچه بودند پیش شما الان بزرگ شدند و مثل شماها فکر نمی کنند.مشکلات شماها رو هم نداشتند، در عوض مشکلات خودشون رو داشتند و دارند. برادر، شماها که اینقدر جرات داشتید که روی مین برید، یعنی پذیرش واقعیتهای رو به تغییر جامعه و تغییر نسبی در افکار اینقدر براتون سخته؟
aside from all of these, it’s not about being a prof. in Iran that you may dream of. those who are already there, with years of experiences in teaching, research, and collaboration with the industry (to whom many were my ex-profs) are dissatisfied, fed up, and looking for an opportunity to get out, if they ever could. what they told me is this: we don’t look at you as a student anymore (and I can feel the level of frankness and closeness in their talk), we see you as a colleague. don’t destroy yourself and your current resume. we were like you, even more passionate, to change things, build the country and things like that. Many even said, could we exchange our positions?! I have heard this from profs to whom their publications feed the pride of people like Pirouz_2. what I heard from the profs is a bit more optimistic compared to what my friends in industry and business side said.
I don’t deny that I am an individual with limited links. but I have talked to many in the top 5-6 eng. universities in Iran. and I have heard similar things in other fields from my close friends as well. they all can’t be wrong and delusional.
I just read an article about Libya and its “rebels”. It gives an interesting view on the events unfolding there.
“Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their rebellion in March to create their own central bank – this before they even had a government.”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD14Ak02.html
All:
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=32096&pageid=13&pagename=Analysis
Castellio says: April 14, 2011 at 12:54 am
I do not represent Muslim Thought; I only express my own opinions based on my understanding and knowledge – which is limited.
I have some understanding of pre-Revolutionary Chinese Civilization. That civilization is dead. I do not understand the new Chinese Civilization. It is no longer based on Tao/Balance since the neo Confuscian Thought that was serving as it intellectual framework shattered in the 20-th Century.
I believe I have a decent understanding of the Western Civilization – another Tao-less civilization.
In regards to the United States: 120 years ago her leaders set her on the course for Empire (if not earlier). Now the maintenance of that Imperial Project has crashed against the 150-year long process of Muslim Awakenings.
The security of the United States, in my opinion, does not require her current militaristic posture in the Muslim World. I do not see any margins in it for her.
Yet her leaders and the leader of her allied states insist on a course of action that will only bring more war and more misery to the Muslim people. I see it no other way.
Bussed-in Basiji,
you wrote “We have a vision, it’s called resistance to US, UK and Israel, Islamic governments domestically and regional integration economically. In other words a Middle East without the US, UK and Israel.”
It is my understanding that your own government’s policy is to accept whatever deal the Palestinians accept to end the conflict. In this scenario, can your vision really exclude Israel?
Well, when FYI writes “In regards to East Asia, I am afraid that for me, they live in the Age of Darkness – in Jahiliya.” and B-i-B relishes writing The Great Satan… am I seeing the historical limits of Islamic thought?
Unable to begin to comprehend the civilization of the two most populous nations on earth… unable to develop an anti-American critique that doesn’t stumble somewhere between heaven and hell?
FYI… yes, I had forgotten that, I haven’t answered your question. I apologize. I sincerely didn’t know where to begin, where you could discover reason rooted in the nature of periodic change (not a bad definition of science, actually) and the evolution of societal morality guided by those patterns. Why not the I Ching for a start? Don’t laugh. Confucian thought and Buddhist thought are, to an extent, rivals, but they have long played complementary roles, one a theory of social action and the other a theory of mind.
The point is to discover the apodictic (first principals) in nature, not in a particular religious caste (revelation). When you get a real feel for the shifting patterns of nature as apodictic, then you can compare that to Kant’s use of the apodictic and discover a very clear limitation of the west, when it claimed its own mind at that time as the completion of rational thought. In that respect, I quite agree in your “fallen man thesis”, and understand your preference for the “incomprehensible, infinite and guided” Islam.
The I – many paradox in Buddhist thought, how to respond to that? Let’s just note that the Buddha is reputed to have said, “When you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha”. Which has been interpreted several ways, but an interpretation worth holding is that when you meet the ideal, kill the ideal, so that it no longer blinds you to the particular. The truth is not in the ideal, and is a pretense when it claims to be so…
Bussed-in Basiji,
I am just a private US citizen with no experience in government. Maybe someone else reading this can comment on how far away is the American foreign policy establishment from realizing the need for complete withdrawal of US forces from the region. In the context of a genuine and comprehensive Middle East Peace is American retreat from the Middle East imaginable? How about in the context of significant advancements in alternative energy resources? Middle East oil is the jugular vein of the world economy, if the necessity can be re-directed to other energy forms then the sources for conflict will not be as intense, correct?
Bussed-in Basiji says: April 14, 2011 at 12:25 am
It is not just US and UK. France is already there.
The political power of the Axis Powers in the affairs of Muslim states must be eliminated.
Even Saudi Arabia has moved in that direction, finally.
And some people in Pakistan’s leadership have finally grasped the fact that they have fought someone else’s wars for 30 years.
Photi,
We have a vision, it’s called resistance to US, UK and Israel, Islamic governments domestically and regional integration economically. In other words a Middle East without the US, UK and Israel. The problem is that the US insists on being here and supports whatever criminal it has to stay here. Like I said no room for peace and compromise with one’s occupier- especially when you have the forces to resist.
Castellio,
The Great Satan.
PG,
During the time of the incompetent and vindictive Dr. Moin as minister me and many of my colleagues who were not part of his political and ideological circle and who didn’t kiss his ass, were systemically blackballed from obtaining jobs at the university. Feels like shit, doesn’t it? What comes around goes around.
It’s often surprising how irony appears only with the passage of time.
At least those of us who live in the US will recall vividly the September 2008 “Saturday Night Live” skit featuring a mock joint appearance by “Sarah Palin” (played by Tina Fey) and “Hillary Clinton” (played by Amy Poehler). Here is the best-known exchange from this extremely well-watched video:
Hillary Clinton: I believe that diplomacy should be the cornerstone of any foreign policy.
Sarah Palin: And I can see Russia from my house!
As all who saw this video will remember well, Hillary’s line was received in respectful silence, while Palin’s response brought down the house – perhaps the single funniest line of the 2008 US Presidential campaign.
In light of Hillary Clinton’s subsequent “Bomb first, ask questions later” approach to US relations with Libya – carried to the abusrd extent of denying a visa to Libya’s designated representative to the UN, and refusing to allow would-be African Union negotiators to land in Tripoli, whose statement strikes you as more humorous now?
Castellio says: April 13, 2011 at 11:36 pm
Thank you for your response and the URL for Qawali.
You must understand that Buddhism also has its Heaven and Hell.
But where it profoundly differs from Revelation is the in place of the single individual in Creation.
God concerns himself with that single finite being; not so in Buddhism.
I have elected velation as the basis of my critique.
I would be curious to learn of alternaative Thought that could do so as well.
In regards to East Asia, I am afraid that for me, they live in the Age of Darkness – in Jahiliya.
Months ago I asked you a question to which you have still not found an answer (outisde of the Revelation).
There lies the significance of it.
FYI: I don’t know why you are so quick to reduce a series of worthwhile insights to false ontological statements like the following: “But it can’t be critiqued from within its own conceptual framework, it must be criticized with reference to Revelations.”
The first part of the sentence is a plausible but not compelling argument, as it too quickly reduces to the trivial statement that “what is excluded must be excluded” as if all value systems are static constructs incapable of evolution. (Which you might believe, as you seem to place all ‘true’ thoughts as non-historical.) The second part of the sentence is patently untrue.
Many Americans and other westerners have highly developed critiques of ‘western’ thought that are not based in Revelations. And perhaps a statement easier for you to acknowledge, Asian societies have highly developed and effective critiques of American society not based in Revelations.
Anyhow, I dislike my own irritation at your statements.
For a worthwhile balance of existence-nonexistence of the divine in Islamic thought one might enjoy Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo0EqAWHGdg
This thinking at the early part of the song is quite close to a particular turning point in the development of Chan Buddhism. However, by about 7 minutes that shared balance has been somewhat jettisoned for the hell-fate-sin panorama in a way not present in Chan thought.
For the clearest writing on the ‘retraction’ of Goldstone, the article by Jerome Slater at ,http://www.jeromeslater.com/2011/04/goldstone-retraction.html is both detailed and considered and, I thought, well worthwhile.
fyi,
“Until that takes place, we are left with the necessity to manage the affairs of human beings but without the expectation that our efforts will create any enduring political order in which Justice and Peace will reign”
I think both Humanism and Islam would disagree with you here. Humanity may never be able to achieve perfection, but we can imagine how things would operate ‘in a perfect world.’ The expectation is the we as a species simply move closer to perfection even if we know in advance Perfection itself will not be reached until the afterlife. Your bleak analysis leaves no room for ideals or progress.
Photi says: April 13, 2011 at 11:04 pm
The “Fallen Naure of Man” is a concise formulation of the empirical observation that in human affairs, things can be improved only so much and not any more.
It is not a directive to fatalism/determinism rather an admonition against the temptation of creating Heaven on Earth.
In fact, God is the source of all Evil and at the end of times, he will resurrect all human beings and dispense His Terrible Justice.
Until that takes place, we are left with the necessity to manage the affairs of human beings but without the expectation that our efforts will create any enduring political order in which Justice and Peace will reign.
Once you accept this humbling doctrine, then you will see through much of the various political slogans to their core; attempts by finite and frightened creatures to exercise power on their fellow creatures to forget/avenge their own impending deaths.
All:
On Syria:
http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/
fyi,
you lose me as soon as you start saying phrases such as “Fallen Nature of Man.” This perspective yields to a deterministic view of history. The Revelations have taught us that at the end of times Good will make the final stand against evil. Until that time, God has given us free will. We can choose peace or we can choose war. Why are there so many Doomsayers?
On the question of Israel I came across this article
Israel to pay ‘talkbackers’ to post pro-Israel messages on websites
http://www.iengage.org.uk/component/content/article/435-israel-to-pay-talkbackers-to-post-pro-israel-messages-on-websites
Castellio says: April 13, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Western governance, politics, and diplomacy are based on certain theoretical ideas that envision an ideal political dispensation which is normative for all of mankind.
This model is used to infer and/or confer legitimacy on states as well as to label a state illegitimate.
I have tried to show the conceit of this model and point out that due to the Fallen Nature of Man, things can be improved only so much.
This model is also used as a form of propaganda to further the aims of imperial powers.
That propaganda states that only if these benighted fools learnt to be like North Americans and Western Europeans the world would enter Utopia.
That is bonk.
But it can’t be critiqued from within its own conceptual framework, it must be criticized with reference to Revelations.
Photi says: April 13, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Israelis do not need peace nor do they want it.
Their policy is one of stealing as much land as possible while convincing Judophile people in the world that they want peace.
There is no Peace at any price possible.
That is finished.
Only cease-fire offer of HAMAS is a viable one.
The United States has no dog, realistically, in that war.
But she want to take side and she is incurring the enmity of Muslims.
James Canning says: April 13, 2011 at 6:40 pm
There are shades of grey in the economic/political/diplomatic ware that the Axis Power are waging against Iranian power (regardless of it being Islamic/Zoroastrian/Communist/Hinu or anything else.).
The only thing that diplomacy can achieve between Axis Power and Iran is cease fire.
Axis Powers and Iran are now in the pre-cease fire days of the Korean War in 1953.
Iran stops providing fuel to European aircraft in retaliatory move
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/iran-stops-providing-fuel-to-european-aircraft-in-retaliatory-move-1.355721
Iranian planes have been denied fuel in Germany, Britain and a Gulf Arab state, prompting Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi to halt fuel supply for European planes.
Obama’s anti-Semitism envoy, Hannah Rosenthal, former head of Jewish Council for Public Affairs – told Jewish magazine Tablet on Monday: “Anti-Semitism is alive and well in Europe, in some countries, particularly among elites”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/the-ghost-of-anti-semitism-is-alive-and-well/
Castellio,
My take on fyi’s comment at 6:18 was that if Man seeks always to implement Absolute Justice, not only is Man guaranteed to fail, but Man will also be put in a position to never find peace.
Bussed-In Basiji,
I wouldn’t expect the Islamic Republic to make an about-face and agree to a shameful peace with the Americans. It seems to me that the advocates for American foreign policy on this site realize the demands put forth by the various American administrations have historically been too oppressive. We each may have our own ways of expressing our dissatisfaction with that oppression, and some may not even call the dysfunction oppressive, but I think we all agree that American foreign policy in the Middle East is broken and needs to be fixed. It is one thing to reject the Saudi model, but without a clear pathway forward governments run the risk of falling into the same bad habits. A vision for a functional Middle East first needs to be put forward, and then the various parties throughout the region need to negotiate the final settlement details. In short, nothing less than a comprehensive peace where all Governments agree on some common goals will get us out of the current morass.
The example with Muawiyah demonstrates that one’s enemy does not have to be considered “Just” in order to make peace with him. Iranians do not have to agree to “American Islam” in order to find peace. I would highly discourage against that anyway. However, we do need a peace plan in order that the energy used towards peace efforts is efficiently used. Is the Saudi Peace Plan a good enough place to start? Of course, if the Israelis are going to be pulling their usual tricks where they are always trying to gain the upper hand, then all of these efforts will be in vain. How do you sell the Israelis on peace?
FYI… the fall of man could hardly find a more fitting tribute than your comment at 6:18 pm.
Is this really what this Board has been reduced to?
BiB writes: The New Englander dissenters gave us the intolerant Protestant zeal, the Virginia planters gave us the racism and the Quakers us the naive non-militancy that is literally still killing us today. I think that pretty much covers it.
Why not just write the “Great Satan” and have done with it?
fyi,
You like to see things as black or white. Diplomats must deal in shades of grey. This is the reason Iran supports the independence of Palestine with 1967 borders, if this meets the approval of the Palestinians themselves.
James Canning says: April 13, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Justice for Palestinians would mean the dissolution of the state of Israel.
Justice for the Russians, Ukranians, Belorussians, European Jews and Gypsies would mean the obliteration of Germany, Austria, Italy, Hungary, and Romania.
Justice for Chinese, Filippinos, Koreans, Indonesians and the Malay would entail the annihilation of Japan.
Pirouz_2 says:
April 13, 2011 at 5:05 pm
I agree with all your comments and add:
What other nation do we have on the planet where 85% of the voting public feel sufficiently vested in their participatory system of government to go out, line up, and vote, and 63% of them re-elect the son of a blacksmith who then chooses an MIT PhD to head the foreign office? In the last 30 years, in the last 300 years?
fyi,
Iran seeks peace in the Middle East. I doubt the Iranian foreign minister sees this as a quest for slavery.
“Justice”, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It by definition is abstract, and one man’s justice is another man’s oppression.
PG;
If you are going to make a conversation do it in a calm manner of a sane person. Over rudness of tone only makes you sound like a neurotic person.
You are not talking to a non-Iranian. You are talking to an Iranian who is older than you and knows Iran perhaps better than you. I can show you many many engineers in Iran who work in the “industry” and yet their job in reality is management and not “design”. In fact the industry is not developed enough in Iran to provide REAL engineering jobs for the average university graduate. But if you insist otherwise then by all means. Assuming that what you say is correct (which is not) this shows tremendous progress in the level of industrialization in Iran, because 30 years ago Iran was not capable of manufacturing a niddle much less providing real engineering jobs for its graduates.
As for the scientific progress, you are more than welcome to listen to the complaints of whoever you see in Iran, I’d rather go by the reports from the likes of science-metrix, Institute for Scientific Information and National Science Foundation.
By the way, 30 years ago, at the time that no one could dream of talking highly of Ahmad Shah or Mohammad Ali Shah, both of them were long dead in their graves too. It is not about how long a person has been dead, it is about how much you can challenge the fundamental policies of the system. Compare that to 30 years ago and if you dont see any significant progress in the level political openness in Iran then we don’t even agree on the basic facts, so there is no point in having a debate.
Pirouz_2 says:
April 13, 2011 at 3:42 pm
فارسی نوشتم که بد ترجمه نشه یوخت (اونم از طرف کسایی که ظاهرا برای انعام بیشتر جز حمد و ثنا گفتن و چابلوسی هنری ندارند) برای کسایی که باید بخونند وگرنه اصلا برام اهمیتی نداشت که اونوریها متوجه بشند یا نه. تازه خیلی هم مثبت نوشتم(اگه چاره داشتم مازنی می نوشتم که فهمش برای اونوریها سختتر هم بشه). همین چیزهای ساده بی ارزش(که اگه فقط کور و کر نباشی بفور تو سطح جامعه می بینی) رو نمی تونی اینجا بنویسی یا آزاد تو یه تریبونی بگی بدون دردسر، مخصوصا اگه یکی زندگی و کارش، نه مثل من که از هفت دولت آزاده، اینجا باشه. اگه شما به این میگی آزادی سیاسی در عصر اینترنت و ماهواره محترمانه میگم در همون خواب و خیالات بمون. از ماهواره داره فهش به سران این سیستم پخش میشه اونوقت تو میگی میشه تو این صدا و سیمای مزخرف و حال بهم زن (که پول بی زبون و هنگفت این ملت بدبخت رو خرج ساختن برنامه های اعصاب و روان پریشان کننده می کنه) از یکی که دهه ها پیش مرده و الان تو گورش هم چیزی پیدا نمیشه، دفاع کنی. من از آدم زنده که هر دفعه یکی رو علم میکنه که کاسه کوزه ها رو سرش بشکنه (البته ایندفعه شده تف سربالا) نمی تونم انتقاد کنم، اونوقت تحلیل حرف یه عوضی 10000 کیلومتر اونطرفتر شده آزادی سیاسی؟ خوب شد ما معنی آزادی سیاسی رو هم فهمیدیم.
30 سال پیش کی بود اصلا؟ این اکثریتی که من میبینم اون موقعی که شما میگی زنده نبودن(من هم بهمچنین) و در عوض می خوان یه سیستم در شان خودشون داشته باشند. چیزی که مدام تحقیرشون نکنه و هی چپ و راست نزنه تو سرشون. هر دفعه یه بامبولی رو علم نکنه ازشون بیعت نگیره ….
راجع به صنعت هم اشتباه به عرضتون رسوندن عزیز. من خیلی از هم کلاسیهام و دوستام دارن اینجا تو صنایع و شهرهای مختلف کار می کنند. تو زمینه اینچنینی اونم با کسی که رشته اش مرتبطه (و از قضا آدم تعطیلی هم نیست به هیچوجه) سعی کنین با احتیاطتر حرف بزنین.
راجع به پیشرفت علمی حرف نزنم بهتره، یکوقت سو تفاهم میشه چرت آقایون پاره میشه.
Empty says: April 13, 2011 at 4:04 pm
States are not human beings.
States are not the subjects of Revelations.
RE: “States, like Civilizations, are machines; they are devoid of intrinsic worth beyond their utility in addressing the needs of their populations. As such, they are a-moral; they do not follow or conform to the code of conduct that Revelations impose on individual human beings.”
States are social systems consisting of various components (people) and specific relationship among those components. The relationships have to be defined based on agreed upon norms, values, morals, etc. What constitutes a “need” in a nation and how to meet that need are also defined based on social values, norms, morals, etc. For example, a state defines what constitutes marriage. Is it between a man and a women? A man and a man? A woman and a woman? A man and an animal? If a state defines it a certain way and another state in a different way, then the next step is putting into place policies to enact them. That, too, is not devoid of morals, values, etc. How to deal with those who do not abide by such rules, too, is defined by the state. All that to say, the statement “As such, they are a-moral; they do not follow or conform to the code of conduct that Revelations impose on individual human beings” is not a correct statement.
Pirouz_2 says: April 13, 2011 at 3:42 pm
What Persian Gulf has written is correct.
Mr. Daneshjoo is indeed a joke.
That Islamic Iran has made progress is not the issue.
So have many other countries such as South Korea and China.
The issue is that it could be more with better management.
But a change in government will no help in this regards although it might remove some of the worst abuses.
Persian Gulf says:
April 13, 2011 at 2:10 pm
PG;
First of all it would have been much more beneficial for everyone if you wrote that message in English.
Secondly:
No one (at least not me) is claiming that the situation in Iran is perfect or even good.
The thing is that when you evaluate the situation in any society you have to take two main considerations into account:
1) What was the situation previously (say 30 years ago) in that society, what is the situation now?
and
2)What was the situation of the world previously (again say 30 years ago) and what is it now?
Has there been any relative progress compared to the past situation of the country itself? And has there been any relative progress compared to the rest of the world?
With regards to item 1:
In terms of political freedoms in the society Iran has progressed considerablly compared to say 1977. There was no way in hell that anyone could come on the state TV and openly support Mohammad Ali Shah or Ahmad Shah at the time. Nor could anyone even dare to suggest that relations with USSR should be improved and Iran should move towards going into the sphere of influence of USSR.
Today, people OPENLY can come on TV and say that Reza Khan was a great patriot whose actions were all (with no exception) to the utmost benefit of Iran. Furthermore people can come on TV and openly say that Obama has made a great deal of change in approaching Iran and if there is no improvement in the relationship it is mainly Irans fault. They can even go as far as saying that Iran has no usurped assets in USA and that it must change its posture towards Israel. And these people still freely practice in Iranian universities. 30 years ago you could not have even DREAMED of that!
With regards to brain emmigration: first of all it pretty much exists everywhere in the world, and secondly, the main motive power of the scientific progress in Iran are those researchers who get assassinated and still remain in Iran as heads of R&D departments, not the main-stream people who graduate from schools and end up in main stream “engineering” jobs (which have little to do with technical engineering and instead has more to do with management of companies)
With Regards to item 2:
Just compare the scientific progress in Iran to the rest of the world, and you can come to the inevitable conclusion. I am sure you have already seen the reports on Iran’s scientific progress but if you have not I will be more than glad to provide you with some online links.
The problem with the mainly middle class Iranians whose “life-style” does not match with that of Mr. Daneshjoo (and whose main complaint is about life-style as their economic situation is fairly well) is that they live in a dream world that they think that some how there is some special “chelo kabab” being distributed among the countries who are in a sub-servient relationship with the west that Iran is missing!
They are incapable of looking at the problems that people in Brazil, in Mexico and why go too far in Turkey face! All they see is the glamourous 5-star hotels they stay in when they go to Antalya (Turkey) for vacation and compare that to Nowshahr or Darya Kenar and shake their heads in pure stupidity and think is falling behind in “progress”. Ask them and see how many of them are aware of the fact that a whole village in Western Turkey (and I am not talking about the relatively under developed east, I am talking about the supposedly well developed western Turkey), the entire male adult population had to sell one of their kidneys to pay for their debts. Do they know about that too? Do they also know about the “religious” ideas of Mr. Erdogan and how the result of the acting as the servant of the West (as they propose for Iran to follow those same policies) during the time of Mr. Ozal led to the rise of Mr. Erdogan? How much do they know about the lack of security to even go out of your damn home in the “fast-growing” model democracy called Mexico? How much do they know about the other side of the coin for the vast majority of people in Brazil? How much do they think that the brazilians living in card board houses are enjoying their “democracy”?
Photi,
Imam Hassan (as) was seeking justice which he did by way of a peace treaty with an unjust ruler and because some of his “followers” had attacked and injured him in battle- meaning he didn’t have the forces to fight Muawiya. The treaty in that context meant that Islam would survive Muawiyas rule- which is the seeking justice part and which Imam Hussein (as) adhered to as well as long as Muawiya was alive ( around fifteen years after Imam Hassan(as). In other word Photi there is no real peace with people like Muawiya or Yazid. And when Muawiya died and Yazid demanded a “pledge of allegiance” from Imam Hussein (as) he refused and resisted to the last drop of blood- which meant that Islam would survive. Pledging allegiance to Yazid would have meant that only the shell of Islam- a khalifah friendly Islam would remain.
Today, the American khalifa is demanding a pledge of allegiance, the Saudis and others have done so. We have the forces- material and spiritual- to resist and we are doing so to the last drop of blood so that the Islam of Ahlul Bayt will survive- “Islame Muhammadi”. If we don’t and pledge allegiance only the shell of Islam, an America friendly Islam- “Islame Amrikai” will remain.
Like I said there is fundamental contradiction between America as it is defined currently and the Islam as taught by the Ahlul Bayt- can’t have them both together.
Photi says: April 13, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Peace and Justice are incompatible.
The search for Justice, inevitably will leade to conflict and war.
The desire for Peace, on the other hand, will lead to slavery.
That is yet another sign to the Fallen State of Man.
Bussed-in Basiji,
Was Imam Hasan (as) seeking justice with Mu’awiyah or was he seeking peace?
(My intent with this question is to illustrate that between Imam Hasan and Imam Hussein (peace be upon them), the Muslims have options and that peace and justice are not absolute in the Dunya.)
http://www.farsnews.net/newstext.php?nn=9001243092
این چیزی که من اینجا دیدم هیچ آینده روشنی نداره. جناب آقای دانشجو نمی تونند با این حجم عظیم اساتید و دانشجویان ناراضی اینجوری برخورد کنند(به دلایل درست یا غلط اصلا مهم نیست). همین صنعت نیم بند رو این اساتید به اصلاح اصلاح طلب،فتنه گر، دگر اندیش… می تونند تکون بدند(خود آقای دانشجو جک دانشجوهاست اینجا. یعنی تو 5-6 دانشگاه اصلی تهران که من از نزدیک دیدم اینجوریه. یعنی این مسئولین اینقدر سرشون رو تو برف کردند؟). یکسری آدم کوته بین با جمود فکریشون بهترینهای این جامعه را یا فراری دادند و دارند فراری می دند یا باقی مونده ها رو افسرده کردند. این نگاه شدید امنیتی و ایدئولوژیکی به همه چیز تو دانشگاهها تمام ارکان سیستم رو از بین می بره. ظاهرا
حضرت آقا متوجه نیست جمعیت اکثریت جوان شدید داره زده میشه یا شده (ما آنچه شرط بلاغت است گفتیم. این وسط برای ما چیزی هم نداره.نه به اینور وصلیم نه به انور).از اون دستمال بدستان و کاسه لیسان چیزی در نمی آد. خوششون میاد یا نه اینایی که یه چیزی بلدند شیوه زندگیشون با ایده آل آقا فرق می کنه. همینجوری پیش بره اصلا بعید نیست اوبامای فرصت طلب این افکار پریشان رو اینجا کاملا هایجک کنه.امیدوارم من کاملا در اشتباه باشم. دیگه
از مثبت بینیه زیاد اینجا دارم کاملا احمق بنظر می رسم.
fyi,
The “problem” posed by Iran, in the eyes of warmongering neocons, other delusional American “supporters” of Israel, and many US Jews, is not that Iran is independent, it is that Iran is spoiling Israel’s effort to crush Palestinian nationalism and Israel’s hopes of keeping all or much of the Golan Heights. Much of the blather about an alleged nuclear weapons programme is merely propaganda intended to deceive the very ignorant American public.
Bussed-In Basiji,
At the time of ratification of the US Constitution, slavery was legal in almost every state.
Were “Moorish” pirates “racist” when they raided the coast of Italy and France to capture Christian slaves? Or was that the available supply?
Slavery was dying out in Virginia at the outset of the Civil War. It had already died a natural death in most “Northern” states.
Off the topic.
Sometimes short-sighted officials falsify the truth to later get troubled by the invisible hurting tentacles of their lie. Examples of that must be abundant in history.
Read one such story in the following site. This is the story of a relatively small blunder (US accusing Iran of using Chemical Weapons). I guess the unconditional support of Israel by US might get judged to be the biggest.
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/poisonous-weapons.html
——
There are growing calls in the United States, encouraged by the government, to set up a war crimes tribunal and brand Hussein a war criminal. The Halabja gas attack, and its aftermath, are crucial in the case.
There is one fly in the ointment, however. In 1990, against all the evidence, the U.S. Defense Department alleged that Iran was also responsible for the chemical attack on Halabja. An internal Pentagon study assembled what it claimed was “conclusive intelligence” that Iran was complicit in one of the worst civilian massacres in the Iran-Iraq War. This report, leaked to The Washington Post, is being used by Iraqi officials to divert the blame.
Many people are skeptical of the Pentagon evidence, not least the people of Halabja. I talked to many Halabjans during my visit who were present during the 1988 attack, and all agreed that Iraq alone was responsible. The Kurdish guerrilla armies who were allied to Iran at the time and fought in and around Halabja also concur, and that includes the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Masoud Barzani, whose current relations with the Iranians can only be described as hostile. Why would Iranian commanders whose troops were in Halabja at the time use poison gas against their own men? they ask. Their logic seems inescapable.
Yet, the allegation of Iranian complicity in Halabja——never rescinded in Washington——complicates the issue under international law. Iraq will almost certainly claim that Iran used poison gas first, and its response was in retaliation. Issued at a time when the United States supported the Iraqis both politically and materially, this piece of black propaganda has now returned to haunt the current U.S. administration.
Photi:
Letter of the late Mr. Khomeini to the late John Paul II stating that the breaking of US-Iran relation was a blessing and, further, urges the Pope to advise American Government to return to the Path of Jesus and to warn her of the consequences of her actions against those countries that seek to be independent.
بسم اللَّه الرحمن الرحیم
عالیجناب پاپ، ژان پل دوم
مکتوب آن عالیجناب بر اساس نگرانی از تیرگی بین کشور اسلامی ایران و ایالات متحده امریکا واصل گردید.
از حسن نیت آن جناب قدردانی میکنم. و خاطر محترم را متوجه میکنم که ملت شریف مجاهد ما این قطع روابط را به فال نیک گرفته و برای آن جشن عظیم بپا کرده و چراغانی ها و پایکوبی ها نمودند.
از دعای شما به درگاه خداوند متعال برای ملت مبارز ما شکرگزارم؛ لکن متذکر میشوم که جناب شما از انگیزههای تیرهگی های دیگر و مشکلات خطرناک بزرگتر که مرقوم داشتهاید نگران نباشید، که ملت اسلامی ایران از مشکلاتی که در این قطع روابط به وجود آید استقبال میکند و از خطرهای بزرگتر که مرقوم شده است، هراس ندارد. و آن روز برای ملت ما خطرناک است که روابطی نظیر روابط رژیم خائن سابق تجدید شود. و با امید به خدای متعال تجدید نخواهد شد.
من از جنابعالی با نفوذ معنوی که بین ملت مسیح دارید میخواهم که دولت امریکا را از عواقب ستمگری ها و زورگویی ها و چپاولگری ها بترسانید؛ و آقای کارتر را، که با شکست نهایی مواجه است، نصیحت کنید که با موازین انسانی با ملت هایی که میخواهند استقلال مطلق داشته باشند و وابسته به هیچ قدرتی در جهان نباشند رفتار کند، و از تعلیمات حضرت مسیح- سلام اللَّه علیه- پیروی نماید و خود و دولت امریکا را بیش از این در معرض رسوایی قرار ندهد. از خداوند متعال سعادت مستضعفین جهان را خواستار و قطع ایادی ستمگران را امیدوارم.
والسلام علیکم و رحمة الله.
روح الله الموسوی الخمینی
James,
The New Englander dissenters gave us the intolerant Protestant zeal, the Virginia planters gave us the racism and the Quakers us the naive non-militancy that is literally still killing us today. I think that pretty much covers it.
Photi,
The Quran seeks justice. Like they say: no justice no peace.
Also, I recognize diversity in US and Iranian society. It’s about Haq and batel whether the actors are individuals, groups, or nations.
fyi,
Your formulation omitted the single most important fact, or pair of facts: in the US, politics is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY, and the Jews have the most money. Very simple. For Democrats, more than half of all campaign finance, for Senate and House races, for the past 40 years or more, has come from Jews. And Jewish finance has increasingly become important for Republicans. Result: Obama stupidly vetoes UNSC resolution re: Israel/Palestine backed by the other 14 members of the Security Council. Any American president is a hostage of the ISRAEL LOBBY.
Bussed-In Basiji,
The “dissenting Protestants” of New England tended to be anti-slavery (though ship owners and merchants grew rich from slave trade).
Did Frankin Roosevelt promote “racist colonialism” in your view? Why did he do everything he could to bring about the dissolution of the British Empire, even while the US and the UK were allies during the Second World War? Roosevelt demanded France and Britain given up their colonial empires, yet he was complacent about the takeover of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union!
Photi says: April 13, 2011 at 12:19 pm
In my opinion, the Americans are harming their Civic Culture by taking sides in essentially religious wars abroad.
There are more Muslims in US than there are Jews.
There are more Catholics than any single Protestant denomination.
Yet, in her current Championship for Israel and her multiple and apparently endless wars within the world of Islam, US is alienating her internal population groups from one another.
Not just Jews and Muslims but Protestants and Catholics as well. To this must be added all those Americans who either are un-religious or come from non-religious backgrounds and do not wish to be dragged into these intractable conflicts.
Yet, the misguided policies persists.
In regards to the cosntruction of the Iranian identity: Iran is the (Mountain) Fortress of the Shia Muslims to which must be added a vague and mythical connection with the ideas of Ancient Iran.
That is the reason that Azeri Turks could be part of Iran; because of the Shia Religion – for their culture, in many ways, is closer to Turks of Central Asia. On the other hand, for members of religious minorities, it is the idea of Ancient Iran that serves as the glue.
Shia Islam, in Iran, is almost like a different religion than Sunni Islam. You can see Christians and Zoroastrians going to Mashad’s Imama Reza Shrine to seek the fulfillment of their wishes.
I sometimes wonder about what is the real and substantial essence of this Iran-ness. Is it Noruz Spring Festival (a remnant of the very ancient Ancestor Worship Rites), or the Persian Language, or Persian Culture (whatever that might be)? Or is it the sense of having been on the site of the Good Spirits & the Wise Lord before anyone else?
I hope I have answered your questions.
Bussed-In Basiji,
The two primary strands of American political and social thinking were the dissenting Protestant tradition seen in New England, and the upper-class Anglican tradition seen in Virginia. Those traditions were quite different, but most early US presidents were from the gentry class of Virginia. (A third centre was Philadelphia and the Quakers.) When Virginia voted to accept the US Constitution, the number of voters was fewer than 200 for the entire state.
fyi,
Your Hitler example is exactly why the world should stay away from fomenting racial and ethnic nationalisms. If anything, the history of the 20th C. should have taught us that fascism is no good. Fascism is paganism from the Islamic point of view.
The American model of creating a national identity, in its ideal at least, provides a basis for many cultures and ethnicities to live side-by-side. ‘Civic nationalism’ seems such a good model for a rapidly expanding global population. The Holy Prophet of Islam (as) never fully renounced his tribal identity, am I right? Civic nationalism conceived properly within an Islamic cultural setting can lead to tolerance and co-existence between various ethnic groups and faiths. I am no expert on Iranian national identity, but doesn’t the Islamic Republic seek a national identity beyond race and culture?
Photi says: April 13, 2011 at 10:46 am
States (nations in many but not all cases – Iran/Pakistan/India/Israel being multi-national) are intruments for enhancing the way large numbers of human beings could live their lives in peace and in prosperity.
States, like Civilizations, are machines; they are devoid of instrinsic worth beyond their utility in addressing the needs of their populations. As such, they are a-moral; they do not follow or conform to the code of conduct that Revelations impose on individual human beings.
The machinary of the state can be used for good or for ill. It depends on the population of that state and her leaders. The German people chose, as a collective and with overwhelming majority, to puruse an Evil course from 1930 to 1945. Their leader, the late Adolf Hitler, was their Black Messiah who was going to lead them into the Heaven of a Nordic Racialist polity.
That evil machine led by evil men and supported by an evil population had to be smashed; it took the lives of 30 million Russians, Ukranians, Belorussians, and assorted other nationalities to effect that.
Each human being, as a moral agent, has to make a persoanl moral choice and determine if this or that state has become an instrumentality of evil. This is a very weighty decision and cannot be entered into lightly. The greatest threat that the late Mr. Khomeini used to make – from time to time – was this: “Do not force me to issue a Fatwa of Jihad.”. And as it went for him, so it goes for other Believers.
In regards to the United States, my personal opinion is that she is not being led by evil people but rather by misguided people who are lost – they have lost sight of why they are there in those positions to begin with and they are also morally lost.
As an individual, I should think that there are many Paths of Peace to affect change. Foremost among them, in my opinion, would be the moral critique of power for the sake of power for Power is a Temptation.
Another area were Muslim practice will affect positive change in US and indeed in the world is opposition to racialist doctrines and prejudices that so inflicts the United States. The Revelations of Islam and the Last Sermon of the Prophet clealry negates skin-color racism and its modern incarnations in IQ Tests (however valid and empricial IQ might be), or nationalism.
A third area for walking along the Path of Peace is social/political/intellectual engagement with people of other Revelations. I do not mean by this silly breakfasts or lunches where the attendants give one another “Humanitarian Awards” but rather serious discussion on what we can all agree on and what, unfortunately, we must leave to God to adjudicate.
In regards to Iran and US, as I have stated before, the confrontation will go on. This confrontation was not primarily about Islam vs. Unbelief; it was one of desire for nationalist independence versus imperial power.
But just like the war in Palestine which as it progressed was transformed from one of European Jews fighting Muslim & Christian Arabs to one of Judaism vs. Islam; the confrontation between US and indeed Axis Powers and Iran has all the ingredients of becoming one of Protestant Christianity vs. Shia Islam.
Bussed-in Basiji,
You wrote “You can’t avoid this conflict, pick sides before you die. As an American Muslim this is very difficult because at some point the two will become incompatible, but I pray that you make the right decision at that time.”
The problem I find with this statement is that you are presenting one side (presumably Iran) as the embodiment of good, and the other side (presumably America) as the embodiment of evil. This is a false choice in my view. There is good and evil in American society, and there is good and evil in Iranian society. As ordinary citizens we have a responsibility to find the good in our respective societies and do what we can to increase that good. I don’t think Nations have evolved to the point where we can say one is entirely good and one is entirely evil. The Good vs. Evil question transcends Nationhood.
Egypt’s ‘Muslim Sisterhood’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/egypts-muslim-sisterhood/
I come from the rank and file. The only instruments available to me are the instruments of peace. Therefore it is to peace i aspire. Nationhood has its day to day practicality in keeping the peace, but at the end of the day we are all part of humanity and we all have a vested interest in finding and keeping the peace. The bleak future you speak of brother may yet be a millennium away. Does not the Qur’an also teach that Peace is the best way?
Photi,
If you read the Quran with care, you will see that God is, how should I say, “pessimistic” about the ability of the kufar to understand the signs and the reasons He brings for them. He also says that for every prophet he has created enemies. He also says that this world is the world of struggle and conflict between haq and batel.
In short, I’m pessimistic about any positive results that could come from any discussions. Most humans don’t submit to reason and logical arguments. Experience shows that war usually ends up settling these debates and the Quran confirms this experience. As a Muslim the only thing that is relevant is on which side you fight in the struggles that existed in your life-time. That’s why Shias insist on Imam Hussein (as) and his life and death as the perfect embodiment of a Quranic life and death.
You can’t avoid this conflict, pick sides before you die. As an American Muslim this is very difficult because at some point the two will become incompatible, but I pray that you make the right decision at that time.
Bussed-in Basiji,
In the present times, i would be more inclined to present the dichotomy as Humanism vs. Islam. I would also add that the American flavor of Humanism is less secular than is the European flavor. Islam and Humanism will never be counterparts to each other, but there are areas of thought within each that will facilitate common understandings between the two. The key for the two sides to communicate is to focus on Reason when formulating policy. Logic and Reason will take America far if the virtues of Humanism are emphasized over greed and imperialism. The Iranian ulema are big on logic and reason.
Apparently Governor Jerry also thinks we have a fundamental problem.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gov-jerry-brown-u-s-facing-regime-crisis-similar-to-civil-war/
UU-jan, Fio-jan,
Some thoughts on your interesting discussion:
The US is neither rooted in the Enlightenment nor in Revelation- it is a product of British Protestant dissenters of the 17-18 century- which had little to do with the Enlightenment and more with the Reformation. Of course as a Muslim who believes that with the coming of Islam the other revelations were superceded, the claim by the founders that their republic is rooted in revelation is not technically correct. More precisely, it is rooted in the distorted historical remnant of the revelations of Moses and Jesus.
The US is not universal and it is particular to a specific history, culture and religious branch and despite the propaganda it’s reaching its date of expiry. The tens of millions of non-Protestants who live in the US, effectively take on Protestant values, even though they maintain their respective religions. I am referring to the general mass of non-Protestants( Catholics, Jews, Muslims), not necessarily the clergy and leaders of these religions and denominations.
In the European-Christian context, the US was certainly innovative and better than the absolute monarchies of the old continent, but it’s problem from day one has been militant and usually racist colonialism and imperialism rooted in it’s White Protestant zeal.
After 200+ years, the US has met its politico-theological match in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It really is about Islam versus Christianity, specifically Shiism versus Protestantism- the others checked out centuries ago.
Indeed an excellent article in Javan…as always Sepah picks up the slack.
In the meantime, news from the heart of the beast- US-Saudi:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2011/04/08/AF5KD9SD_story.html
A comment by the Leveretts about America’s greater reliance on the Saudi absolute monarchs in the post Mubarak Mideast and the wisdom of (or lack thereof) would be interesting.
Nice interview with Rooz Online Bussed-in-Basiji!
:http://www.roozonline.com/persian/news/newsitem/article/-125202337b.html
Dear Fior:
I am truly humbled (there’s a first for everything:) by the breadth of your scholarship. I read your comment with glee, and will re-read it. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to respond to it, due to that pesky little problem I am now afflicted with known as work. What I can say in one sentence is that I like the fact that you disagree with me on the extent of the problem (in other words, I like the fact that you posit that the problem is *not* fundamental (and I hope and pray that you might be right). But the deeper issue for me is and has been for some time now the question of the universality of morals, to which you refer. I maintain that it is God’s will that there be a plurality of religions (based on the ayah in the Surat an-Nuh – the Partition of Noah that positivly and unambiguously affirms this as His intention), and as such, in order for a true plurality of religions to obtain (religion properly defined, in other words), there must *necessarily* be a “plurality of universals” (if you can stay with the paradox-not-contradiction) *within each inter-subjective axiological domain that defines a given authentic religious tradition.*
It is because of this that I believe you are right to correct me on the fundamental soundness of the legacy of Jefferson – even though my soul violently rebels against his deism.
James Canning says: April 12, 2011 at 7:26 pm
You are entitled to your opinion.
The Western Civilization is a godless one which is only less brutal than USSR was. Her new religions are Shoah, Worship of Freedom, and theRule of Law, and Secular Humanism.
The Axis Powers have studiously refused an Afghan settlement with Pakistan as the mediator. They also sabotaged repeated attempts by Egypt and Saudi Arabia to bring the Palestinian factions together.
I have told you before: the Axis Powers are pursuing neither Peace nor stability in the Lands of Islam.
I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the best course for Muslim polities is to ignore Axis Powers.
Iran, Syria, Sudan have been doing this for years, Saudi Arabia has joined them too. At least now Iran and Saudi Arabia have this in common; no faith in policy perscription of the Axis Powers.
US troops: ‘From Libya to Iran’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/us-troops-from-libya-to-iran/
firoangela,
wow, thank you. you wrote “For Israel, perpetual war is not “rational;” little about zionism is rational. Perpetual war is a major strand of Israeli identity DNA.”
With such a long and rich history, one would think there are a multitude of strands of the Jewish identity the Israelis could draw upon to forge an identity more conducive to co-existence. I don’t buy this perpetual war bs.
Photi wrote: “From a rational perspective, is the Perpetual War in Israel’s best interest?”
Perpetual war is in Israel’s DNA; it’s an essential strand of zionist identity: the “new Jew” is muscular, bold, not pushed around. Vladimir Jabotinsky had very little knowledge of or appreciation for Judaism; it was not part of his upbringing in Odessa. According to Jabotinsky’s friend and biographer, J Schechtman, Jabotinsky’s “spiritual center” was formed in Rome, where young Vladimir thrilled to the masculine, aggressive perpetual struggle ideology of Mussolini.
Herzl’s Der Judenstaat ends with the clarion call, “Maccabees will live again!” Zionism is Jewry with its head turned perpetually backward, smarting over the defeat a minority of dunderheaded rebels suffered at the hands of the Roman army nearly 2000 years ago.
By constantly telling the world how smart Jews are, a veil is cast over the fact that the founders of zionism were mostly very poorly educated, psychologically unstable losers. And by constantly distracting the world with the conceit that Jews have been “persecuted” for 1- 2- 3- 4-thousand years, and have been “unique in all the world” in that they have been a nation without a land,” the authentic history –part of which Shlomo Sand revealed in “Invention of the Jewish People,” is that Jews have always lived in Palestine. What Jews have demonstrated over their 2000 years of post-Christ history is their inability to successfully form a state and govern themselves.
The history of the Jewish people, from the time of Joseph to the present day animosity between Likudnik Jews who dominate Israel and persons such as Judge Goldstone, clearly shows a pattern of internecine hostility that is carried out on other people’s lands, spending other people’s blood and treasure.
For Israel, perpetual war is not “rational;” little about zionism is rational. Perpetual war is a major strand of Israeli identity DNA.
So the problem then is that too many powerful people in Israel feel the perpetual war is in their best interests.
From a rational perspective, is the Perpetual War in Israel’s best interest?
Maybe the answer to this question is time dependent. What may have been true in 1960 may not be true now. Could the Perpetual War have been needed (from Israel’s point of view) in the 1960s but be severely outdated now? Just the fact that we have to have this conversation is chilling.
I mean come on, who does not want peace?
James,
Do you still find Hague brilliant, or well, more on the idiot side?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jxHGDbLB9ARGqi31F-y1jpNIRIGA?docId=CNG.9c5e7c22c603a45f186361b881bf9d3f.5f1
British Foreign Secretary William Hague said on the sidelines of a meeting of European Union foreign ministers that the 27-nation bloc wanted to hit back at the “appalling human rights record of Iran.”
fyi,
Europe and North America are both Christian. Not “post-Christian”. Even if most people are unwilling to be led around by the nose by priests or ministers.
fyi,
The religion or quasi-religion of the Soviet Union, that the USSR hoped to impose on Afghanistan, was communism. Not that the effort there matched what was done in Eastern Europe after the Second World War.
I think you are wrapped up in notions of religion to a degree that is peculiar viewed from a “western” point of view. Irans wants justice for the Palestinians even if most Palestinian Muslims are Sunni rather than Shia.
Surely you are not suggesting that the military intervention in Libya had anything to do with seeking to injure “Islam”.
James Canning says: April 12, 2011 at 6:02 pm
We could quibble, but the Axis Powers and USSR are 2 non-Muslim political forces that invaded Afghanistan and stayed on in pursuit of dubious geostrategic gains. And both derived from a Christain Civilization in its post-Christian phase; one more brutal than the other.
I pose the question (rhetorically): When will these non-Muslim states leave the Lands of Islam?
James Canning says: April 12, 2011 at 5:52 pm
You are ignoring that with the collapse of Peace of Yalta, we have entered a new age in which the Axis Powers tried to reach (some would say over-reach) the strategic heights of the Internationa Arena.
In regards to Suez, that just demonstrates the centrality of US to the EU states.
If I am correct, the Iran-Axis stand-off will not be altered until Axis Powers accept certain facts about the current strategic situation.
But they won’t and your assertions to the contrary; the War in Palestine as well as the Long War against Islamic Iran will continue. They have become part of the same war.
Which means that the time for incrementalism and confidence-building measures is over.
The stand-off on the Korean Penninsula is the model for suspending the War in Palestine as well as the Long War against Islamic Iran.
Again, if there are concrete and contemporary actions that EU states are taking to ameliorate the stand-off against Iran, please do tell us.
Perhaps I am ignorant of the facts.
[By 2025, 45 % of world production will be by the Asian states. The Axis powers, together, would count for 28 %.
If I were them, I would end their various wars in and with Islam immediately.]
fyi,
Yes, rich Jews in the US, and other “supporters” of Israel right or wrong in the US, are able to bring pressure on Germany, or Italy, or the UK . . . However, they cannot control the foreign policy of those countries. Even though they clearly try to do so.
I still fail to see a “clash of civilisations”. The USSR did not invade Afganistan to enlarge the sphere of the Russian Orthodox church. The Soviet Union was concerned about the spread of subversion in Central Asia, emanating from Afghanistan in the guise of religion. Russia still has this problem, in the North Caucasus.
The invasion of Iraq owed a great deal to fanatical Jewish “supporters” of Israel right or wrong, who took control of the machinery in Washington to set up and prosecute an illegal war on knowingly false pretenses. This colossal crime has been protected by major American news organisations.
fyi,
You seem to have forgotten that the US forced the UK and France out of the Suez in 1956, doing considerable injury to both countries.
I still have seen nothing to indicate the US sought the dissolution of Yugoslavia. What would be the reason?
Yes, fanatical Zionists, idiot neocons, other warmongering Jews and crazed “supporters” of Israel would like to see Iran badly injured. However, I think most Europeans favor a prosperous Iran, living in peace with its neighbors.
Latest poll in the US has majority of American people supporting independent Palestine with 1967 borders.
Unknown Unknowns, you wrote:
“Or the Constitution and more particularly, the Bill of Rights.”
Definitely. The concoction of the American Constitutional Republic and Bill of Rights were works of unique genius and courage by men (and women backstage) who “pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor,” frequently at the cost of the wellbeing of their own families and children (in the case of John Adams, for example). Americans are told that we must remain engaged in wars because to break off warring would disrespect the lives already lost, but they don’t apply that same logic to respecting the sacrifice and efforts of the Founding Fathers.
“Or Andrew Jackson’s success against the bankers’ efforts to privatize the Fed, which lasted well-nigh a century (1824? to 1913, when that Creature crawled out of Jeckyl Island).”
Ah, yes, that’s when it started to start to fall apart. Zionism carved its first toehold in the American Republic on Jekyll Island. A few days ago, I posted the link to Senator Max Baucus’s total capitulation of the American Department of Treasury to zionists. Cicero dedicated his consulship to fending off Catalina’s schemes to eviscerate the Roman Republic (Catalina was motivated by a particularist, mythic ideology: descended from Founders of Rome, Catalina believed it was his god-given right to reclaim rule of Rome by his tribe). Cicero was successful in the short-term, but for his pains, the Republic executed him, mutilated his body and hung his body parts in several cities in the Roman republic as a warning against others who might presume to challenge the powers that be. Baucus is more Catalina than Cicero.
“It is just that all of these achievements, being adumbrations of one sort or another of the Enlightenment project, and thus not being solidly grounded in Revelation or Tradition (actually being radical departures therefrom),”
I disagree with the implication that at its inception the US Constitutional Republic was an “Enlightenment project
and thus not being[that was not] solidly grounded in Revelation or Tradition (actually being radical departures therefrom).”** Italian former Senator Marcello Pera discusses with an audience at the US Library of Congress that included US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia the correspondence between Italian jurist Gaetano Filangieri and Benjamin Franklin. Pera briefly traces the logic of a philosophical problem with which both Franklin and Filangieri grappled, using the latter’s 1780 thesis on “When can a law be said to be a good law?” Filangieri begins by defining the two kinds of goodness: “A law is absolutely good when it is in agreement with the ‘universal principles of morality common to all nations and all governments. A law is relatively good if it agrees with the historical, environmental, cultural, religious, etc. circumstances of the people whom it addresses.” Thus, if a law is NOT absolute good, then that law is illegitimate. . . .If it is not RELATIVELY good, that law is not useful and perhaps it is harmful.”
Pera goes on to explain that Filangieri, though not a political scientist, sought to provide a philosophy of governing for rulers. In this pursuit, Filangieri asked two questions; first: “What are the principles of absolute goodness rulers should abide by?” and second, “How can the principles of absolute goodness be known?”
Pera explains Filangieri’s answers:
“The first question is answered by the natural rights tradition as passed down by John Locke and the drafters of the United States Declaration of Independence; . . . there are universal moral principles ‘natural right contains the immutable principles of eternal justice in every case. . . .These principles are of divine origin.’ As Filangieri remarks, ‘They are neither the result of the ambiguous maxims of moralists**** nor the useless . . .meditations of the philosopher; they are the dictates of universal reason and of that moral court which the author of nature has imprinted on the heart of every individual of the human race.”
Filangieri makes two further statements: “That universal moral principles of absolute goodness are understandable by everyone according to his own reason. ‘The savage . . .is as aware as Locke that he has no right to the beast killed at a distance in the chase by one of his tribe.’ ”
Jefferson learned Hebrew so that he could analyze the religious writing of Judaism, “Mohammedans,” and Christianity, and, in anticipation of the literary criticism movement in Germany that examined Napoleonic-era discoveries in Egypt to extricate the human character of Jesus from the layers of politics and mysticism that became canonized as New Testament, Jefferson cut away the chaff like Michelangelo released David from a block of marble, and produced the Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth***. Jefferson considered the god of Judaism to be wanting, in part because that god did not dispense universal justice and blessing but was a god of particularities. As Filangieri wrote, “universal moral principles” are the sine qua non of “eternal justice” and good law, from which follows good governance.
The existence of zionist Israel as the exclusivist and particular, god-ordained homeland of the JEWISH people, by definition, makes of the god of the Jews an exclusivist and particular god, not a universal creator god.
“could not last, just as a ship not firmly anchored at sea, is bound to capsize at the first maelstrom.”
Since I disagree with your statement that the American Constitutional Republic was tied only to the principles of the Enlightenment and not to Revelation, it follows that I disagree that the ship “capsized” because it was not firmly anchored.” I assert that the ship was hijacked by an a-religious political movement that based its ideology on a mythic narrative — the mythic elements of the Old Testament that elides and disdains the transformative ethical force of the Old Testament prophets, in preference for a propagandized dishonest historiography disseminated by means of idolized wealth creation and deployment.
Discussion of how zionists deliberately set out to “de-Christianize” the US is the topic of another comment.
** after spending 90 minutes transcribing Sen. Pera’s speech, I found this transcript, from Hudson Institute, of all places: :http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/Pera%20Filangieri.pdf
*** :http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefJesu.html For many years the family of the late Senator Frank Church presented a copy of Jefferson’s comopilation of “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” to each new member of the Senate, but that practice was discontinued; it was considered an affront to the separation of church and state.
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Church Ironically, Sen. Frank Church was from Idaho, as is one of the signatories to the infamous letter that Kathleen mentioned earlier. Sadly, Mr. Risch is a Roman Catholic who should know better and act more courageously.
**** In his comments before a House Committee on Sept. 12, 2002, Benjamin Netanyahu declared most firmly, “I am a Kantian.”
James Canning says: April 12, 2011 at 5:00 pm
The destruction of Yugoslavia was joint US-EU project.
It was, however, concieved by US leaders.
Without US, there would not have been any effort by EU, in my opinion, to destory Yugoslavia.
The template for Yugoslavia was to be applied to both Iraq and Iran.
In the destruction of Iraq, the Axis Powers experienced their first division since the collapse of Peace of Yalta.
France, Germany, Italy broke ranks with the policy of US, the central pillar of their alliance and it core.
Spain, UK, Poland and a number of others joined US.
The divisions were healed after it was realized that the destruction of Iraq had enhanced Iranian power.
On the desirability of a weak Iran there had been a virtual unanimity among the EU states and with US.
Thus, the Axis Powers regrouped and began to wage their Long War against Islamic Iran. Since 2003, the non-Military portion of this war has only escalated.
These are quite clear based on public pronouncements and actions of the Axis Powers – united against Islamic Iran or any other state that opposes their fantasy and squalid projects all over the world and aspires to an independent policy.
Now, you negate all of these empirical observation by mere assertions.
US has beaten EU states into line; for EU states have no place else to go and are incapable of independent policy. Even their intelligence services is reliant, to a very large extent, on US help.
They have to toe the line of the primary power of their alliance; the United States. It is for this reason that I call EU+US the Axis Powers; EU states revolve around a central power called the United States.
In regards to Clash of Civilizations:
31 years ago, Russian (Eastern Orthodox Christians) invaded Afghansiatan and stayed for 10 years.
10 years ago, US & her allies (Assorted Western Christians) invaded Afghanistan and stayed on and on and on.
In the meantime, tens of millions of largely Sunni Muslims have come to view the Axis Powers as pursuing a policy of destroying Islam.
Pakistan is a good example; Punjabis now take it as a fact that US wants to destroy Islam.
And if you do not believe me ask others who have been there.
Individual Muslims, however small in number, have concluded that the Axis Powers are indeed at war with Islam and are acting on that belief.
Very many people in the United States and EU states also believe that they are at war with Islam.
A man may have read about the events at Harper’s Ferry and dismissed it as a local and localizable act of a group of deranged men. Such a person, would have had no inlkling of the much larger war to come in a few more years.
Osama bin Ladin, by attacking the United States, performed, in my opinion, the role of John Brown.
The Axis Powers are at war in Iraq, in Libya, in Afghanistan, in Palestine, in Somalia, in Yemen, and in Pakistan.
They seem to have plans for a war with Iran as well at a moment’s notice.
If you do not consider this Clash of Civilizations, then perhaps you can state why.
I am personally an advocate of Peace and Tranquility with an attitute of amused tolerance towards other people on this planet.
But I am clearly a minority.
Here is a new Joke about Ahmadinijad that is circuling around
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not feeling well and concerned about his mortality,
goes to consult a Psychic about the date of his death.
Closing her eyes and silently reaching into the realm of the future she finds
the answer: “You will die on a Jewish holiday.”
“Which one?’” Ahmadinejad asks nervously.
“It doesn’t matter,” replied the psychic. “Whenever you die, it’ll be a Jewish holiday.”
fyi,
I think you make a mistake to assume that the power of rich Jews in the US, to control the US Congress, translates into power of those Jews (and allied warmongers/imperial America advocates, etc) to control foreign policy of Germany, Italy, etc. Why all this talk of “Axis Powers”? Not just a bit preposterous? And “clash of civilisations”! Good grief.
James Canning says: April 12, 2011 at 1:50 pm
You seem to be suggesting that you are a better judge of the interests of the American people than their freely elected representatives that have, over 3 generations, pursued similar policies.
That is how representative government is supposed to work.
Now, you are also positing that the political process in US is corrupt excuse the choices of the American people over 3 generations.
Either way, corruption or free choice, the strategic ramifications for Iran are quite clear:
1. No stable deals with Axis Powers are possible.
2. Under the current circumstance, Iran must endevour to play a spoiler role to wreck the Axis Powers policies as much as possible; even if those could be useful to Iran (in a marginal way)
3. Iran must do all she can to eject the Axis Powers from among the Middle Eastern states.
fyi,
Earth of fyi: where do you get the idea the US Congress pursues the best interests of the American people? This is transparently untrue in matters pertaining to Israel/Palestine. Why? The Jews have the money, and money talks in American politics. US national interest scarcely enters the discussion.
Rehmat,
Yes, the ISRAEL LOBBY will prevent UNSC action favorable to Palestine, but the UN itself will very likely recognise Palestine’s independence this year. Situation v. different from North Cyprus which is recognised by almost no countries.
James Canning says: April 12, 2011 at 1:46 pm
The American people are pursuing their true interests by electing their representatives who sit in Congress of the United States.
The Congress of the United States, freely elected by the people of the United States, and in conjunction with the President of the United States, are pursuing the best interests of the People of the United States.
These interests include the destruction of states with aspiration to independent power in areas of the world that military officials of the United States have determined to be crucial to the United States.
These interests of the American people, supported and pursued through 3 generations of free elections, is uncritical support for the State of Israel, her dperadations against Arabs, and her theft of land.
One must face facts, making assertions are not conducive to understanding.
My understanding, based on such facts as I have surmised, leads me to expect perpetual confronation between Axis Powers and Islamic Iran and a continued (religious) war in Palestine.
fyi,
On Afghanistan, Iran correctly sees the western military adventure there will likely be over within several more years. There may be foolish US efforts to keep military bases in the country.
On Palestine, US should be pushing Saudi peace plan. But ISRAEL LOBBY controls US Congress, so progress on Israel/Palestine has to be achieved by the UK, France, Germany et al. US will have to follow.
In desperation to hide its future military crimes against the next Free Gaza flotilla II, which is scheduled to sail to Gaza to mark the first anniversary of May 31, 2011 Israeli massacre at international waters, invasion of Gaza or carpet-bombing of Lebanon – the Zionisty is working on a new plan to hide its crimes by preparing faked pictures of its Jewish soldiers in action.
According to The Washington Post, in the future military actions, the Jewish soldiers will be carrying cameras in addition to their normal high-tech US-supplied gears.
“Reeling from war crimes accusations during a major offensive against Hamas-ruled Gaza more than two years ago, the Israeli military is studying the wide distribution of cameras as a tool to make its case to the world,” reported the newspaper.
In other word, the photos taken by the Jewish soldiers will be ‘fixed’ in military studios to prove that flotilla II was not carrying humanitarian aid on board but Iranian rockets and missile for the Islamic resistance, Hamas, governing the Gaza Strip or the victims of Jewish vengeance in Gaza or Lebanon were in fact combatant soldiers and not civilians.
Even the newspaper had admitted: “Critics said the military would never be able to prove such images weren’t edited”.
The Israeli military has long recognized the importance of PR in modern warfare and has a strong online presence in social networks such as Twitter, YouTube and Flickr.
Jewish army’s image was badly battered by its 23-day Operation Cast Lead against the 1.5 million Natives inside tiny Gaza Strip. About 1,400 Gazans, mostly women and children were killed by Jewish army along with 13 Israelis.
Lately, the Zionist regime has come to conclusion that with the exception of the West, it has been totally isolated from the rest of world community. Not, only Washington is hesitant to take military action against the Islamic Republic – even the double agent, the West Bank President, Mahmoud Abbas intends to announce the creation of an independent Palestinian state within 1967 borders (West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem). Anyone who has been following the US-Israel love affair would know that the new state will never see the floor of UN Security Council, even though it’s already been recognized by over 100 members of United Nations. The New state will most probably end-up like the other Muslim-majority state – Turkish Cyprus.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/israel-how-to-hide-next-war-crime/
fyi,
On Iraq, if US pulls all troops out and closes all bases, there should be no problem with Iran.
Re;Persian Gulf, Iran’s 2002 proposal to US did not require ending US military presence there. I of course agree it is too large.
I think it is important to distinguish between interests of the American people, and desires of warmongering Zionists who have excessive control over Washington’s ME policies.
James Canning says: April 12, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Mission Control:
Earth to James Canning, Earth to James Canning!
Come in James, come in James!
HAMAS Hudna, in my opinion, is the only way forward at this time.
James Canning says: April 12, 2011 at 1:01 pm
On Palestine, on Afghanistan, on the Persian Gulf, on nuclear technology Iran and US have profoundly different opinions and policies.
These difference cannot be abridged.
If you think they can, please elaborate on basis of doable actions – rather than day dreams.
Americans who assert that those political differences of Iran and US are not amenable to resolution are correct as well; in my opinion.
The fact is, even war will not resolve them.
On Palestine, US will continue to support the Jewish Fantasists to the hilt.
Can the Islamic Republic of Iran now discard taking the side of Muslims in their struggle against Jewish Fantasists to please Protestant Christains in US?
I think not.
That Americans are willing to spend “trillions of dollars” on the realization of their grand strategy on the one hand and the fantasy project of Jews in Palestine on the other; that is clearly their choice. They have a right to be wrong and spend until they have nothing left to spend.
May be then US will be amenable to reasonable deals with Iran.
But not until then.
fyi,
The 2002 Saudi peace plan was as concrete as the situation admits. It was a work of art in my view and it remains the best way forward. Key element is international recognition of Palestine as independent with 1967 borders. This approach is very much supported by William Hague and the UK.
Kathleen,
Bravo. Yes, it is astonishing how aggessive Jews are, in the US Congress, in encouraging war crimes by Israel against the Palestinians.
James Canning says: April 12, 2011 at 12:56 pm
The 2002 Saudi Peace Plan was just a vision; it was not concrete and was short in specifics.
And it was at least 5 years too late.
Axis Powers cannot bring Peace to Palestine.
Quartet cannot bring Peace to Palestine.
That game is over.
Israelis have 2 choices: HAMAS Hudna Offer or perpetual low intensity war.
Axis Powers are opposed to first but are willing to support the second.
Fiorangela,
Where in Italy did your grandparents come from? Italy took Tripolitania and Cyrenaica from the Ottoman Empire in 1911 (together with Rhodes and other Aegean islands). Italian settlers tended to favor Tripolitania. Italy was deprived of Libya in 1947. The USSR tried to get a UN mandate for the country.
“It did not because delusional neocons thought they had the means to f*ck the Palestinians and give the Israelis even more stolen land, water etc etc. And of course, “liberal interventionists” in the US helped the neocons to think US power could be employed to enable permament denial of national rights of the Palestinians”
And the illegal settlements just keep being expanded.
Check this out
Senate letter calls Goldstone Report a ‘libel’ of Israel
by Philip Weiss on April 11, 2011
Legislation is circulating in Congress to press the U.N. to rescind the Goldstone Report. Here’s the letter from New York Dem Kirsten Gillibrand and Idaho Republican James Risch. Remove the libel, they say. Eliot Engel calls the whole Report a lie. Sort of reminds me of Lady Macbeth saying, Out damn spot. When Israel slaughtered more than 300 children in Gaza.
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/04/senate-letter-calls-goldstone-report-a-libel-of-israel.html
Dear Fior:I’m more proud of my Grandfather than I am of my mother country.
I think there is a lot of achievements that Americans can be proud of. The emancipation declaration, for example; or, the achievements of the civil rights movement, hwich is being dessicated one strand at a time. Or the Constitution and more particularly, the Bill of Rights. Or Andrew Jackson’s success against the bankers’ efforts to privatize the Fed, which lasted well-nigh a century (1824? to 1913, when that Creature crawled out of Jeckyl Island). It is just that all of these achievements, being adumbrations of one sort or another of the Enlightenment project, and thus not being solidly grounded in Revelation or Tradition (actually being radical departures therefrom), could not last, just as a ship not firmly anchored at sea, is bound to capsize at the first maelstrom. That Maelstrom is the military-industrial-congressional-media syndrome, which, like Frankenstein or the creations of the Sorcerror’s Apprentice, has grown out of the control of the forces that gave birth to it. Science and commerce, when severed from the divine pole that must act as its guiding light, that must act to give it direction and to tame it, becomes science for science’s sake and not science in the service of God, or in the service of Mankind acting as God’s viceregent on Earth. Similarly, commerce for the sake of accumulation of wealth for its own sake (takathur) becomes another highly corrosive and toxic pathology or neurosis, the cure for which is to realign its compass to serve the needs and succor the Sacred Community. It is difficult enough to do this in the absence of the Occulted Imam (may God hasten his return), even when one has been blessed with the benefit of a charismatic and visionary warrior such as Imam Khomeini. It is well-nigh impossible to do so when the community ni question has rejected the Ministry of the Seal of the Prophets (with whom and upon whose purified family and righteous companions be the peace and blessings of God).
This last in response to your most profound closing question: How does a nation recover from moral bankruptcy? In a word: prayer.
fyi,
I think you are well wide of the mark when you argue that normal relations between Iran and the EU/US are impossible. Even approaching delusion. And it is a line of argument promoted by the neocons! Why would you in effect play their game and foster their insane effort to crush Palestinian national resistance, no matter how many trillions of dollars it costs the American taxpayers?
fyi,
The US should have backed strongly the 2002 Saudi peace plan. It did not because delusional neocons thought they had the means to f*ck the Palestinians and give the Israelis even more stolen land, water etc etc. And of course, “liberal interventionists” in the US helped the neocons to think US power could be employed to enable permament denial of national rights of the Palestinians. Because the Jews given as much money to national political candidates in the US, as almost every other group combined, Jews have greatly disproportional political power in the US. So, while US “has no dog in the fight” re: Israel/Palestine, the Israel lobby does its best to prevent a fair resolution of the problem. And numerous stooges of the Israel lobby in the US Congress aid and abet this insane effort.
fyi, Photi,
European civilisation incorporated substantial amounts of Islamic culture, much of which had been taken by “Islam” from ancient Rome and Greece. And Islamic civilisation has taken in much from European civilisation. This is only to be expected.
I of course think the notion of a “clash of civilisations” is nearly total rubbish.
fyi,
“There are many civilizations on Earth, one of them is the Western Civilization and the other one is the Muslim Civilization. The war in Palestine is a distraction for both.”
I think you underestimate the extent to which the conflict in Palestine resonates in the popular imagination of the Muslim youth. With education comes knowledge and with knowledge comes power. The power asymmetry of the ‘axis powers’ will not be around forever. The time for a favorable peace is now.
Rd. says: April 12, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Neither the Iranian people nor most of their leaders, to my knowledge, have the expanded vision that I have alluded to. Their vision is too Iran-centric and the concept of Opportunity Loss is something that very many Iranians cannot grasp.
You can see that in the manner that Afghans have been treated in Iran.
I have been unaware of the extent of poverty in Azerbaijan (really Aran and Naxchevan) Republic.
Photi says: April 12, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Israelis know what they need to do to get peace.
They are not interested since their aim, to this day, is the theft of Palestinian lands.
The war with Islam is a managable problem for them for 2 reasons: their power asymmetry and the perpetual support of teh Axis Powers.
There are many civilizations on Earth, one of them is the Western Civilization and the other one is the Muslim Civilization. The war in Palestine is a distraction for both.
Certainly the United States has no dog in that war.
fyi says:
“Iranians will have to position themselves to generate enough jobs and economic development not just for themselves but for Pakistan, for Turkey, for Afghanistan, and for Uzbekistan. This must be considered the historical opportunity as well as the task for Iran. This is essential for security of Iran.”
You can add Azarbayjan to that as well.. more demo in Azari towns also. It seems, many azari’s work in Russia, due to lack of opportunities in azarbyjan, not to mention poverty for a small country with a great deal of oil wealth contrary to libya. . Perhaps an IRI’s version of a marshal plan for the NW frontier??
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/2011411112810697612.html
Photi says: April 12, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Muslims must try, in my opinion, to be tolerant of other people’s ideas and opinions, not their evil deeds.
When the Pope quoates an obscure 600-year-old Christian writer to some other Christians, who has made some remarks about Islam, they do not need to get upset. Specially considering that there was nothing offensive in that old writer’s comments about Islam.
There are 2 issues, in my opinion, in the Occupied Territories.
The first issue is the ability of the Christian and Muslim Arabs to live their lives in peace and security in an environment that is devoid of the evil deeds of Jews who are trying to live a fantasy life there.
The second is the Muslim sovereignity over the Al Haram Al Sharif. This is essential for the end of the religious war; in my opinion. I also have heard, from many Jews, that they rather have perpetual war (with Islam) than give that part of Jerusalem.
So, we are in the state that Peace is not possible and cease fire of Hamas is the only peaceful way forward.
In my opinion, in an analogous manner, “Peace” between Axis Powers and Iran is no longer possible either; only cease-fire may be obtained.
And the cease fire between Islamic Iran and the Axis Powers alos crucially depends on the case fire in Palestine.
If Peace is desired, Al Haram Al Sharif must be given back to Muslims.
If perpetual low intensity war against Muslim is desired, then keep Al Haram Al Sharif and pay the price in blood and treasure.
There is no other way.
fyi,
you said “Any diplomatic effort to the end this war must start with the consideration of its religious nature. Israel (and her enablers in the Axis Powers) have dedicated themselves to war against Islam – a loosing proposition.”
As I mentioned in a comment here a couple days ago, all the Grand Rabbis, Priests, Muftis and Ayatollahs need to convene in Istanbul for a Peace conference. Surely a peace can be structured around the Ten Commandments? I am an optimist for the future, there is so much discovery left for humanity to explore. It is time to end this conflict and get on with Civilization.
*oh, and fyi, I was wondering where the American dignity was. I should have been clearer. I identify as American and I identify as Muslim.
Photi says: April 12, 2011 at 9:51 am
What is going on in Palestine is not a civil rights issue in the American sense.
Neither the Israelis (mostly Jews) nor the Arabs (Mostly Muslin now but a few remaining Christians) agree that that they are part of the same polity. There is nothing “Civic” on the ground since neither side considers iteself part of the same “City” as the other side.
Had the Israelis granted the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza citizenship, this war would have ended in 1967.
But now we are in a religious war of Judaism and Islam; which is the salient feature of this war which cannot be ignored – in my opinion.
Any diplomatic effort to the end this war must start with the consideration of its religious nature. Israel (and her enablers in the Axis Powers) have dedicated themselves to war against Islam – a loosing proposition.
fyi,
What exactly about the Occupied Territories are the Muslims supposed to be tolerant of?
Photi says: April 12, 2011 at 11:17 am
The sense of dignity is there among muslims; it is of a personal nature that inheres in them due to Islam.
You can see it in the slums around Ankara; every dwelling, on close inspection, reveals the effort of its occupants to rener the place livable and pleasant. Furthermore, there is an air of security in those slums.
That is to be contrasted with largely the Black slums of US, Brazil, and West Africa in which one fears for one’s life and the slums are what they are; truly no effort has been spent to make the dwellings any better than a temporary shelter.
What is lacking among Muslims, from their top political/military/religious leaders to the man on street, is a sincere belief in the validity of Islam as a guide. The intolerance if Muslims to deviations from Orthopraxis is a sure sign, in my opinion, of their own internal fear that perhaps Islam is wrong.
People who are truly secure in the knowledge of the structure of their beliefs and understanding of the world, will also be the most tolerant. Muslims are not at this time.
They were in the past, more than a millenia ago.
Unknown Unknowns – Thank you for posting Qaddafi’s Ciceronian declaration.
Recently I heard the Italian ambassador to the US speak on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of Italian unification, which coincided with the beginning of the US war on Libya. In his comments, the Italian ambassador remarked on the gratitude he felt that the US had welcomed so many of “Italy’s sons and daughters” from their mother country at a time when Italy was unable to give them the opportunities they found in the US. My parents were two of those “sons and daughters of Italy,” but until I heard the Italian ambassador, I had never thought of myself as a “granddaughter” of Italy, but of course, I am. My Mother came to US with her parents and two brothers because Mussolini was conscripting young men for his campaign to take Ethiopia, and my grandfather did not wish his then-teen-aged sons to be part of that war. Instead, they all relocated to Chicago where they dug ditches and, as my grandfather reminded us, built Chicago’s streets and highways.
Italy had earlier colonized Libya. While under Italian colonial rule, Italians brought their skills in architecture and urban design to Libya; when Italians left Libya, they left behind those works of art, apologized to the Libyan people for the harsh way the natives were treated by the colonizers, and paid reparations to the people of Libya. The Italian people have maintained relations with Libya on a more-or-less peaceful basis ever since; Qaddafi has subtly used colonization-guilt to extract some financial support from Italy, but Italy has also profited from commercial relations with Libya, especially from supplies of Libyan oil.
I’ve always known I was of Italian origin but it really didn’t mean all that much — it was a matter of fate. I have always known that I was an American; that was a matter of good fortune. I recall when I was about 6 years old when we were encouraged to “Trick or Treat for Unicef,” and I held my little orange box in my hand, thought about the poor children who did not live in the US for whom we collected pennies, and wondered how I had come to be so lucky to be an American.
Today I am prouder of those Italians, to whom I have only a distant connection, who de-colonized Libya, than I am of the United States that is now killing Libyans in a dishonest and ignoble project, and in my name.
My Grandfather provided for his family by digging ditches, but my American government provides for its citizens by lying, killing and stealing. I’m more proud of my Grandfather than I am of my mother country.
The United States is in a helluva mess financially, and our legislators frequently urge us to consider the debt we are leaving to our children. I think we Americans have squandered far more than just our children’s financial security; we have squandered their moral integrity. How does a nation recover from moral bankruptcy?
fyi,
in that case i agree. too often those treaties and agreements are used as instruments of oppression towards weaker states. The aggression of the Cold War has carried over in the American mind-set despite that aggression no longer being needed. The Muslims are a Peace loving people. Where’s our dignity?
Israel: ‘Is US too weak to attack Iran?’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/israel-is-us-too-weak-to-attack-iran/
The Civil War: Fort Sumter
It has been 150 years today since the beginning of the American Civil War. Do we still believe in our principles of racial equality?
What is going on in Palestine is very much a civil rights issue. Did the soldiers of the civil war give their lives in vain? Did the slaves on whose backs this country was built give their lives so their descendants could be complicit in the enslavement of yet another people? Our behavior as a nation in Palestine is shameful. The solution is either 1967 borders or a one state model based on racial equality. Peace is in Israel’s hands.
Photi says: April 12, 2011 at 1:00 am
My point was in regards to cooperation based on international treaties and instruments.
The Axis Powers have rendered very many of them worthless.
Links page to some Press TV clips on and about Iran:
http://www.presstv.ir/section/3510506.html
And now for something completely different:
For 40 years, or was it longer,I can’t remember, I did all I could to give people houses, hospitals, schools, and when they were hungry, I gave them food, I even made Benghazi into farmland from the desert, I stood up to attacks from that cowboy Reagan, when he killed my adopted orphaned daughter, he was trying to kill me, instead he killed that poor innocent child, then I helped my brothers and sisters from Africa with money for the African Union, did all I could to help people understand the concept of real democracy, where people’s committees ran our country, but that was never enough, as some told me, even people who had 10 room homes, new suits and furniture, were never satisfied, as selfish as they were they wanted more, and they told Americans and other visitors, they needed “democracy,” and “freedom,” never realizing it was a cut throat system, where the biggest dog eats the rest, but they were enchanted with those words, never realizing that in America, there was no free medicine, no free hospitals, no free housing, no free education and no free food, except when people had to beg or go to long lines to get soup, no, no matter what I did, it was never enough for some, but for others, they knew I was the son of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the only true Arab and Muslim leader we’ve had since Salah’ a’ Deen, when he claimed the Suez Canal for his people, as I claimed Libya, for my people, it was his footsteps I tried to follow, to keep my people free from colonial domination—from thieves who would steal from us—
Now, I am under attack by the biggest force in military history, my little African son, Obama wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our free medicine, our free education, our free food, and replace it with American style thievery, called “capitalism,” but all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the countries, run the world, and the people suffer, so, there is no alternative for me, I must make my stand, and if Allah wishes, I shall die by following his path, the path that has made our country rich with farmland, with food and health, and even allowed us to help our African and Arab brothers and sisters to work here with us, in the Libyan Jammohouriyah,
I do not wish to die, but if it comes to that, to save this land, my people, all the thousands who are all my children, then so be it.
Let this testament be my voice to the world, that I stood up to crusader attacks of NATO, stood up to cruelty, stood up to betrayal, stood up the West and its colonialist ambitions, and that I stood with my African brothers, my true Arab and Muslim brothers, as a beacon of light, when others were building castles, I lived in a modest house, and in a tent, I never forgot my youth in Sirte, I did not spend our national treasury foolishly, and like Salah’a’deen, our great Muslim leader, who rescued Jerusalem for Islam, I took little for myself…
In the West, some have called me “mad,” “crazy,” but they know the truth but continue to lie, they know that our land is independent and free, not in the colonial grip, that my vision, my path, is, and has been clear and for my people and that I will fight to my last breath to keep us free, may Allah almighty help us to remain faithful and free.
c: Col. Mu’ummar Qaddafi, 4.5.11
Copyright Col. Mu’ummar Qaddafi, – professor Sam Hamod – Information Clearing House.
Ahmadinejad seems intent on causing Obama an aneurysm:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/174371.html
Masoud
Eric:
So I wrote this:
No, not directly, but it is my impression that if the US decides that component X is an important bottleneck in Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, and Scientist X is uniquely positioned to help Iran produce it, that the US will have no qualms with attempting to kill Scientist X, and US officials will even effectively brag about it.
Are you asking me which provision of the AP would help the US determine which component would be an important bottleneck in Iran’s nuclear program?
If Zirconium tubes are a potential bottleneck, then disclosing the amount and location of Iran’s Zirconium tubes will inform the US of this, and US efforts to exploit that bottleneck could easily include killing scientists involved in applying these tubes to Iran’s enrichment effort.
I think we can agree that useful information for the US effort to harm Iran’s nuclear program would be provided by the AP.
Oh, not that I would recommend Iran committing the to the AP if this was not the case, but my initial reading of the AP suggested that the US, if it got votes on the board, which it has been able to do, could change the list of required reporting materials after Iran commits to it without Iranian input.
I’ve known that you’re aware of Kuperman’s article. Nothing in it depends on Iran not ratifying the AP. He would write the exact same article if Iran had ratified the AP. My belief is anyone who finds him persuasive today would find him just as persuasive if Iran implemented the AP.
Barack Obama’s official position, as I understand it is that implementing the AP would not change his opposition to Iran’s nuclear program. He, Kuperman, I and maybe you are on the list of people who would not change our positions on US bombing Iran based on Iran’s ratifying the AP. That’s four, John Bolton, Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates can be 5, 6 and 7. The Leveretts can get us to 9. Richard Hack is tenth person whose opinion on bombing Iran would not change if Iran implemented the AP. For all ten, either they now advocate bombing and would still advocate bombing if Iran implemented the AP, or they now oppose bombing and would still oppose bombing if Iran implemented the AP.
Where is one person whose opinion you have reason to believe would change based on Iran implementing the AP?
There are some potentially confusing typos in my previous post. Let me try to correct them.
…
b) The entry into force of the Subsidiary Arrangements pursuant to the Additional Protocol is made explicit, while entry into force of those pursuant to the Safeguards Agreement remain unmentioned. Doesn’t this lend credence to the position that the latter were never meant to enter into force at all?
c)
1) The AP itself states explicitly that a member state can implement the AP temporarily, without it being entered into force at all. I think we have an agreement that this is what Iran actually did.
2) Do you believe that Iran can argue that the revised Code 3.1 was negotiated pursuant to the AP which never itself entered into force, and that therefore, the revised Code 3.1 never entered into force either?
…
Eric,
Thanks very much for the link. I’ve bookmarked it. It’s obvious you put a fair amount of work into it. I’ll take a look at it when I can. When I tried to read it before, I noticed that although it’s relatively brief, it is quite ‘circular’ and doesn’t lend itself to piece-wise digestion. I do plan to read it, but I feel I have to emphasize that I am not exactly in a rush to get there.
I did put a question to you in the last paragraph of my previous post, regarding the political ramifications of legal posturing around the AP that that you haven’t yet addressed. Although it may seem to you that the question is unfair(especially when one takes into consideration that I have not even read the entire AP yet), I think it is a fair and important question, and I’d appreciate seeing you address it(at length, if possible, though I would be happier with a quick yes/no than with silence), even if it is only to say that this is an unfair question(and possibly explain to me why).
You brought up an issue in your latest post which I had also addressed, although I didn’t explicitly seek clarification on your position. Allow me to do so now:
You write:
“In a response to Masoud, I posted a link to the AP, in a Word-formatted document I created to make it easy to search for support for such statement. Please take a look. Let me know which AP provision might enable the US to identify Iranian nuclear scientists (assuming the IAEA illegally leaks Iran’s disclosures to the US, as we both do assume).”
My Question:
Considering we know next to nothing about what means the US uses to gather intelligence in Iran, what it is likely to already know, and therefore what types of information may be useful to it in figuring out just which Iranian Scientists are critical to the Iranian program(or exactly how the US defines “Critical Scientist”), what criteria or methodology can you propose that I keep in mind as I or the the Iranian leadership goes through the AP and evaluates what it information it would be required to reveal, and how such clauses, and subordinate Subsidiary Agreements, which will need to be negotiated, will likely be stretched and what compromises might need to be made, so as to answer the question you have asked of myself and Arnold effectively?
I think if you were able to answer these two questions in a convincing fahsion, it would greatly help me see things your way.
As an aside, if I remember correctly, Subsidiary Arrangements are ratified and enter into force in a much more formal formal manner in the context of the AP than in the context of the Safeguards Agreement.
a) We’ve had a disagreement before over whether the Subsidiary Agreements negotiated pursuant to the Safeguards Agreement constitute treaties. I think there is no contesting the fact that the Subsidiary Agreements under the Additional Protocol are treaties, and I would argue that alone is enough of a danger of ‘obligation creep’ to eschew signing the AP all together. I would appreciate your comments on the differences between the Subsidiary Arrangements under the the Additional Protocol and the those under the Safeguards Agreements.
b) Doesn’t the entry into force of the Subsidiary Arrangements pursuant to the Additional Protocol is made explicit, while entry into force of those pursuant to the Safeguards Agreement remain unmentioned lend credence that the latter were never meant to enter into force at all?
c)
1) The AP itself states explicitly that a member state can implement the a temporarily, without the AP entering into force at all. I think we have an agreement that this is what Iran actually did.
2) Do you believe that Iran can argue that the revised Code 3.1 was negotiated pursuant to the AP which never itself entered into force, and that therefore, the revised Code 3.1 itself never entered into force?
I’m sorry for the length of this post. Kudos if you’ve hung in there this long.
Masoud
fyi,
You said “At the present time, there is no utility in global cooperation for Iran. Iran has nothing to gain from a more efficient management of the. In fact, the more mismanagement in the world, the more opportunities there for states like Iran.”
You make it sound like Iran is not cooperating for the sake of not cooperating. There is a bit more method to their madness than that. The “international” method itself is what is mad.
Is Olli Heininen sorry that he can’t figure out where in Iran, Iran’s centrifuges are built? Why this SOB would need to know where and how Iran manufacture this machines? I don’t know where there are built, and I am not curious to find out at all, I am just happy they can make them good.
Iran touts major advances in nuclear program
“If they can get the new machines performing well, and in large numbers, it will make a big difference,” said Olli Heinonen, a former nuclear safeguards chief for the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency.”
“Heinonen, however, noted that U.N. inspectors never were able to determine how much carbon fiber Iran managed to acquire before international sanctions dried up the market for such advanced materials. The IAEA also knows little about how and where the Iranians are building their new machines, he said.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-touts-major-advances-in-nuclear-program/2011/04/11/AFZ8cxMD_story.html
Clarification of preceding post:
This passage appeared to be my writing, but it was in fact part of what Arnold had written that I inadvertently neglected to trim from what I quoted:
“I believe this would be the impact of Iran implementing the Additional Protocols today. But if I believed there was only a possibility of this happening I would still suggest Iran not implement the additional protocols.”
It is not related to what I was commenting on in Arnold’s post.
Arnold writes:
“The Additional Protocols would give the US a better picture of which [scientist] deaths would cause the most harm to Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, and with that better picture, the US would certainly attempt and might succeed at killing Iranian scientists it chooses.”
In a response to Masoud, I posted a link to the AP, in a Word-formatted document I created to make it easy to search for support for such statement. Please take a look. Let me know which AP provision might enable the US to identify Iranian nuclear scientists (assuming the IAEA illegally leaks Iran’s disclosures to the US, as we both do assume).
I believe this would be the impact of Iran implementing the Additional Protocols today. But if I believed there was only a possibility of this happening I would still suggest Iran not implement the additional protocols.
Arnold writes:
“Question for you: You’re confident that if Iran implements the Additional Protocols that many people would be persuaded to oppose a US attack on Iran. As specifically as you can, which people? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/opinion/24kuperman.html. Here is Alan Kuperman. He advocates bombing Iran in this essay. If Iran implemented the AP, I’m sure you’ll agree Kuperman would still advocate bombing Iran making the same arguments. So who specifically would be persuaded by these arguments but would not be persuaded by these arguments if Iran implemented the AP?”
I don’t know the names of those who’d be impressed to see Iran start disclosing what most other countries disclose about their nuclear program – but I nonetheless remain exceedingly confident that many names would be on that list. As you know, I’m quite familiar with Alan Kuperman’s essay you cite, and I certainly agree he wouldn’t be on the list.
I do think, however, that Dr. Kuperman would be quite disappointed to see Iran disclose more than it does now. Just as many other war-drum beaters like him do, he emphasizes at every opportunity the “What is Iran trying to hide?” argument. He’d be quite disappointed if he could no longer use that argument to support his constant call for war. He’d be concerned that fewer people might find him persuasive.
In other words, you and Dr. Kuperman agree 100% on the question of whether Iran should disclose more about its nuclear program.
Eric A. Brill says:
April 11, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Arnold,
Is it your impression that the Additional Protocols require the identification of nuclear scientists?
No, not directly, but it is my impression that if the US decides that component X is an important bottleneck in Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, and Scientist X is uniquely positioned to help Iran produce it, that the US will have no qualms with attempting to kill Scientist X, and US officials will even effectively brag about it.
The Additional Protocols would give the US a better picture of which deaths would cause the most harm to Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, and with that better picture, the US would certainly attempt and might succeed at killing Iranian scientists it chooses.
I believe this would be the impact of Iran implementing the Additional Protocols today. But if I believed there was only a possibility of this happening I would still suggest Iran not implement the additional protocols.
Question for you:
You’re confident that if Iran implements the Additional Protocols that many people would be persuaded to oppose a US attack on Iran. As specifically as you can, which people?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/opinion/24kuperman.html
Here is Alan Kuperman. He advocates bombing Iran in this essay. If Iran implemented the AP, I’m sure you’ll agree Kuperman would still advocate bombing Iran making the same arguments.
So who specifically would be persuaded by these arguments but would not be persuaded by these arguments if Iran implemented the AP?
kooshy says: April 11, 2011 at 11:03 pm
The Axis Powers and the South and East Asian states are in an economic race to the bottom. This will limit their ability to wage war; economic or otherwise.
Furthermore, the youth unemployment in the Middle East will certainly destablize these polities over the next 3 to 5 years.
Iranians will have to position themselves to generate enough jobs and economic development not just for themselves but for Pakistan, for Turkey, for Afghanistan, and for Uzbekistan. This must be considered the historical opportunity as well as the task for Iran. This is essential for security of Iran.
The international institutions, largely created by US and EU, have been degraded and damaged by these Axis Powers since the collapse of the Peace of Yalta. That means that over the next decade, more states will pursue tactical and nationalistic policies that would benefit them and no one else. That means that the Axis Powers will have their power diminish in equal proportions.
There are significant opportunities for Iran to exploit the dismantling of the post Yalta world.
At the present time, there is no utility in global cooperation for Iran. Iran has nothing to gain from a more efficient management of the. In fact, the more mismanagement in the world, the more opportunities there for states like Iran.
Well said, if it was me I would have ad take your report and shove it.
On daily bases Obama kills more innocent people than any other person on the planet
China tells U.S. to quit as human rights judge
(Reuters) – The United States is beset by violence, racism and torture and has no authority to condemn other governments’ human rights problems, China said on Sunday, countering U.S. criticism of Beijing’s crackdown.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/10/us-china-usa-rights-idUSTRE7382EH20110410
kooshy says: April 11, 2011 at 4:48 pm
This was a triumph of US diplomacy and an astonishing display of Indian obsequiousness to the White Man.
It did not harm Iran; it harmed India politically and diplomatically.
masoud says: April 11, 2011 at 9:26 pm
You are wasting your time.
The late Dr. Mossadeq also made very many cogent arguments that were valid; he was defeated.
Iran is in state of diplomatic/economic/political/covert war with the Axis Powers.
The will of the Axis Powers for this war has to be broken by Iran and her allies.
There is no other way for nobody put a gun to the head of the American and European leaders and forced them to assume their current postures. They chose them freely.
Eric,
I’ll be honest, I have only skimmed the Additional Protocol. And it could be that it is a very reasonably worded document, but I doubt it would make a difference. We aren’t talking about purely legal matters. What we are talking about is how legal issues could be spun in the political arena. Iran’s provisional implementation of the Additional Protocol was explicitly and unmistakably announced to be just that, this stance was re-iterated formally by the EU-3(and I believe the IAEA). Nonetheless, Iran’s decision to stop implementing this protocol was spun as Armageddon itself, and Iran incurred some very heavy political costs while doing so. A reasonable reading of the AP might not lead Iran into any trouble, but any reasonable reading of the NPT and Safeguards agreements would not land Iran into trouble with the UNSC in the first place.
I think you missed the significance of the Stux Net example: per the Safeguards Agreement, the IAEA must only collect and publish as much information as strictly necessary to do it’s job. Neither Iran’s centrifuge configuration or their operating frequencies would fall under this category. But they were duly recorded and reported(with IAEA spies no doubt conveying many more things to US intelligence that don’t get published in the DG’s reports). Disaster nearly ensued. Who would have thought these two pieces of information could have been so maliciously used? Iran shouldn’t sit around trying to figure out all the possible malicious uses of any information that the IAEA demands, it should simply issue a blanket no, unless it is absolutely required to say yes to satisfy demands of the Safeguards Agreements, and avoid ‘obligation creep’ at all costs.(In other words: the best defense is a good offense)
On the US propaganda front, the code 3.1 issue is a perfect example(I know it’s not part of the AP) of a ‘gray area’ that can be abused for the US objective of ‘obligation creep’. The IAEA is demanding to know exactly who designed this bunker and a time line for construction, the decision makers etc… Non of this should be revealed, and none of it will be, but it does allow some die hard Uncle Sam fanatics like our very own Alan to point and say ‘look Iran is violating it’s obligations’ and make a plausible case to the casual follower.
Thanks to Iran’s adherence to a (relatively) minimal reading of it’s obligation, the Code 3.1 issue stands out as the only possibly serious shortcoming the IAEA is able to point to(for anyone who puts a reasonable effort into understanding the legal arguments of both sides). Regardless of how tightly the AP is worded it is my conviction that someone at the US state department would find a way to abuse it, or at least give a plausible impression that they have found a way to abuse it to the casual follower of these issues.
I’ve been planning to read the AP for a while, but to be honest with you my mind is pretty much made up on this matter. When I get around to actually finishing it, I might lob some scenarios your way, but in the meanwhile, do you think you can say, with reasonable confidence that the AP passes the(admittedly stringent) test I have outlined in the previous paragraph?
Masoud
Israel fears its ‘Nakba’ in September 2011
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/israel-fears-its-nakba-in-september-2011/
BibiJon,
Re: Your 5:47 Post,
I don’t know enough about the complex political and legal aspects of UNSC/Iran/IAEA yet I strongly believe Iran never had the intention to produce an atomic bomb.
I read the article of Nuclear Issue in your bibijon.org. Thanks, I learned a lot I didn’t know. I also scanned and read segments of articles in your site. Naturally since, with high probability we have been born, raised and educated in different environments we have ended up, at least on a few sociological subjects, with different world-views.
Regardless…I salute you for NOT going along with the neocons since I strongly believe zealous warmongers are the most dangerous enemies of humanity, harming everyone including themselves.
Masoud,
I think your post made some good points, but what you and a few others have written recently about disclosures required under the Additional Protocol makes me think it might be useful for you to reread what is actually required. After you’ve done so, please consider whether you’d still make the comment quoted below:
“That said, I think Stuxnet is the perfect demonstration as to why it is a bad idea to give out any information at all. If Iran implemented a more austere reading of the NPT, like Brazil does, no one would know that what software Iran used to program the control unit, or what frequencies they were programmed to spin at, or what configurations the cascades were operated in.”
I’ve posted a Word version of the model Additional Protocol on Google Documents, which should be available to everyone (please let me know if not). It contains all sorts of color-coding and formatting that I find helpful. Others may not, but it’s simple enough in Microsoft Word to remove it all.
I hope you find this useful:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DtkVaxa_RvkezDukO-jRg7NtMOPHG6FCo-D_HwC0ijs/edit?hl=en
Arnold,
Is it your impression that the Additional Protocols require the identification of nuclear scientists?
BiBiJon writes “The only slim chance of realizing such a scenario [NFZ in Middle East], I think, is through an effort spear headed by mid east nations, and solidly backed by non-western world powers.”
Well, yes, as a logical possibility, but I’m not sure you’re discussing an historical possibility. That might be might lack of imagination, and I hope it is.
Unknown Unknowns says: April 11, 2011 at 1:30 pm
IMF expects zero growth in Iran during 2011.
The estimate of growth for 2010 was 1 %.
Sudan grew by 5.4 %.
For 2012, growth in Iran is expected to be 3% – according to IMF.
I recommend ‘Interview: Mapping the disappearance of a nation” (Palestine).
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11881.shtml
massoud,
I think the correct approach of Iranian military chiefs is to assess threats, and distinguish between posturing and actual imminent intentions.
The American public has no stomach for another war at this juncture. I share your disappointment that Obama makes so many foolish declarations indicating hostility toward Iran. Even if he is a prisoner of the ISRAEL LOBBY and its numerous stooges in the US Congress.
I of course continue to stress the need to expose the conspiracy that set up the illegal invasion of Iraq and protected the conspirators (and rewarded them), as fully as possible.
James,
I think these threats are fanciful as well. That does not mean they were not made. There are real efforts to materialize these threats: ‘bunker busting nukes’, ‘mini nukes’, ‘tactical nukes’ etc… They can’t get away with it yet in the court of public opinion, but the day they can, they would seriously consider it.
Also significant is that nukes are pretty much useless. The US knows the location of any target it is likely to strike well enough to use much smaller and less expensive munitions, and hardened targets are likely indestructible, even with the use of larger nukes. The only purpose left to nuclear arms is shock and awe. On that note, Fukushima has demonstrated graphically to the US how vulnerable they have made themselves to nuclear retaliation. I suspect a couple of old rusted silkworm missiles, or even some expertly wielded anti tank armaments employed at an installation like Indian Point could spell disaster for a major metropolitan center like New York. Ad-hoc storage sheds are even more vulnerable. Frankly, Al-Qaida is incompetent for not thinking of it yet.
None of this excuses the fact that these threats against Iran were made. If America was anywhere close to a moral society Obama would have been hanging from the handiest tree the afternoon of the day his NPP review was published. The Iranian leadership would be equally guilty if it ignored these extremely serious threats.
masoud,
Senior Iranian generals view an Israel or American attack using nukes as an extremely remote possibility. You should bear in mind Obama has to placate the rabid militarist/neocon Jews who provide the bulk of funding for the Democrats running for Senate and Congressional seats. And placate idiot Republican warmongers as well.
Rehmat,
While there are powerful Jewish/neocon interests who would love to refashion the UK into a smaller version of the US, expecially regarding Israel/Palestine, Ken Livingstone is quite wrong to say the Conservatives have the same policy toward Syria as does the US.
William Hague has made a number of trips to Syria in effort to improve relations and foster stability in the ME. The UK also is active in efforts to protect the architectural and cultural heritage of Syria. Bashar al-Assad’s father-in-law is active on the social scene in the UK. Many Conservatives seek better relations with Syria and try to arrange for Conservative MPs to visit the ME.
The UK led the effort in the UNSC recently, to hold Israel to account for continuing illegal colonies in the WB. The resolution, of course, was foolishly vetoed by the Obama administration.
“Where do you get the idea Iran is threatened with a nuclear attack? From what country?”
For official threats, read Obama’s or Bush’s Nuclear Policy Posture. For less official, but no less officially sanctioned threats, scan the editorials in the Israeli and American news papers of record on any given Sunday.
BiBiJon,
Surely Iran is quite right to oppose all WMD and to seek to strengthen the NPT and to get rid of nukes in the Middle East. But accepting the reality that Israel will not be quick to get rid of its nukes. That said, Israel’s problems are of a sort that cannot be solved with WMD.
Is Maliki becoming a protagonist on the side of Gulf Arab Shi’a? Here’s what he reportedly said at a state dinner with Erdogan:
فسارع المالكي إلى التصدي له بالقول: «تتحدث عن سنّة العراق، وكم نسبتهم؟ 10، 20 في المئة؟ لديهم رئيس برلمان ونائب رئيس مجلس وزراء ونحو ثلث البرلمان. لماذا لا تتحدث عن شيعة البحرين ونسبتهم 80 في المئة، أليس لهم وزن في الحكم؟
http://www.al-akhbar.com/node/8979
There is also talk of a meeting of the Arab League in Baghdad, where Maliki would have ample opportunity to share his views. Should be interesting!
masoud,
Where do you get the idea Iran is threatened with a nuclear attack? From what country? There is essentially zero chance the US would attack Iran with nukes, and it appears unlikely Israel will attack Iran, at least if conditions continue as they are today. And in any even, Israel would not use nukes against Iran. At least, given current conditions.
Irshad, fyi since you previously had raised this question
Oil cos see early end to Iran payment crisis, eye term deals
NEW DELHI: India’s main buyers of Iranian crude-IOC, MRPL, HPCL , Essar and BPCL-are preparing to sign term contracts to import oil, expecting an early resolution of the payment crisis, industry officials said.
State-run Hindustan Petroleum Corp has already finalised a contract to raise Iranian supplies to 3.5 million tonnes in 2011-12 from 3.35 million tonnes last year.
“We are not doing anything illegal,” a company executive said.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/energy/oil-gas/oil-cos-see-early-end-to-iran-payment-crisis-eye-term-deals/articleshow/7953401.cms
Eric A. Brill says:
April 11, 2011 at 3:59 pm
I’d say we do disagree on a lot of important assumptions, so much so that I don’t see much point in trying to reach common ground.
Cool. But if you’re not going to respond to what I actually wrote, I’d ask that a week or month from now you don’t mischaracterize my argument and respond to that. There are people who disagree with your suggestion that Iran unilaterally implement the AP and contrary to how you present the issue sometimes, you don’t have responses to all of our arguments.
Eric, Thanks for your enlightening response, I always highly appreciate your wisdom, impartial analysis and legal expertise.
I noticed at the time of writing the comment I was looking at the issue from a different perspective, something that I should have explained at the start. Since I noticed we have been mostly looking at the subject from different points of view
I also found three are areas in you response that either I do not fully understand or I am not entirely certain it is the optimum way to resolve a simple problem that has intentionally morphed to a complex obstacle by the war party. Their goal being nothing but make the problem look unsolvable, leaving no path but bombs to resolve it.
In coming days whenever I get the time I am going to study your reply carefully and educate myself on the matter further. I’ll let you know if I come up with something worth mentioning.
In the mean time I describe below why and under what conditions I wrote that comment.
Before writing it I saw a few photos of the face and bodies of Iranian soldiers who were subjected to Iraqi Chemical Weapons. I remembered reading books and watching similarly disheartening color photos published by Iranian Army (or IRGC?) describing how the burning of the lungs of men by CW subjects them to slow agonizing death. Earlier I had read about appalling tragedies caused by a-bomb in Japan discovering that the extent of the cruelty of war-obsessed men can have no bounds.
After watching the photos I don’t know why I remembered the great film of “To kill a Mockingbird”. Somehow I figuratively related Iran with that black man. My imagination flew further and envisioned an alternative scenario where the arm of the accused was not paralyzed so, there was nothing to prove the truthfulness of his denial. Yet as I imagined, Peck in the cross examination proved the accuser is a pathological liar. And then to the surprise of all, called a witness, a pretty educated white woman who courageously testified she was attracted to the strong man and had tried repeatedly to seduce him but he had vehemently refused her impassioned attempts on the grounds of morality.
Peck after establishing that the pretty woman is sincere and honest in his closing arguments stresses “you either have to believe the accuser who is known to lie habitually all the time or an honest woman who believes the innocence of the accused”.
Following some more roaming on that fictional journey I wrote the item in question.
Druing reading your response I paused thinking about what “Proving the Negative” could really mean. Relevant or not I remembered the above fanciful journey. I thought maybe in the courts the ill intentions or lack of them in any accusation can never be ‘conclusively proven’ but what if all the relevant events are brought to the fore showing the accused has been in similar situations but has avoided committing the alleged crime?
What I had in mind was asking the experts “bring all the relevant events to the fore”(which at the moment are all unknown to the majority) hoping the stated information could provide if not conclusive, at least convincing evidence Iran ‘can not’ commit the asserted transgression since Iran has been in similar situation in the past and has come out of it clean.
Relevant information are like lights shed on the darkness. Right info always help solve the puzzles.
Don’t you think if the case is properly and skillfully argued in an impartial high quality court it can convince the jury to come up with a no guilty verdict? Or am I because of the influence of the medications I am taking partly or completely off balance?
Arnold,
“I disagree a bunch of places here and feel like this may be the heart of our disagreement. I’m not confident that the US will attack Iran three months or six months after it leaves the NPT. I’m not confident the US or Iran thinks attacking Iran would effectively prevent Iran from building a weapon if Iran chooses to.”
I’d say we do disagree on a lot of important assumptions, so much so that I don’t see much point in trying to reach common ground. I won’t get into all of them, but your second sentence is certainly at the top of the list. We’d disagree about that one even if “months” read “weeks.”
Eric,
“Maybe the US or Israel will figure out a way to sabotage Iran’s zirconium tubes, as they tried to do to Iran’s centrifuges with Stuxnet, but even that requires one to assume that Iran’s nuclear scientists will continue to behave with the same nearly shocking level of sloppiness in computer security matters that made Stuxnet’s limited success possible in the past.”
To be frank, I think a lot of the noise made about Stuxnet is just that–noise. The only victory here is a propaganda victory by the Hawks in trying to convince Americans that their silly stand isn’t in fact hopeless. There is of course, no evidence the attack was successful(e.g. no centrifuges ‘blew up’ as was intended), and every reason to believe that Iranian uranium enrichment continued apace(10% increase in output). There is also every reason to mistrust the sensational media accounts as being completely fanciful, I remember a claim advanced on the blog of one of the regular commentators here that, the Israeli’s had been able to take ‘remote control’ of Bushehr, and that therefore it was unsafe to operate.
That said, I think Stuxnet is the perfect demonstration as to why it is a bad idea to give out any information at all. If Iran implemented a more austere reading of the NPT, like Brazil does, no one would know that what software Iran used to program the control unit, or what frequencies they were programmed to spin at, or what configurations the cascades were operated in. But because of Iran’s good faith in these matters, the IAEA and belligerent parties were able to conspire to an end that could have been catastrophic, in terms of the lives of Iranian scientists, had they been successful. Iran is already allowing the IAEA way too much access.
More importantly, Eric, you make a mistake when you say the most likely targets of possible US strikes will be places like Uranium Mines etc. The most likely targets of US strikes, as should be clearly evident by now, are Iranian scientists. I think the reason you’ve bought into this is because you’ve bought into the idea the the US is genuinely worried about proliferation. I think the Wikileaks documents and various Intelligence estimates should have put this myth to rest. Almost anytime this is discussed or addressed by top policy analysts in the West, the conclusion is the same: Iran has not taken the decision to build a Nuclear Weapon(although an obligatory ‘yet’ is always added). I think this blows a huge hole in your often stated position that Iranian ‘ambiguity’ is dangerous. You’ve now got it from the horse’s mouth that the West knows Iran is being unambiguous about the fact that it is not building Nuclear Weapons.
As the assassinations of Iranian academics illustrates, what the US is concerned about first and foremost Iranian scientific advancement. In general, it sends the wrong message to the region. But the prospect of Iranian advancement in the nuclear filed is particularly problematic for reasons that have nothing to do with the possibility that it would weaponize.
The idea that Iran would brazenly demonstrate all the technologies required to build an arsenal of nuclear tipped ICBMs and go right up to the edge of launching a weaponisation program, but stop short so that it’s activities are limited to purely peaceful purposes, all the while being threatened with a nuclear attack in the most explicit terms and without the protection of the nuclear umbrella of a patron state, is deeply threatening to the logic of the P5′s justification for their perpetual maintenance of their huge atomic arsenals. I think this is one of the main reasons that the US is so much more concerned with the prospect of an Iranian bomb, than it is concerned with the prospect of North Korean or Pakistani arsenals.
James Canning says:
April 11, 2011 at 12:40 pm
“Russia and China both support Iran’s domestic nuclear power programme and oppose any nuclear weapons programme. Both countries support a Middle East free of nukes. Obviously, Israel will not be quick to abandon its nukes. But over time . . .”
James yes indeed. Generally I think we can all agree the nuclear weapons club is not accepting anymore members.
However, mid east is different. Collectively, the oil producing nations crowding the mid east have weapon of Global destruction, oil. And, that is where my comment starts to make any sense.
When, back when, I’d boldly predicted Iran may surprise everybody and sign the AP, I had based it on the nuclear review meeting in NY, no one objected to the demand by that meeting for Israel to sign onto NPT, and Russia going ahead a loading Busheir reactor with fuel hot the heals of the Tehran declaration which made Brazil and Turkey signatories to a document explicitly affirming Iran’s right to enrichment.
Then, I dreamed that, with total disregard to US-EU axis, Iran might re-adopt AP just to give the events additional boost to get to a mideast NFZ.
I was wrong (won’t be the last time), but I still think it is only in that context that Iran would sign AP.
Unknown Unknowns says:
April 11, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Missed you. Welcome back!
Well James, the comment carries through. Even in peace, Israel would still be Israel. As you said below, they would also be richer than their yearly American handouts make them.
Phoi,
Yes of course, rich American Jews would remain rich if peace came to Israel/Palestine. The problem, if one wishes to call it such, is that most American Jews refuse to denounce idiotic American foreign policy toward the Middle East where that policy is supported, whether openly or covertly, by Israel. And Jewish funding is essential for success by Democrats in national elections in the US. So Democrats will not pressure Israel to get out of the Golan Heights and the WB. And many Republicans are delusional militarists, enamored of Israel’s ability to launch a killing machine on short notice.
Arnold Evans says:
April 11, 2011 at 9:55 am
You may find the following first-hand report from Josh Landis of interest: http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/?p=9028
BiBiJon says:
April 11, 2011 at 11:43 am
Just a question. If back in 1986 (think Chernobyl) we had a Soviet citizen as director general of IAEA, would he not step down before people started pointing out his flagrant conflicts of interests?
I imagine someone has already made this point. (I have not been able to follow the conversation for the last three weeks or so). But I would say that if the Japanese drone who heads the IAEA had brought whatever authority he has to bear on the US and Israel after the NYTimes revealed their connection with Stuxnet, perhaps the Screenplay Writer would not have deemed it necessary to add “Nuclear Disaster” to “Earthquake” and “Tsunami”. And the fact that he didn’t and nobody said boo simply demonstrates for those who still have eyes to see, Iran’s contention that the IAEA, like all so-called “international” formations, is but an instrument in the political toolbelt of New Atlantis.
*
By the way, I’ve been doing a lot of walking around Tehran over the holidays. I started taking pictures of Help Wanted signs posted on shop windows. After a while, I stopped walking across the street to take pictures of those on the other side. Eventually I stopped taking pictures of them altogether, as the number must have reached over 100. In streets such as Hafez Street, where office furniture is sold, literally every other shop was hiring. I very much doubt that this is representative of the whole country. But the fact that even ONE such sign exists means that the owner of the business cannot find the help he needs among his and his emploees’s family and friends, and their family and friends, and their fellow co-religionists at the local mosque. Either that, or the business is so busy raking in the money that they don’t have time to let the grapevine do its magic. Either way, these signs, to me, gave the lie to the notion that “the sanctions are working”. What a load of crap.
Also, in case anyone is wondering, the [in my inexpert-yet-nonetheless-humbling opinion, too drastic] increase in gas (and other utility) prices has had a minimal affect on taxi prices. Bus and mini-bus prices remain at 100, 150 and 200 tomans, metro tickets ditto at 150, whereas “savari” (rideshare) taxi minimum pricing now starts at 350, up from 300 before the new year.
James,
Even in peace they could still be rich american jews so i don’t see what their problem is.
paul,
The core issue is Iranian interference in fanatical Zionist efforts to crush Palestinian national resistance in the West Bank (and Gaza).
In 2002, the US and Iran very nearly achieved an agreement restoring normal relations. The agreement acceptable to Iran called for Iran to stop (or try to stop)attacks on Israelis within Israel’s 1967 borders. Israel vetoed the deal because it wanted Iran to stop (or attempt to stop) any attacks on Israel within the Gza Strip or West Bank, in addition to Israel proper).
Photi,
Are you asking what right rich American Jews have to dictate US foreign policy toward the Middle East? It is all about the money, as anyone following US politics would be obliged to agree.
The crazy thing is that a religious Jew and a religious Muslim can carry on an engaging conversation for hours on end when not talking about regional politics. As a Muslim, I just want to emphasize that I do not and most of my brothers and sisters in Faith do not have any existential problems with Jews as Jews. Please, be good to your neighbors. Can we get much more Old Testament than that?
@All
Many details in this article , which I saw for the first time . The same article also appeared today in presstv:
http://www.indymedia-letzebuerg.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74530&Itemid=28
By Hassan Hanizadeh
“”The rise in anti-government protests and mounting political tension in Syria brings to mind the question about who is behind these deadly incidents.
A probe into the root causes of the latest events in Syria show that the revolt is mainly supported by Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The revolt began in the city of Daraa, 120 kilometers south of the capital Damascus and near the border with Jordan. Daraa is the birthplace of Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood, which has close ties to the people in the Syrian city…
…The triangle of Khaddam-Abdullah-Hariri is well-known in the region as their wives are sisters. Khaddam’s entire family enjoys Saudi citizenship and the value investment by his sons, Jamal and Jihad, in Saudi Arabia is estimated at more than USD 3 billion. Therefore, with the start of popular protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Bahrain, the Saudi regime saw an opportunity to drive a wedge between Tehran, Damascus and Beirut axis.”"…
James,
They are obsessed and delusional and should not be in charge of policies that relate to global stability. From where is their impulse to destroy?
Photi,
Israel can be a rich country at peace with its neighbors, within the 1967 borders. Foolish “supporters” of Israel, especially in the US, are needlessly creating significant long-term stability problems by encouraging delusional expansionism.
BiBiJon,
Russia and China both support Iran’s domestic nuclear power programme and oppose any nuclear weapons programme. Both countries support a Middle East free of nukes. Obviously, Israel will not be quick to abandon its nukes. But over time . . .
Castellio says:
April 11, 2011 at 11:49 am
What I mean about “boxed in”, can only be speculation at this point. But, imagine Russia and China threatening technolgy transfer to mid east nations unless Isreal disarmed. Under what circumstances Russia and China will decide to force the issue, I can only speculate.
But, I think speculating on scenarios that have some chance is more productive than engaging in conversations that will go nowhere.
Castellio says:
April 11, 2011 at 11:49 am
Essentially I mean dealing with the US/UK/FRANCE (and whoever they bring along) will never creat an atmosphere where compromises/agreements can be attempted. Therefor, I think, formulating a possible re-adoption of AP by Iran in terms of Western feelings, reactions, etc. is pointless — it’ll never happen anyway.
However, there is a real world outside of the West. There is regional and global imparatives that make a nuclear-free mid east very highly desirable. The only slim chance of realizing such a scenario, I think, is through an effort spear headed by mid east nations, and solidly backed by non-western world powers.
BibiJon,
At what point to governments start flooding the market with “secret cables” in order to re-obscure reality?
Former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, in a recent interview with Iranian Press TV, talked about how the Zionist Lobby controls British foreign polocy towards Islamic Republic, Libya, Syria, Palestine and the rest of the Muslim world.
He said that the neocons have turned UK into a little ZOG America – by waging un-necessary wars, economic bankruptcy and high unemployment.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/livingstone-uk-is-a-small-version-of-us/
BiBiJon, you write: “The conversation in this thread should focus on a regional context for a NFZ in the mid east, with the blessing of Russia, India, and China with a high degree of assurance that Israel will get boxed in and be forced to join NPT.”
It is American, French, U.K and German policy to support a nuclear Israel. What are you talking about…”a high degree of assurance that Israel will get boxed in” ? What does that mean, boxed in? I think what you’re actually saying is that Israel will admit it has nuclear weapons if everyone else in the area promises to be nuclear weapon free. That is, actually, the de facto current status….
Fiorangela says:
April 11, 2011 at 8:39 am
Just a question. If back in 1986 (think Chernobyl) we had a Soviet citizen as director general of IAEA, would he not step down before people started pointing out his flagrant conflicts of interests?
Photi,
The other day there was an article in Haaretz about a wikileak cable saying Isreal in 2005 had decided it did not have the military capacity to attack Iran.
Then, Lara Friedman, the “director of policy and government relations” with Americans for Peace Now, tweeted:” Haaretz WikiLeaks exclusive: Israel ruled out military option on Iran years ago (so what about that Goldberg spin?)”
Jeffery Goldberg (no friend of the Leveretts) in defense of his ‘>50% chance Israel will attck’ opus late last year writes:
===========================
Two questions for Friedman:
1) Does she believe that Israeli defense officials always tell the truth to American officials about their operational planning?
2) Does she believe that Benjamin Netanyahu, who was not prime minister in 2005, has actually ruled out a military strike against Iran?
If she answers “yes” to either of these questions, then she is far more naive about Israeli operations and intentions than one would expect a Peace Now official to be.
===========================
Goldberg’s first question raised a lot of questions as to how allies behave towards one another. Are there other exapmles? e.g. UK or France not always tell the truth about their operational capabilities? Or, do we have a one-of-a-kind relationship with Israel?
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/9619/Egypt/Politics-/Egyptians-protest-at-Israeli-embassy-in-Cairo-foll.aspx
quote from that article about the Israeli embassy protests in Cairo:
“One huge banner read, “15 May: The Third Palestinian Intifada,” in support of the call by Palestinians for an uprising to start on the anniversary of the Nakba (day of catastrophe) that marked the creation of Israel and the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland.”
It looks like the Israelis have just over a month to get their act together. Will they use that time to find peace?
Israel’s behavior is suicidal. It is time for her best friend to intervene before it is too late. As things stand, Americans are enabling Israel’s suicide.
Why should we believe the line that the virus STUXNET was enabled via USB memory stick. This line being put out by the Zionist rag NYT is for propaganda purpose to show that Iranian nuclear program is sloppy, no proper standards and could be a danger for the region. I do not believe this line, I think that there was an agent of CIA/MOSSAD who enabled the virus. I am sure that the person(s) have already been apprehended and have now passed all the information to the security forces that’s why the STUXNET news is coming back into focus.
Woah!
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0411/Syrian-Army-deploys-in-port-city-after-a-violent-weekend/%28page%29/2
Syria admitted for the first time that it is using force to put down protests after nine soldiers were killed in an ambush in the port city of Banias.
Nine soldiers were killed in an ambush?
The first Syrian reports that there was foreign, meaning Jordanian and Saudi support for the protesters were plausible but not supported by reliable evidence. But the democracy protester 20-somethings are not capable of conducting an ambush and killing multiple soldiers. Now there is no doubt that the anti-Syria protest movement has a foreign component that is supported by organized military training and possibly direction.
My guess is that this attack has strengthened the position of the regime. None of the US colonies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait or others would have participated in assisting armed attacks on Syria’s military without at least US prior knowledge and more likely US active encouragement. From Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East the complexion of the anti-regime protests would be changed by this to a US-sponsored attack – even if, unlikely, US instruments did not actually set the plan in motion.
Another bad move by the US. Until it becomes true that the US does not value the viability of a politically Jewish state for about six million people over accountable governments for the well over 200 million people in Israel’s region who are not Jewish nearly every action the US takes in the region will weaken the US’ position and strengthen its adversaries.
The attack on Syrian soldiers bought Assad’s regime at least another year, maybe two more than it had before in the race against some domestic power center forming that might be powerful enough to remove him.
Barack Obama could make a powerful and effective step that would bring Syria as well as the US colonies closer to accountable governments, but domestic considerations – the fact that Jewish people, the US’ most wealthy ethnic group, are disproportionately influential in US politics and prioritize the viability of a political majority state for about six million Jews far above any consideration of the hundreds of millions of non-Jews in the region – at least in 2011 make any such step by any US national politician impossible.
It is an unfortunate situation.
AP or not AP, that may well be the Question
Just before the ‘Arab Spring’ there were some solid political steps being taken towards a nuclear free zone (NFZ) for the middle east. The then-president Mubarak was doing most of the heavy lifting to the delight of Iranians in pushing for Israel to sign up for NPT. Although the ‘Arab Spring’ has scuttled that collective regional effort, it did show a realistic pathway/context in which Iran would re-adopt the AP as a shot in the arm for a regional push for a NFZ package.
Within the confines of the utterly dysfunctional US-Iran relationship, it is ludicrous to hope, much less expect, for Iran to volunteer anything. I hate listing litanies, but folks who are not at the receiving end may need occasional reminders. I am not just talking about the 1953 coup, nor just the recent murder of nuclear scientists. We should remind ourselves that Iran received no sympathy for being attacked with Chemical weapons, nor did she get any medals for not responding to Rumsfeld’s buddy, Saddam, in kind. The crew of guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes which shot down Iran Air Flight 655 were all awarded Combat Action Ribbons for completion of their tours in a combat zone. Lustig, the air-warfare coordinator, received the Navy Commendation Medal.
Frankly, having fewer people in the West be suspicious, disdainful, and fuming with hatred of Iran is laudable from a Western progressive perspective, but for policy makers of Iran, sorry to say, it does not even enter into the conversation.
The conversation in this thread should focus on a regional context for a NFZ in the mid east, with the blessing of Russia, India, and China with a high degree of assurance that Israel will get boxed in and be forced to join NPT. There, I foresee a catalyst for Iran re-adopting the AP. If how America would feel about it becomes a factor, then the reginal situation is not ripe for Iran to consider the AP.
Eric wrote, @ 2:19 am:
START QUOTE “I don’t know what he meant by that or, more specifically, exactly how “conventional worm technology” would make its way into Iran’s closed computer network (assuming it’s not snuck into a controller logic board at some Siemens plant in Germany where the controller is manufactured – which I understand is not really a risk).” END QUOTE
Perhaps STUXNET was sneaked into Siemens systems at some point between leaving Germany and arriving in Iran:
““If you look for the weak links in the system,” said one former American official, “this one jumps out.”
Controllers, and the electrical regulators they run, became a focus of sanctions efforts. The trove of State Department cables made public by WikiLeaks describes urgent efforts in April 2009 to stop a shipment of Siemens controllers, contained in 111 boxes at the port of Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. They were headed for Iran, one cable said, and were meant to control “uranium enrichment cascades” — the term for groups of spinning centrifuges.
Subsequent cables showed that the United Arab Emirates blocked the transfer of the Siemens computers across the Strait of Hormuz to Bandar Abbas, a major Iranian port.
Only months later, in June, Stuxnet began to pop up around the globe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?_r=4&pagewanted=3
Eric wrote, @ 2:19 am:
<<>>
Perhaps STUXNET was sneaked into Siemens systems at some point between leaving Germany and arriving in Iran:
““If you look for the weak links in the system,” said one former American official, “this one jumps out.”
Controllers, and the electrical regulators they run, became a focus of sanctions efforts. The trove of State Department cables made public by WikiLeaks describes urgent efforts in April 2009 to stop a shipment of Siemens controllers, contained in 111 boxes at the port of Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. They were headed for Iran, one cable said, and were meant to control “uranium enrichment cascades” — the term for groups of spinning centrifuges.
Subsequent cables showed that the United Arab Emirates blocked the transfer of the Siemens computers across the Strait of Hormuz to Bandar Abbas, a major Iranian port.
Only months later, in June, Stuxnet began to pop up around the globe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?_r=4&pagewanted=3
Eric wrote: “Ralph Langner . . . left unexplained exactly how the Stuxnet virus could have reached Iran’s controller boards if Iran’s nuclear scientists hadn’t plugged USB devices into Iran’s nuclear computer network.”
“. . .if you manipulate the speed of this rotor, you are actually able to crack the rotor and eventually even have the centrifuge explode. What we also saw is that the goal of the attack was really to do it slowly and creepy — obviously in an effort to drive maintenance engineers crazy, that they would not be able to figure this out quickly. . . .
. . . Down there is the gray box, and on the top you see the centrifuges. Now what this thing does is it intercepts the input values from sensors — so for example, from pressure sensors and vibration sensors — and it provides legitimate code, which is still running during the attack, with fake input data. And as a matter of fact, this fake input data is actually prerecorded by Stuxnet. . . .
The idea here is obviously not only to fool the operators in the control room. It actually is much more dangerous and aggressive. The idea is to circumvent a digital safety system. We need digital safety systems where a human operator could not act quick enough. So for example, in a power plant, when your big steam turbine gets too over speed, you must open relief valves within a millisecond. Obviously, this cannot be done by a human operator. So this is where we need digital safety systems. And when they are compromised, then real bad things can happen. Your plant can blow up. And neither your operators nor your safety system will notice it. That’s scary.
But it gets worse. . . . It is generic. And you don’t have — as an attacker — you don’t have to deliver this payload by a USB stick, as we saw it in the case of Stuxnet. You could also use conventional worm technology for spreading. Just spread it as wide as possible. And if you do that, what you end up with is a cyber weapon of mass destruction. That’s the consequence that we have to face.
In a Nov. 17, 2010, before NYTimes and others revealed that US and Israel had created STUXNET, Joe Lieberman’s Senate committee on homeland security held a hearing on cybersecurity, at which Committee member Susan Collins presaged Langner when she said that STUXNET was a “weapon of mass destruction” and “the next 9/11.”
I can’t wrap my head around the fact that the United States and Israel deliberately infected a nuclear facility in Iran with malware, which US Senators acknowledged was “a weapon of mass destruction” that had the known potential to cause the plant to explode, causing a nuclear disaster similar to what is happening in Fukushima –but for the ability of Iranian engineers to manage the sabotage — and a political disaster equivalent to “9/11,” and Americans and Israelis think this is a good thing.
I don’t.
I think it is criminal behavior of the highest magnitude.
Back to Langner: So unfortunately, the biggest number of targets for such attacks are not in the Middle East. They’re in the United States and Europe and in Japan. . . . these are your target-rich environments.
. . .Mossad is involved, but . . . the leading force is not Israel. So the leading force behind that is the cyber superpower. There is only one, and that’s the United States — fortunately, fortunately. Because otherwise, our problems would even be bigger.”
Nevertheless, Israel does have at least some level of control over STUXNET, according to NYTimes:
“Israeli Test on Worm Called Crucial in Iran Nuclear Delay”
:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?_r=4&pagewanted=3
Beginning in Summer 2010 STUXNET attacks were reported in Iran, as well as in other places that used Siemens controls, and while Iranian engineers were able to manage the attack without major damage, other states and nuclear facilities were not.
John Feffer recently reported on high-risk behavior that is characteristic in Japan, including frequent drunkenness, and recklessness in planning and carefully building nuclear facilities. Japanese may have been less competent to counter a STUXNET attack.
:http://www.counterpunch.org/feffer03302011.html
In October 2010 Japanese newspaper the virus was found on 63 computers in Japan.
“As computers that harbor Stuxnet do not operate strangely, the virus can be transferred to a memory stick inadvertently.
According to the security company, the virus is designed to target a German-made program often used in systems managing water, gas and oil pipelines. The program is used at public utilities around the world, including in Japan. “
:http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T101004003493.htm
The Fukushima nuclear plant uses the Siemens program.
An Israeli firm manages security for the Fukushima plant.
:http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-firm-which-secured-japan-nuclear-plant-says-workers-there-putting-their-lives-on-the-line-1.349897
It is possible for STUXNET to have been transmitted to the Fukushima plant via Israeli computers.
back to Langner: “Mossad is involved, but . . . the leading force is not Israel. So the leading force behind that is the cyber superpower. There is only one, and that’s the United States — fortunately, fortunately. Because otherwise, our problems would even be bigger.”
Eric:
I consider the odds of all that happening to be very low. There is no question that making AP-required disclosures would shed more light on Iran’s nuclear program. That’s the point of it, after all. But I don’t think it presents a significant opportunity for mischief, nor much in the way of bomb-targeting opportunities.
I would say we disagree on this, and that Iran’s policy makers act like they are on my side of the disagreement, but you say “significant” opportunity. When hostile forces are assassinating scientists it is reasonable to set the boundary regarding unilateral disclosure of extra information not at the level of “significant” opportunity, but at the level of “any possible” opportunity. Do you disagree with that? Because you seem to agree that there may be ways the US could use the information to hamper Iran’s nuclear program.
Maybe the US or Israel will figure out a way to sabotage Iran’s zirconium tubes, as they tried to do to Iran’s centrifuges with Stuxnet, but even that requires one to assume that Iran’s nuclear scientists will continue to behave with the same nearly shocking level of sloppiness in computer security matters that made Stuxnet’s limited success possible in the past.
I’m disappointed that you’ve bought the “we just left some usb drives laying around and they took them to the facility and plugged them in” story that US or Western intelligence sources told the New York Times. I rolled my eyes when I read that. If it had been true, the US would not have exposed it, in hopes that the US could do it again. You have not read the real way Stuxnet was planted and have no reason to believe Iran’s general computer measures were sloppy. Much more likely, somebody with access was paid or otherwise coerced to insert the worm as directed.
Many of the AP-required disclosures – uranium mine production, for example – would not add much useful information for US bomb-targeters. The US already knows where Iran’s uranium mines are, if they care to bomb them. Other AP-required disclosures – zirconium tubes, for example – involve materials that are easy to move or hide on very short notice (and which Iran may not even possess in the first place).
Iran just unilaterally declaring to the IAEA which means to the US the locations and available quantities of all materials that could be used to make centrifuges would strike me, under the present circumstances as a ridiculously stupid move. Maybe the US already knows some, but it does not have a declaration that its knowledge is complete. And the US is paying for its information rather than Iran gathering it and presenting it.
There would have to be a real benefit and I don’t see that.
I may be missing something, but I’ve never understood this point. If Iran leaves the NPT – regardless of whether it has been observing the AP or not just before it leaves – I am quite confident that the US or Israel, or both, will take some very strong military action long before three months or six months have passed. I agree with you that Iran’s position on the AP will make very little difference, if any, in that situation.
But Iran’s position on the AP will matter quite a bit if Iran does NOT leave the NPT – in other words, if we assume that what is far more likely to happen actually does happen. If Iran starts disclosing everything that most other countries disclose (i.e. including the AP-required disclosures), I anticipate, as you do, that the US nevertheless will continue to demand that Iran disclose more and more, and nevertheless will continue to try to persuade the world that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program and should be attacked before it gets too far down that road. In other words, the US will behave largely the same as it does today.
The very important difference will be that more and more people will become more and more receptive to the US government’s “What is Iran trying to hide?” argument if Iran continues to disclose less about its nuclear program than other most countries do. If, on the other hand, Iran begins matching other countries’ nuclear disclosures, it will be able to respond: “We’re not trying to hide anything. We’re disclosing the same information as everyone else.” Maybe that won’t be good enough for some listeners – and it certainly won’t be good enough for the US government – but I am confident it will be good enough for very many people – enough, I believe, that an unfounded US attack on Iran will be far less likely than appears today.
I disagree a bunch of places here and feel like this may be the heart of our disagreement.
1) I’m not confident that the US will attack Iran three months or six months after it leaves the NPT. I’m not confident the US or Iran thinks attacking Iran would effectively prevent Iran from building a weapon if Iran chooses to.
US generals say publicly repeatedly that attacking Iran’s program would delay but not prevent Iran from acquiring a weapon if Iran chooses to do so. With that being the case the US response to Iran leaving the NPT would depend on other circumstances.
The situation on the ground five years from now will also be significantly different from now in some predictable and some unpredictable ways, and the changes may well make the US less likely to attack Iran under any circumstances.
2) I don’t think there is one person who is receptive to US arguments today who would not be receptive if Iran implemented the AP, unless you are the one person. The bomb Iran articles that we read sometimes would read exactly the same, meaning not one changed word, if Iran was implementing the AP.
Your confidence that it would be persuasive to many people comes from where? This is a specific topic that requires a deeper look.
3) I don’t consider an unfounded US attack on Iran likely today, but if it was, if US generals could tell Obama that they expect an attack to be effective, Obama could easily convince the people of the US that an attack is the right thing to do – Iran implementing the AP would have no, zero, impact on reducing the persuasiveness of a US president in getting the US population to support a military action.
However, not being sure of the locations and quantities of all materials that could support an enrichment program may well reduce the ability of US generals to tell Obama that they expect an attack to be effective. From Iran’s point of view, of course, that is a good thing.
I don’t know, since I don’t know (and suspect you don’t know either) exactly what Japan disclosed pursuant to the AP that it hadn’t been disclosing earlier under its safeguards agreement. Perhaps nothing, in which case I’d have been comforted to learn that Japan had nothing that the AP required it to disclose. Or maybe Japan instead disclosed quite a bit more than it had been disclosing before. I’d have been comforted to learn that too; it might have made me nervous, but I nevertheless would have been glad to find out. And either way, I’d be glad that Japan had agreed to let inspectors come in to verify its AP disclosures.
No, we have some idea of what Japan would be required to disclose that it was not disclosing before. Japan did not have to disclose facilities that did not actively deal with uranium, plutonium or thorium before. Now it does. There’s no perhaps nothing. Japan, like Iran, had nuclear-related facilities all along that did not directly handle safeguarded materials and that therefore were not subject to disclosure.
So now the US (and probably but somewhat less likely China) has a Japan-produced authoritative disclosure of Japan’s support facilities for its nuclear program. I don’t see why that makes you feel better. Japan could not have built a weapon before without leaving the NPT and it can’t build one now. Japan could have built a weapon before if it did leave the NPT and it can build one now.
Of course I would care. If Japan had theretofore been adamantly refusing to observe the AP, and suddenly announced that it would do so, I’d be relieved – especially if, only a few years earlier, Japan had been secretly buying nuclear technology from A.Q. Khan. I understand Iran’s reasons for having done that, just as I might understand Japan’s reasons for having done so in this hypothetical. But I’d nonetheless be quite relieved that Japan had agreed to share more information about its nuclear program.
Why would you be relieved? Japan’s ability to build an actual weapon would not be affected.
In Iran’s case, the US would be relieved to know that Iran is required to disclose all of its materials and facilities, whether they involve uranium or not, that support its enrichment program. The US has an active program of sabotaging Iran’s enrichment program, including by assassinations, so more information, guaranteed reliable, is better for the US in that respect.
My point is that Iran cannot build an actual weapon while under its safeguards agreements and the AP does not directly impact Iran’s ability to leave the NPT and build a weapon then. If you’re confident about Iran not having that ability now, you won’t be more confident after it implements the AP. AP or not, Iran does not have an actual weapon while it is implementing the safeguards agreement.
The AP may impact the US’ ability to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program. Is that what would relieve you?
Eric,
Isn’t there a bit of a dignity issue in regards to the Additional Protocol? If Iran knows in advance that the US is only going to be moving the goal posts once Iran submits, then why entertain the AP to begin with? Why should the US be allowed to have unreasonable expectations? Any self-respecting state knows when they are chasing after a shadow. The Enlightenment was supposed to have brought Reason to the table. If that was the case, the American policy makers wouldn’t have such a problem communicating with the Iranian establishment.
Fiorangela,
I listened to Ralph Langner’s very clear presentation, but he left unexplained exactly how the Stuxnet virus could have reached Iran’s controller boards if Iran’s nuclear scientists hadn’t plugged USB devices into Iran’s nuclear computer network.
He mentioned – without explanation – that, although Stuxnet required such a screw-up (my term, not his), more sophisticated techniques which he suspects are being developed now could use “conventional worm technology.” I don’t know what he meant by that or, more specifically, exactly how “conventional worm technology” would make its way into Iran’s closed computer network (assuming it’s not snuck into a controller logic board at some Siemens plant in Germany where the controller is manufactured – which I understand is not really a risk).
Is it simply unavoidable for Iran to run its “closed” nuclear computer network without connecting it to the Internet is some way or another? If it is not possible to do without an Internet connection, then I agree that there’s probably no practical way to prevent a clever virus from finding its way in. But if it is possible to run the network with no connection to the Internet (as I understand to be the case), and Iranian nuclear scientists can resist the temptation to plug some USB flash memory chip into their computer at work, I’m still at a loss to understand how Stuxnet (or even a more sophisticated virus) could find its way into Iran’s nuclear computer network.
Arnold wrote:
“If you were a Chinese, or North Korean or US strategist and Japan had not implemented the additional protocols, but was implementing its safeguards agreement, and Japan announced that it would begin later to implement the additional protocols, would you care? If so, why?”
Of course I would care. If Japan had theretofore been adamantly refusing to observe the AP, and suddenly announced that it would do so, I’d be relieved – especially if, only a few years earlier, Japan had been secretly buying nuclear technology from A.Q. Khan. I understand Iran’s reasons for having done that, just as I might understand Japan’s reasons for having done so in this hypothetical. But I’d nonetheless be quite relieved that Japan had agreed to share more information about its nuclear program.
Arnold wrote:
“What is it specifically that you can say regarding Japan’s nuclear posture that you could not say before it implemented the AP?”
I don’t know, since I don’t know (and suspect you don’t know either) exactly what Japan disclosed pursuant to the AP that it hadn’t been disclosing earlier under its safeguards agreement. Perhaps nothing, in which case I’d have been comforted to learn that Japan had nothing that the AP required it to disclose. Or maybe Japan instead disclosed quite a bit more than it had been disclosing before. I’d have been comforted to learn that too; it might have made me nervous, but I nevertheless would have been glad to find out. And either way, I’d be glad that Japan had agreed to let inspectors come in to verify its AP disclosures.
Arnold wrote:
“Before Japan implemented the AP, it would not have been able to build a weapon until maybe three, maybe six months after it left or broke its safeguards agreements. Now that Japan implements the AP, it could build a weapon maybe three, maybe six months after it leaves or breaks its safeguards agreements.”
I may be missing something, but I’ve never understood this point. If Iran leaves the NPT – regardless of whether it has been observing the AP or not just before it leaves – I am quite confident that the US or Israel, or both, will take some very strong military action long before three months or six months have passed. I agree with you that Iran’s position on the AP will make very little difference, if any, in that situation.
But Iran’s position on the AP will matter quite a bit if Iran does NOT leave the NPT – in other words, if we assume that what is far more likely to happen actually does happen. If Iran starts disclosing everything that most other countries disclose (i.e. including the AP-required disclosures), I anticipate, as you do, that the US nevertheless will continue to demand that Iran disclose more and more, and nevertheless will continue to try to persuade the world that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program and should be attacked before it gets too far down that road. In other words, the US will behave largely the same as it does today.
The very important difference will be that more and more people will become more and more receptive to the US government’s “What is Iran trying to hide?” argument if Iran continues to disclose less about its nuclear program than other most countries do. If, on the other hand, Iran begins matching other countries’ nuclear disclosures, it will be able to respond: “We’re not trying to hide anything. We’re disclosing the same information as everyone else.” Maybe that won’t be good enough for some listeners – and it certainly won’t be good enough for the US government – but I am confident it will be good enough for very many people – enough, I believe, that an unfounded US attack on Iran will be far less likely than appears today.
I may be wrong, of course – I acknowledge that. But it strikes me as a course of action with a low cost (observing the AP is not really very burdensome) and a very high potential benefit.
Arnold wrote:
“So Eric, what about the people that argue that information in the AP could be used by the US to harm Iran’s nuclear program?”
Indisputably, the less information anyone discloses about anything, the less opportunity exists for the recipient to use the information for some improper purpose. But absent a specific example, it’s difficult even to speculate on whether or how that might occur in this situation.
If the US were ever to attack Iran, of course it would attack nuclear sites. But the most important targets are already well known to the US – enrichment facilities, reactors, and numerous other facilities that Iran already discloses in considerable detail. Even we laymen know where most of these facilities are, and the US intelligence network undoubtedly knows a great deal more than we do.
Many of the AP-required disclosures – uranium mine production, for example – would not add much useful information for US bomb-targeters. The US already knows where Iran’s uranium mines are, if they care to bomb them. Other AP-required disclosures – zirconium tubes, for example – involve materials that are easy to move or hide on very short notice (and which Iran may not even possess in the first place). Maybe the US or Israel will figure out a way to sabotage Iran’s zirconium tubes, as they tried to do to Iran’s centrifuges with Stuxnet, but even that requires one to assume that Iran’s nuclear scientists will continue to behave with the same nearly shocking level of sloppiness in computer security matters that made Stuxnet’s limited success possible in the past.
I consider the odds of all that happening to be very low. There is no question that making AP-required disclosures would shed more light on Iran’s nuclear program. That’s the point of it, after all. But I don’t think it presents a significant opportunity for mischief, nor much in the way of bomb-targeting opportunities. I acknowledge I may be overlooking such an opportunity. But – again – absent a specific example, it’s difficult even to speculate on whether or how that might occur in this situation.
Iran could twist itself into a pretzel to satisfy Obama’s demands; Obama would just come up with more demands. That’s how the game works. Iran appears to be smart enough to know that.
Another question for Eric:
If you were a Chinese, or North Korean or US strategist and Japan had not implemented the additional protocols, but was implementing its safeguards agreement, and Japan announced that it would begin later to implement the additional protocols, would you care? If so, why?
What is it specifically that you can say regarding Japan’s nuclear posture that you could not say before it implemented the AP?
Before Japan implemented the AP, it would not have been able to build a weapon until maybe three, maybe six months after it left or broke its safeguards agreements.
Now that Japan implements the AP, it could build a weapon maybe three, maybe six months after it leaves or breaks its safeguards agreements.
You act like it matters. Why does it matter to you? In Japan’s case.
Failed ‘Qaddafi Project’ and the ‘blowback’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/failed-qaddafi-project-and-the-blowback/
Also Eric, do you think Japan would implement the Additional Protocol if the United States was killing Japanese scientists and imposing sanctions on Japan based on the idea that, contrary to the NPT, Japan must not have technology and material in its domestic possession that would allow it, in theory, to make a weapon?
If under those circumstances, Japan was not implementing the Additional Protocol, I’d describe that as the right decision for Japan. I’m not sure I believe you if you claim you’d find fault with Japan not implementing the Additional Protocol in that situation or that you’d suggest that Japan should unilaterally give the US information beyond its obligations to use in its campaign against Japan’s nuclear program.
Israel has a defense budget of about $15 billion per year. Saudi Arabia has oil revenues of well over $150 billion per year and a population at least 2/3 of whom do not believe there should be a political Jewish majority state.
Israel would not be viable unless Saudi Arabia is ruled against the values of its people in a colonial subservient relationship with the United States.
Unless the United States changes its policy preference so that it does not value the viability of Israel’s Jewish political majority over the accountability of governments in Israel’s region to their people, then the US is unambiguously the enemy or opponent of democracy not only in Saudi Arabia, but by similar arguments in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran and throughout the region.
Sorry – finishing the last poat:
The best thing Obama could do for democracy in Syria would be to denounce the dictatorships in Syria as well as in the US colonies, especially Saudi Arabia and then to announce that the viability of Jewish majority rule for about 6 million Jews in Israel is not more important than political representation for the 21 million people of Syria or the 25 million people of what we now call Saudi Arabia.
Lysander says:
April 10, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Lysander, I fully agree in finding it impossible to support the continued rule of the Syrian regime – I’d add the caveat that the regime could win my support by winning a national electoral contest against opponents with substantial resources and some other basic steps to ensure that the electoral contest is fair.
I argue that the only positive role the US or its colonies, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait and others could play in assisting Syria in attaining a legitimate government would be to adopt a policy that the US, as a matter of principle – prefers democratic states in the Middle East – even if they will be hostile against Israel over dictatorships.
Until the US adopts that policy, the rationale behind 1953 in Iran and the US’ 30 years of support, until the very end, of Mubarak remains, and Assad has a real need to balance political liberty against US efforts to turn Syria into Saudi Arabia or Jordan.
Iran does a better and more legitimate job than Assad does, but one way or another, given the chance, the US would impose a Shah over Syria and Assad, in at least not betraying Syrian values, has a critical national interest in preventing that somehow.
I want to see Assad out, but the US in 2011 does not have a positive role to play for that.
The best thing Obama could do for democracy in Syria would be to denounce the dictatorships in Syria as well as in the US colonies, especially Saudi Arabia and then to announce that the viability of Jewish majority rule for about 6 million Jews in Israel is not more important than political representation for the 21
So Eric, what about the people that argue that information in the AP could be used by the US to harm Iran’s nuclear program?
TIF:
“Read posts by people like Bussed-in-Basiji and tell me how talking to people who don’t want to be talked to is in any way a US-centric realist approach?”
We were talking about the Leveretts, not B-in-B.
I think at this point you’re just flailing about.
Humanist (April 10, 2011 at 11:37 am) AND Eric A. Brill (April 10, 2011 at 12:37 pm)
I agree with Eric that that proving a negative can never be done conclusively to a point where no one could raise any further doubts.
However, I think various memes around Iran’s nuclear intentions can be severely undermined.
These memes include:
Nuclear weapons are a vanity project for Iran; Helps preserve system of government from disaffected population; without nukes Iran is vulnerable to being attacked; provides a security shield for Iran’s allies; Iran would use it, the hell with the consequences, or rather welcoming the consequences as the fulfillment of their obsession with an end-times prophesy.
I have tried to debunk these memes (see bibijon.org click on Nuclear Issue), but I’m sure a far better job can be done.
On the question of AP, I would like to see Eric address this question:
From Iran’s perspective the other side keeps changing goal posts. Does it not make sense to restrict the size of the playing field, seeing as on a field restricted to the safeguard agreement the goal posts’ wide swings will also be restricted?
Castellio,
UN recognition of an independent Palestine with 1967 borders will give a substantial boost to the effort to “de-legitimise” Israel for its failure to comply with international law.
I think the borders are the most important issue, by far.
Fiorangela,
Baucus does not mention that white collar crime in the US exploded during George W. Bush’s administration. Why? Because Stuart Levey and his kind arranged for the diversion of hundreds of FBI white collar crime investigators, and Federal Prosecutors, from their white collar crime beat. Instead, they focused on Islamic charities! Stuart Levey, promoter of White Collar Crime in America. Feel safer now?
Eric Brill, earlier you wrote that the STUXNET attack on Iran’s nuclear plant was a good thing since it bought time for all concerned.
Bearing in mind Ralph Langner’s analysis of the way STUXNET works http://www.ted.com/talks/ralph_langner_cracking_stuxnet_a_21st_century_cyberweapon.html
Do you still think the STUXNET attack on Iran was a good idea? And can you tell me when was the last time you ordered sushi in SanFrancisco?
On Apr 7, 2011, Senator Max Baucus, D-Montana, chaired a Senate Finance Committee to consider confirmation of David Cohen to succeed Stuart Levey as Undersecretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Crimes [the detection of them by others, not the commission of them by US and US allies].
Baucus’s office released this press notice of the Hearing:
:http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=c26efda1-eace-482e-a53f-2b3360e43e68
Bearing in mind Eric Brill’s explanation to Humanist of the impossibility of proving a negative, I was intrigued by these two sentences in Baucus’s press notice:
““David Cohen’s experience stamping out terrorism makes him an ideal choice to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes. We face new, often invisible challenges to our security, and Mr. Cohen’s leadership will help preserve our safety.”
Baucus has acknowledged that Stuart Levery created the office against terrorism seven years ago, and used the office against Iran, primarily, so I wonder who the “new, often invisible challenges to our security,” is, and I wonder how one “stamps out” an invisible challenge, but apparently, if anyone can “stamp out” a “new, often invisible challenge” it’s David Cohen, Levey’s former law partner and son of the Washington, DC insider who, according to Sen. Ben Cardin, played a major role in shaping the senate’s policy on health care reform, a measure first advanced by Sen. Max Baucus.
Baucus repeated the theme in his opening comments at the Hearing; video here: http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/watch/?id=883cbde3-5056-a032-522f-ea74095dcdb1
my Transcript: “President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, “We seek peace, knowing that peace is the climate of freedom.” Our country’s founded on the principles of freedom and liberty. In fact, our Constitution makes clear that we strive to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. And throughout American history we have dedicated ourselves to upholding these principles. We strive to ensure liberty at home and support freedom abroad.
As our world changes we face new challenges in meeting this goal. Today, it is not enough to fight the dangers that we see, we need to address those that we cannot see, as well. Mr. Cohen, as Undersecretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Crimes, much of this task falls on your shoulders. You must fight terrorism where it often starts: at the beginning of the money trail. You must find and eliminate the funding that terrorists rely on. You must fight financial crimes and impose economic sanctions. The Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, or TFI, has a track record of success in carrying out this task.
Your predecessor, Stuart Levey, guided TFI from its creation seven years ago to its status today as a powerful tool to fight against terrorism. This office has been active on many fronts: combatting financial support networks for Al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, the Taliban and Afghanistan. In fact I was able to visit Afghan Threat Team in AFghanistan last year and I was impressed by their efforts — they’re working very hard. They showed me all they’re doing, their cells — it’s very, very impressive, their effort and also their effectiveness — showed me their efforts to cut off funding for Al Quaeda and Taliban in the region.
TFI has proved agile in facing new threats as they have emerged. The office has taken aggressive steps in recent weeks to freeze assets totalling over $30billion associated with the regime of Qaddafi, further isolating the regime.
But issues remain with our US antiterrorism funding efforts. To ensure the effectiveness of our efforts we need to maximize our resources without duplicating them. We need to coordinate the nineteen federal offices that work on terrorism financing. We need to work seamlessly with the Justice Department, FBI, and other law enforcement agencies that oversee this issue. And we need to make sure we have the training and resources to anticipate — not just react to — the next generation of issues.
It’s a huge challenge. I remind you of the words of British terrorism expert Paul Wilkinson once said [sic]. Quote: “Fightint terrorism is like being a goalkeeper. You can make a hundred brilliant saves, but the only shot the people remember is the one that gets past you.”
Turning to Jenni Rane LeCompte, whose confirmation for a Dept. of Treasury post is also being considered, Baucus said:
“Miss LeCompte, you have been nominated to be assistant secretary of Treasury for Public Affairs. In this capacity you must ensure to the American people that they are aware of the enormous tasks the Treasury Department undertakes, from printing our money to collecting our taxes to overseeing our banking system to stamping out terrorist financing. The Treasury Department is responsible for much of what makes this country function.
I might add, one great challenge we have is is is is is uh is educating the American people what the effect would be on failure to increase the debt limit. I think that’s a big challenge that we all face.”
:http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/watch/?id=883cbde3-5056-a032-522f-ea74095dcdb1
By way of assuring my fellow Americans that our Treasure is in good hands–Max Baucus is on the case — here’s a little background on Our Man Max:
-Baucus was involved in shady dealings with Jack Abramoff
-Baucus has been divorced twice. In 2009, he recommended for a high legal office his live-in girlfriend at the time. When he was forced to withdraw her name due to that conflict of interest, he protested that she was highly qualified for the slot, but in fact her legal training and experience were of very low quality.
-Baucus has received among the largest amount of campaign donations from AIPAC — $550,589 since 1998. According to JewishVirtualLibrary, the Jewish population of Montana, Baucus’s home state, was 850 in 2006. In Baucus’s last campaign, 91% of his campaign money came from outside Montana.
Summary: The Department that is responsible for “much of what makes this country function” is dependent upon decisions of a committee chaired by a man who seems to find marital fidelity unattainable, who has dealt with persons convicted of bribery, who has actively engaged in obvious conflict of interest activities, who has been supported in retaining his position by persons outside his district and who have a clearly-stated interest in promoting the interests of the state of Israel and not of the United States.
This person has granted and proposes to once again grant to a person with ties to that special interest group and state of Israel, the highest level of access and control over “printing our money . . . collecting our taxes . . . overseeing our banking system . . . stamping out terrorist financing” and seeking out “new and invisible challenges to our security.”
What could possibly go wrong?
Take a look at what has already gone wrong, Mr. Baucus, and at who was on the bridge when the Ship of State went aground.
This American doesn’t need to be “educated” to the necessity of “increasing the debt limit.” This American demands that the US Congress be educated to the threat that zionism poses to the American Constitutional republic.
An update on the Bushehr plant:
Iran marks National Nuclear Technology Day
http://english.cntv.cn/program/newsupdate/20110410/104509.shtml
“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has hailed his country’s peaceful nuclear achievements. His foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi also used the occasion of nuclear technology day to announce the resumption of fuel reloading at the Bushehr power plant. …
Iran’s Foreign Minister says refueling has begun at the Bushehr power plant.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said, “We restarted placing the fuel in the heart of the Bushehr reactor and we hope that, according to the agreement with Russia, we will witness the start-up of the reactor between the 5th and the 10th of May.”
Salehi also said it is no secret that Iranian scientists have managed to design third generation centrifuges and tested them successfully.”
Eric writes “One closing point: There are many who oppose greater disclosure by Iran because they feel that Iran should either (1) actually develop nuclear weapons; or (2) keep the world guessing – what I call the “hide the ball” approach.”
Eric, c’mon, the main determining reasons have been none of the above.
Iran, by signing the additional protocols, would allow the American military access to more information to be used against Iran in any attack, both open and subversive; would allow the US opportunity to ask more “unanswered questions” and, thereby, create more of a sense that Iran is “hiding the ball” than currently; and do all of the above without any reciprocal advantage to Iran.
James, how do you think the international recognition of the 1967 borders (but not the UN Security Council recognition) is a step forward? Israel will not have declared its borders, the Palestinians will not have more say over their economic development or freedom of movement, they will not be allowed to arm, etc etc.
I’m not saying it’s a step backwards, but I fail to see the step forwards. It has been clear and well recognized throughout any number of years over the last century that Israel was expanding against international law.
This focus on symbolic progress impedes a more realistic analysis, no?
one could almost suspect that Eric Brill is attempting to provoke Richard Steven Hack into reappearing — to knock down the Additional Protocol argument.
The name The Iran Fist reveals a lot in itself. Irrational and violent and probably very green. Pak, it’s an honor to be insulted by you and government funded mercenaries like Scott Lucas.
TIF,
Take a deep breathe for a second…OK now second attempt: The Leveretts are after the facts in Iran and based on these they recommend a certain US policy. And yes, they don’t care either way. Today, the facts are that the Ahmadinejad admin., the Islamic Republic and the Valiye Faqih are popular and have widespread support in Iran which results in policy “x” being suggested. Maybe tomorrow these facts will change and then the Leveretts will say “OK, given the new facts, we recommend policy “y”.
What’s your freakin problem with understanding this?
Also just because somebody is a lawyer, journalist, filmmaker or student doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for them to also be a traitor, spy or rioter. Let me say it very simply so you understand (maybe it would have been better if you were “The Iran Brain” instead of…),
Somebody can at the same time be a student, filmmaker, lawyer or a journalist and also be a traitor, spy or rioter. In that case they get put in jail.
As usual with opponents of the revolution you only say half of the truth, the part that has maximum emotional effect on western audiences (whom you are desperately trying to win over for your lost cause), “they are imprisoning students…”. But unlike the usual western ass-licker policy career drones, the Leveretts are not supporting you. That’s why you don’t like them.
And if you have issues with my posts, at least have the courtesy to address me directly in the future.
The Iran Fist wrote to Pirouz,
“And how is maintaining that majority of Iranians support their government in any way not Iran-centric policy advocacy?”
I don’t understand what you mean. If someone states that most Iranians support their government, they’re merely claiming a fact is true. They may or may not be correct, but I don’t understand how making such a claim makes someone’s views “Iran-centric.” Can you explain?
Pirouz,
“Again, this is US-centric, not Iran-centric. The positive benefits of rapprochement are what’s important in this level of advocacy. Furthermore if you’re seeking criticism of Iran’s policy, from an Iran-centric perspective, you miss the whole point behind this blog. How many times have the Leveretts maintained we should deal with Iran realistically, as it is and not as we would wish it to be? And how many times have they said the majority of Iranians support their government, warts and all, for being Iranian and not imposed externally.”
Read posts by people like Bussed-in-Basiji and tell me how talking to people who don’t want to be talked to is in any way a US-centric realist approach? And how is maintaining that majority of Iranians support their government in any way not Iran-centric policy advocacy? They shouldn’t care if a 99% majority support them or a 1% minority. But time and again they’ve gotten themselves involved with defending/justifying the domestic actions of the Islamic republic – including and not limited to IR’s imprisonment of journalists, lawyers, students, filmmakers, etc.
“This site is about US foreign policy advocacy. TFI, are you American? If not, perhaps you’re incapable of adopting such a perspective and/or this is not the appropriate venue to vent your opposition. Like I said, there are a multitude of venues offering avenues with which to channel your Iran-centric, expat views, however irrelevant and unrealistic they may be from the perspective of the majority living in Iran.”
If by American perspective you mean perspective of an arrogant American who looks only after his/her own interests and benefits – then no I am incapable of adopting such a perspective.
Lysander,
Turkey very nearly achieved a peace deal between Israel and Syria in 2008, before the effort was wrecked by the murderous Israeli rampage in Gaza.
Photi,
Israel wants “peace”. But many Israelis (and delusional Zionists elsewhere) want to keep much if not all of the West Bank and the Golan Heights.
“Peace process” is a way of alleviating world pressure on Israel to get out of the West Bank (and Golan Heights).
At the end of the day, it is all about how much land and water can be stolen permanently by Israel before the borders are permanent. This is the reason I think the international community will recognise Palestine with 1967 borders.
For me it is impossible to support the Syrian regime’s continued rule.
1) This is nothing like the situation in Iran where demonstrations were sparked by demonstrably false allegations of electoral fraud. While I’m happy to concede that Assad enjoys more popularity than, Mubarak, for example, there is no evidence he enjoys majority support. Certainly, I doubt there is reason to think many Syrians want dynastic rule by the Assad family. Ahmadinejad enjoys wide support. But supposing he were to remain president for another 20 years and announce that his son would succeed him?
2) The level of brutality used to suppress the demonstrations in Egypt and Syria were on an entirely different order of magnitude than in Iran.
3) Syria’s foreign policy of resistance is commendable. But hardly gives it license to kill its own citizens by the score. Besides, I have no doubt a democratic Syria would maintain and even enhance such a policy. No government would throw away influence over Lebanon, or it’s ties with Iran and Hezbollah. These are the only means Syria has to regain the Golan in the future.
That said, there is a risk of civil war and of foreign elements trying to instigate one. That risk only increases as the violence used to keep the Assad family in power becomes worse.
Rehmat,
Egyptians in the main are Muslim, with perhaps 10 or 15% Coptic Christian. They are “Arab” in culture but not by descent.
Empty,
I very much agree that the historical record conclusively establishes that Khomeini blocked any use of poison gas against Iraq during the war, despite Iraqi use of PG against Iran.
Given the number of Israeli spies active within Iran, it seems rather unlikely Iran could be pursuing a secret programme of developing nukes while claiming the opposite to be the case.
Photi,
I do not have the figure for the percentage of Israelis who are Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox, but I do know that percentage grows year by year. For the latter group, b-rate exceedingly high. I’ll provide percentages when I get a chance to look.
Growth rate for Palestinians tends to decline as wealth and education rise. This illustrates the paradox, in which delusional Zionists try to keep the Palestinians poor and uneducated, thinking this will enhance Israel’s “security”, when it actually works the other way.
Post script….
I take exception to the fact that the writing about Immam Khomeni’s statement is listed twice as “reportedly” since he clearly stated it and then government officials were on record several times making official statements in that regard.
Wikileaks partners with Haaretz, Lebanese Lebanese outlet Al Akhbar to release over 6,000 State Department cables on Israel.
Sorry….the 2nd one should read “Document 2″
Document 1: Specific details (dates, number of casualties, ethnicity) of chemical weapon used during Iran-Iraq war by then Iraqi government:
:https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf
Document 1:
Source: http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/81ali.pdf
Excerpts:
“During this period, Iran began its first attempts to highlight Iraq’s flagrant violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol. After sustaining CW [Chemical Weapon] attacks in November 1983, the Iranians began to circulate color pamphlets in Western Europe that depicted chemical casualties in Tehran hospitals. Despite this public relation campaign to call attention to the Iraqi chemical attacks, Iran’s claims received little fanfare in the West. By March 1984, Iran had dispatched at least 50 CW casualties to various European nations (the United Kingdom, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, and Sweden) in order to display graphically the results of Iraqi chemical attacks. Despite the apparent evidence that Iraq had indeed used CW against Iran and Iran’s attempts to publicize such activity, the lack of international criticism most likely emboldened Saddam and other senior Iraqi decision makers to expand Iraq’s chemical attacks.”
“Ayatollah Khomeini reportedly decreed that CW could not be employed without his approval. Reportedly, he had dismissed an inquiry into the feasibility of such an attack on Iraq due to the argument that Islam prohibits its fighters from polluting the environment, even during a jihad or holy war.” [See Ref #64 in the original source].
“In December 1986, Iran’s former prime minister, Hussein Musavi (Mir Hussein Mousavi, that is), announced that Iran had developed its own chemical warfare technology. A year later he informed the Iranian parliament (Majlis) that while the military had produced “sophisticated chemical weapons,” it would not use them as long as it was not forced to, and that it would abide by all international conventions regulating the use of such weapons.” [See Ref #65 in the original source].
Humanist,
“I am convinced the anti-Iran camp’s other lie – i.e. Iran is after “Nuclear Weapon (capability!)” – can be similarly debunked, with nearly the same fortitude as the one for the election.”
I agree strongly with you that this is a very important issue, and I believe as you do that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, this issue is different from the 2009 election because it requires one to do what cannot be done: prove a negative.
No matter what “evidence” one might find to establish that Iran is not working on nuclear weapons, it never will be conclusive. Even I, for that matter, don’t claim to know that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. I firmly believe it is not, but I can never claim to know. I merely point out that I have never seen any evidence that it is, and I often point out the holes in occasional claims of such “evidence.” I also believe Khamenei when he claims that Iran will never seek nuclear weapons, but I can’t offer any proof that that is how he really feels. Inevitably I must acknowledge that the very same thing might be said by the leader of a country that was in fact doing just the opposite.
All that Iran can do on this issue is either:
1. Nothing – which is what many people on this site believe is Iran’s best course. They argue (and they may well be correct) that Iran will never convince the world that it is not seeking nuclear weapons, and so it should not bother to try.
2. Disclose more about its nuclear program – voluntarily, without holding out for any Western concessions in return. This is my choice. I have no illusions that doing so will persuade Iran’s enemies that it is not seeking nuclear weapons. Many who oppose this view argue that Iran’s enemies will always ask for more, and I have no doubt that that would occur. I nevertheless see something to be gained for Iran, and nothing to be lost, by expanding its disclosures to match what most of the world discloses – and then pointing out at every opportunity that it is doing so. Nearly 100 other countries observe the “Additional Protocol” that Iran refuses to observe – most notably including Japan, after whom the vaunted “Japan option” (which proponents of the limited-disclosure view insist Iran should demand the right to have) obviously is named.
Some argue that Iran should refuse to disclose more as a sign of national pride and strength – that to disclose more would be to capitulate to the West. I understand this view, but I think that Iran’s secretiveness gives the West a powerful propaganda tool that Iran would be wise to take away from it – the “What is Iran trying to hide?” argument. It is that simple argument, repeated over and over and over, day after day after day, that has enabled the US government to fan the war flames so well that a relatively small incident (real or manufactured) could easily persuade the American public to back an all-out attack on Iran. Some insist the US government would be afraid to do so, an argument with which I might agree if they changed “would” to “should,” but I think that argument ignores how decisions on such matters get made in this country.
Many insist that Iran should not disclose more on the “We tried that once, and it didn’t work” argument. But nearly all who make this argument add that Iran should hold out for a formal Western acknowledgement of Iran’s right to enrich uranium, and only then should it agree to disclose more. I find this stance ironic and pointless: Why hold out for a formal commitment from the very countries that reneged on their commitment the last time Iran made concessions? Why place a value on promises from a country that gave similar promises to North Korea and Libya and then reneged on those promises? I would place no value at all on a US acknowledgement of Iran’s right to enrich uranium – nor do I think the US would ever give such a promise, which makes that entire discussion pointless in my view. Iran should decide to disclose more – or not to disclose more – entirely without regard to what, if anything, the US might someday promise in return.
If I were Iran, I would essentially “combine” the two views summarized above: observe the Additional Protocol (without, however, also indulging the IAEA/US obsession with the so-called “alleged studies”), point out that it’s disclosing everything that other countries disclose, and THEN do “nothing” (nothing further, that is). In my view, until Iran expands its disclosures to match those of other countries, it can’t fairly argue: “What’s the point? They’d just ask for even more.” Once Iran does so, however, it can and should make that argument, and should draw the line there – right where other countries draw the line.
One closing point: There are many who oppose greater disclosure by Iran because they feel that Iran should either (1) actually develop nuclear weapons; or (2) keep the world guessing – what I call the “hide the ball” approach. Some who hold one or the other of these views nevertheless claim to believe Khamenei when he insists that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons and never will. But either they are not being honest when they claim to believe Khamenei or they think he is being naïve or stupid to take that position. By contrast, I believe Khamenei, and I don’t think he’s being either naïve or stupid to take that position.
Forgive my long-winded answer to your very important point. The bottom line remains the same: the nuclear issue can’t be addressed in the same way as the 2009 election could be, for the simple reason that it ultimately requires one to do what cannot be done: prove a negative. All one can really do is either (1) nothing, and hope for the best; or (2) try to prove more “positives” by expanding disclosures, thus weakening the powerful “What is Iran trying to hide?” argument that is being used so effectively by the US government to drum up support for war on Iran.
Rehmat,
I’d been totally unaware of Assange having claimed a “Jewish conspiracy” against him. After checking the links mentioned on your website, I still remain totally unaware that he’s made such a claim. This comment isn’t meant to be any criticism of you. You merely provided the links to the articles I’m discussing here.
The writer of the Guardian article to which your website links appears to have put such words in Assange’s mouth because Assange said this:
“‘[Assange] said that [the writer] and Private Eye should be ashamed of ourselves for joining in the international conspiracy to smear WikiLeaks,’ Hislop writes. ‘The piece was an obvious attempt to deprive him and his organisation of Jewish support and donations,’ he said angrily.”
To me, that sounds like Assange was claiming that he in fact had many Jewish supporters – from which most people might conclude that he is NOT an anti-Semite – and that this writer was trying to undercut that strong support by writing things about Assange that were not true. I read nothing in that Guardian article to suggest that Assange himself made any anti-Semitic remarks.
The writer’s efforts to prove otherwise are almost comical. At one point in the Guardian article, he recounts an exchange between himself and someone else (not Assange) in which the other person makes some allegedly anti-Semitic remark. The writer devotes considerable energy to establishing that the ambiguous remark was indeed anti-Semitic. By the time the reader reaches the end, he forgets the basic point: the words being analyzed were spoken by some unnamed third person – not by Assange. Nor was there any indication that Assange might agree with those words – or that he’d even been aware they’d been spoken, or even aware of the existence of the person who allegedly spoke them. But there they were: words somehow attributed to Assange by this Guardian writer who’d made it his mission to establish that Julian Assange is anti-Semitic, even if that required fabrication out of whole cloth.
I have no idea whether Assange is anti-Semitic. Maybe he is; maybe he’s not – I’ve just not read anything to suggest he is. But I certainly find offensive the efforts of this Guardian writer to create that impression with such disgusting tactics.
Eric,
As an earnest non-religious pacifist citizen of the world I can’t explain the depth of my gratitude to you and Leveretts for debunking the second biggest LIE of the 21th century ie the stealing of Iranian 2009 presidential election. Your efforts, writings and reports convinced those truth-seekers who had no ill-intentions that “not a single credible evidence of fraud exists in that election”. (what a grand debunking, it surely had a historical dimension!)
Now it seems there are compelling evidence proving the claim that “During Iran-Iraq war, Iranians, despite taking horrendous hits from Iraqi Chemical Weapons and despite Iran had access to technology to produce CW, an important decision was made in Iran not to go the WMD route. (It will be revealing to find out on what grounds such a decision was made)
I am convinced the anti-Iran camp’s other lie ie Iran is after “Nuclear Weapon (capability !)” can be similarly debunked, with nearly the same fortitude as the one for the election.
I believe if a strong exposure of the above lie can be documented, that along other existing conclusive evidences of their other lies may play a (decisive?) role on stopping the war with Iran. (or at the least it may act as the straw that broke the back of the camel).
Agencies who produced NIE had access to volumes of facts. Isn’t it time to dig out some of those unclassified facts and reveal more the destructive side of the warmonger to all around the world….destructive since they not only aim to destroy their enemies but in that process they themselves, move closer to their inevitable expiration.
At this time when preparations are underway for de-stabilization, regime change or a war. (Taking MEK off the list of the Foreign Terrorist List is one of the steps to pave the way) then the significance of a strong rebutting of the warmonger lies on “Iran is trying to make the bomb and use it” wouldn’t becomes preeminent.
You all have shown how you can negate or silence the warmongers using your strong logic. Isn’t it worth to use the same type of convincing logic again to discredit those whom I firmly believe are the powerful enemies of humanity?
I wish I had the qualification, time and energy to carry out the above crucial study. From any angle I look at it because of my disabilities I can never achieve the above described goal, so the first one who crossed my mind for the task was you.
Let me bring to your attention the following:
1- Hillary Mann Leverette in an interview with Amy Goodman talked about the existence of Archival Material to substantiate the above. Do you know what kind of documents she was referring to?
2- I remember the following from the claims of a believable Iranian insider::
Iran had bitterly complained to UN about Iraqi use of CW an was relentlessly asking UN to investigate the issue but UN under the pressure of the West (and Russians) was stonewalling. However Iran was keeping whatever pressure it could exert to force UN for carrying out a close examination of the matter. Finally UN (with behind the scene persuasion of some European countries (Sweden?)) sent a team to Iran. After a long (slow?) UN study (taking about 2 years?) a report was produced stating lack of any evidence on any Iranian use of CW.
If Iran, under extreme conditions which from the perspective of West warrants severe retaliation didn’t use CW (which is one form of WMD) aren’t they believable when they say they won’t pursue building another form of WMD? Could it be that Iranian rulers, despite the inherent corruption prevalent in all theocratic ruling systems, adhere to the ancient rules of the East (Indian, Chinese, Iranian etc) and view the broiling of men, women and children by WMD as the grossest crime imaginable by the civilized people?
Please think about it….the issue is a Big one.
Pak wrote to The Iran Fist:
“[Posters with whom I disagree] do not understand that basic human rights, democracy, and dignity are universal values.”
Pak,
Perhaps it’s been too long. Can you remind us all again how your complaints about the 2009 election express your unbridled love of democracy?
Rehmat,
In a spirit of civic nationalism, different ethnicities and faiths can co-exist. Staunch Arab nationalism suffocates the Middle Eastern diversity. Why suppress a treasure?
Photi – You will not find the following TRUTH on Daniel Pipes’ website.
Gaza Strip was never part of Egypt. Gaza along with the West Bank, East Bank (Jordan), Israel and Lebanon were all part of al-Sham (Syria).
Hamas are Palestinian while Muslim Brotherhood and rest of Egyptian are Arabs or Maronites.
The Talmudic Khazarians and Berbers currently occupying Palestine belongs to Europe and North Africa.
Listen to the voices of TRUTH.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/helen-thomas-speaks-her-mind-again/
Egyptian annexation of Gaza to be implemented at the same time as a one-state solution in Israel and the West Bank will provide shelter for Hamas to keep pressure on Israel to abide by any future agreements concerning the West Bank as well as refugee settlement agreements with the Palestinian diaspora. If Tel Aviv does not actually want peace, then why is everyone wasting energy talking about a peace process?
Julian Assange to turn heat on Israel
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/julian-assange-to-turn-heat-on-israel/
James Canning,
Could you be more specific on why you think Egypt’s annexation of Gaza would be a blunder? Couldn’t a genuine Palestinian identity exist within an Egyptian representative government (ie, incorporate Hamas into Egypt’s political system)?
…”well-known examples” rather.
Thank you, Nahid. Beautiful video clip. Bless their hearts for supporting the Palestinians.
There are many parallels between governments-their people relationship and the relationship that exists in a family. Admittedly, government-people relationship is far more complex and has some emergent properties not seen in a family relationship. However, understanding the parallels between the two could help in understanding how the countries in the region work. Populations/people generally exhibit what we have come to know as “feminine traits” (this is true of both men and women in populations); and governments generally exhibit what we have come to know as “masculine traits” (again, this is true of both men and women administrators). Feminine and masculine traits exist in both men and women. In nature, however, women are the “default” sex (that is, in the absence of adequate amount of androgens in any male with a “Y” chromosome, all babies become female). A female head of state does not necessarily mean a “kinder gentler” approach to governance. Similarly, a male head of state does not necessarily mean the opposite.
Historically, the longest-lasting and most successful governments have been those whose governance has been a good balance and amalgamation of the two (that is, it has maintained a very strong masculine approach to the “outsiders” and has maintained a very strong feminine approach to the “insiders”). This, in my opinion, has been the most significant hallmark (more or less) of the Iranian government approach after the revolution. Should Iranians be able to refine and improve this model, it would be the most sustainable model for governance and development in region. Other periods of similar approach in the Iranian history have been (in reverse chronological order), short period of Karim Khan Zand, Nader Shah (last 5-6 of his life only), Shah Abbass Safavi (the first) period, Khosro Anoshirvan, and Koroush Kabir (Cyrus the Great), just as some well-know examples.
Referring back to family social unit, in-depth studies into, and statistics about, divorces and family break-ups indicate that infidelity remains the single most significant reason for family break-ups. This is regardless of financial and economic situation of the family. While Hollywood productions have continued to portray a completely different “reality”, even under the most severe economic and social restrictions, women are more likely to stick with their husband and endure much hardship if they believe/know their husband is faithful to them and the family. Conversely, women are not likely to stick to their husband if the husband exercises infidelity even if they may be socially and economically well supported. Using this analogy, I assert that:
1. Most people in the region (and Islamic nations) with all the flaws and divisions, regard themselves as an extended family. This perception has withstood the test of time (for at least 300+ years).
2. Qaddafi would have lasted much longer had he maintained an independent posture.
3. Syria will last way beyond all predictions as long as it maintains its independence.
4. Hizbollah will outlast any other “entity” in Lebanon for a very long time.
5. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Jordan will collapse sooner rather than later.
6. Egypt and Tunisia will continue to be in a constant state of struggle for many years to come.
7. Turkey must recognize that its role as a “political haggler” is neither sustainable nor dignified. Developing authentically indigenous economic and technological systems should become its top priority.
Note: Regardless of culture and ethnicity, infidelity by women appears to be mostly a reaction to/revenge of the partner’s infidelity. Even so, most women who do this express a feeling of regret and humiliation afterward (especially younger girls and those in childbearing age).
Nahid, that you tube clip is beautiful. Viva Palestine! Israel, are you listening? This is what Democracy sounds like.
Egyptian and Palestinian flags raised together… I can smell the change in the air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au6sc-DiobI&feature=youtu.be
TIF,
You are not honest in your engagement here. The popularity of the Ahmadinejad administration and the overwhelming support for the Islamic Republic and the Valiye Faqih ARE FACTS, not the opinion of anyone. The fact that you might not like this is a completely different matter.
Given these FACTS, the Leveretts are advocating a policy by the US government that is based on these FACTS. That’s it, or is this to difficult for you to understand?
I happen to think that an honest engagement between Iran and the US is impossible as long as the US defines itself as the chosen, exceptional nation and global policemen. I also happen to think that Iran is morally justified to complain of US idiocy and bad faith in the way it has dealt with Iran and the extremely positive and historic changes that have occurred in that society as a result of the Islamic revolution of 1979. I happen to think that Iran is justified in not trusting the US for a single second in whatever it says and does. I also happen to think that lack of contact between Iran and the US has benefited Iran greatly in these last 32 years and we need another 20-30 years of this before we can begin having a “normal” relation with our previous abuser.
Despite all this, I am capable of understanding and engaging the arguments proposed by thoughtful people- who genuinely want the best for their native country- and with whom I disagree and whose background is an anathema to me and people like myself.
Can the same be said about you?
ScumPack says:
April 9, 2011 at 4:44 pm
“I love America, the land of opportunity!”
SP , Why don’t you marry the daughter of Billary and maximize you opportunities , or Bush’s daughters , Britney perhaps ?
Antwon,
During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran had one single ally and that was Syria- who got a lot of flak from fellow Arabs for supporting Iran against Saddam. In fact the Syrians made the correct moral choice at that time- unlike Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan etc. Because of that, we will always support them, tie or no tie. This the difference between how Iran and how the US treats its friends.
But I agree that there are some structural problems that exist is Syria and need to be addressed. In my view, having a more democratic system in Syria would still result in the victory of anti-US/Israel individuals and parties.
The basic difference between the uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and the one in Syria is that in the other three the element of being US servants and impotent vis-a-vis Israel was a key element for the rage against the regimes. This is not the case in Syria.
Pak
Your accusations are not worth responding to. I am not invested in anything and I don’t even know who the other Iranians are. How can you judge people who you’ve never met? You may be an MKO terrorist who is paid to trash Iran for all I know (and we all know there are many of them out there). I may not like your views, but how can I say you’ve invested in the opposition to Iran?
Antwon
What you say is nonsense. I don’t know about others, but the reason why I support Syria is because it is a lot better than the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt. It has major shortcomings, but it is independent of the US and it supports the resistance movements and the rights of the Lebanese and Palestinians.
Assad is popular (by the way Assad’s wife is a Sunni) and that is why so many people go to the streets to support him. Mubarak and others could never bring such numbers to the streets.
The same is true about Qatar in comparison to Bahrain, Saudi, and the UAE. Therefore, when the Saudis try to destabalize Syria, any normal person would side with Syria.
Your problem is that you are so hateful of Iran, Palestinians, and the Lebanese that you just oppose anything that is somehow linked to them.
Antwon wrote:
“At least Ahmadinejad was modest enough to only claim two-thirds of the vote.”
Actually a tad less, Antwon, though you’re close. You’re gracious to give Ahmadinejad credit for modesty, but it’s certainly appropriate that you do so. After all, his “immodest” predecessor, Khatami, had claimed much higher percentages.
Pak,
You wrote to The Iran Fist:
“You will find an odd alliance of convenience here, between: former CIA/Bush administration/WINEP employees who are closely affiliated to the New America Foundation, and currently head a shady political risk (energy) consultancy called STRATEGA; disillusioned Western leftists; a token Marxist; Iranians residing in the West, and reaping the rewards of Western crimes, but ideologically/geopolitically invested in the regime (a bit like having one’s cake, and eating it too); Iranians who are genuinely invested in the regime, so much so that tyranny in the name of velayate faghih is acceptable/encouraged; and, finally, Liz, who is unique.”
Naturally I, like others who read this paragraph, wonder which pigeonhole you’ve assigned me to. I don’t see myself in any of these categories, but since you must be putting me somewhere, I can only conclude that I must be a “disillusioned Western leftist.”
If I’ve guessed wrong, my fault: please correct me. But if I’ve guessed right, Pak, I suggest you sharpen up your thinking a bit.
Antwon,
Evolution, not revolution. Look at Turkey. They are advocating for a non-interventionist approach so these nations can reform themselves. If you go back to the beginning of the protests in Bahrain, the Shias there were not demanding for al-Khalifa to step down. Only after the initial repression occurred did the demands escalate to an overthrow of the family.
Why is it okay for you to throw around warfare and revolution like it is something to be taken lightly? Sometimes foreign elements are to blame for a nation’s internal instability. Sometimes people have a right to revolt. Though it is not always clear who is to blame for what, revolts only seem sincere when they are genuine social transformations. Only the people themselves can decide which uprisings are legitimate.
Do you disagree with Flynt Leverett that Assad is essential to reform in Syria?
Very interesting watching Leveretts and their Islamic Republic supporters defending the regime of Assad. Just a few quick points:
a) Assad is an Alawite (10% of Syrian population) controlling the majority Sunni population. Wasn’t everyone here complaining that the Khalifa family in Bahrain is terrorizing the majority Shia population? What is with the inconsistency? Do things change when the Iran-ally is oppressing the majority?
b) I have read a few comments on this site saying that Assad is good because he is secular. And that they don’t want the Muslim Brotherhood to take over. Where were these comments during Egypt’s protests?
c) This is just a observation, not really a point, but doesn’t Assad and his wife remind you of Mubarak and his wife? I mean, they look so western, modern and secular. How can you people, as Islamic Republic supporters, defend this guy? He wears a TIE for goodness sake! I mean, he was “elected” with 97% of the vote. Seriously? At least Ahmadinejad was modest enough to only claim two-thirds of the vote.
The inconsistency of the Islamic Republic supporters is so clear that whatever claim to supporting human rights around the Middle East they claimed has been blown out of the water. You people are supporting a thug dictator who, with his father, has ruled Syria for decades. At least have a little shame and just be honest: you care as much for human rights outside Iran as you do inside it (not at all).
The supporters on this site are a perfect example of why Iran is viewed negatively by 90% of people in outside world, from China to the United States.
TFI:
“By that rationale Glenn Beck must be the God of accomplishments over the past two years!”
Yes, he has accomplishments to his credit in advancing the conservative cause.
“Being Bush-era officials they shouldn’t have been trusted to begin with. Now that they are in line with the Islamic Republic in all their assessments and their so-called US-centric-policy-advocacy or whatever you want to call it, they should NEVER be trusted.”
Trusted for what? If you find flaw with their American-centric policy advocacy, explain so from an American perspective. As I queried earlier, what is your personal advocacy for US relations toward Iran?
“Unless you can cite ONE article or appearance where they are critical of the Iranian government and take a position different than that of the hardliners in Iran.”
Again, this is US-centric, not Iran-centric. The positive benefits of rapprochement are what’s important in this level of advocacy. Furthermore if you’re seeking criticism of Iran’s policy, from an Iran-centric perspective, you miss the whole point behind this blog. How many times have the Leveretts maintained we should deal with Iran realistically, as it is and not as we would wish it to be? And how many times have they said the majority of Iranians support their government, warts and all, for being Iranian and not imposed externally.
This site is about US foreign policy advocacy. TFI, are you American? If not, perhaps you’re incapable of adopting such a perspective and/or this is not the appropriate venue to vent your opposition. Like I said, there are a multitude of venues offering avenues with which to channel your Iran-centric, expat views, however irrelevant and unrealistic they may be from the perspective of the majority living in Iran.
The Iran Fist,
You clearly understand very little about democracy and what it means to build a constituency. There are many misconceptions in American society about Iran. These shifts take time.
Pirouz,
“In any event, you ask what have they accomplished. In my opinion they’ve accomplished a great deal more than I expected, in terms of visibility on PBS and other venues. That’s an integral part of advocacy here in the US.
True, they haven’t appeared to overtly influence US policy (remember, they’re Bush era officials) but it is hoped their influence will ultimately pan out to whatever degree.”
So their accomplishment is getting on PBS and other venues?! By that rationale Glenn Beck must be the God of accomplishments over the past two years!
Being Bush-era officials they shouldn’t have been trusted to begin with. Now that they are in line with the Islamic Republic in all their assessments and their so-called US-centric-policy-advocacy or whatever you want to call it, they should NEVER be trusted.
Unless you can cite ONE article or appearance where they are critical of the Iranian government and take a position different than that of the hardliners in Iran.
This may be a Syria post – but don’t forget its Race For Iran.
James,
“If a majority of the people of Syria support the current government of the country, is it truly “democratic” to support overthrow of that government?”
Even if a majority support the dictator in power, it is in fact truly democratic to support the minority that do take to the streets and wish for their safety and well-being. It is undemocratic however to say they don’t have the right to protest and to turn a blind eye to their killing.
It may be that an election in Syria would put in power a more conservative hot-headed leader that is more anti-Israeli than Assad. Would you then support the protesters if that were to be the case?
Pak,
“Good luck engaging people here. They view everything from a geopolitical prism, so they do not understand that basic human rights, democracy, and dignity are universal values.”
I think most people understand that, Pak.
Quantum Formalist,
Hello. I am a computer. :)
Wikileaks: ‘Israel’s next Hizbullah nightmare’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/wikileaks-israel%e2%80%99s-next-hizbullah-nightmare%e2%80%99/
James,
Your comment from the previous post: “The current direction in Israel itself is toward more religious discrimination against Muslims and Christians. This trend will continue, partly because ultra-Orthodox Jews have much higher birthrate than secular liberal Jews.”
One aspect of the conflict is religious then. Could you put a percentage on that?
All the Grand Rabbis, Priests, Muftis and Ayatollahs should cohere in Istanbul for a conference. They should not dissolve until they agree upon a 500-year Peace.
America goes through a gruesome and hard fought Civil War and Rights movement in order to throw it overboard to save some tiny Jewish state. Americans should be pissed at the Israelis right now, Clint Eastwood style. A couple steps back.
Off Topic
Dear all,
Few weeks ago I red the following article from the Guardian ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks ) :
” The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.”
If the above is true, then my guess is that the software might already be running ! In fact, I think PaK and ” The Iran Fist” may be examples of the so – called ” sock puppets “! :)
Cheers
Pak:
“You will find an odd alliance of convenience here, between: former CIA/Bush administration/WINEP employees who are closely affiliated to the New America Foundation, and currently head a shady political risk (energy) consultancy called STRATEGA; disillusioned Western leftists; a token Marxist; Iranians residing in the West, and reaping the rewards of Western crimes, but ideologically/geopolitically invested in the regime (a bit like having one’s cake, and eating it too); Iranians who are genuinely invested in the regime, so much so that tyranny in the name of velayate faghih is acceptable/encouraged; and, finally, Liz, who is unique.”
You forgot to add die-hard pro-israeli/US monarchists…. LOL
On PressTV today, Ali al-Nashimi has some intelligent comments about Robert Gates’ foolish proposal to have the US keep tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq after the deadline for withdrawal. Remarkably stupid “offer” on the part of the “defence” secretary.
The Iran Fist,
First of all, what’s up with your username?
In any event, you ask what have they accomplished. In my opinion they’ve accomplished a great deal more than I expected, in terms of visibility on PBS and other venues. That’s an integral part of advocacy here in the US.
True, they haven’t appeared to overtly influence US policy (remember, they’re Bush era officials) but it is hoped their influence will ultimately pan out to whatever degree.
I’m thinking this isn’t good enough for you, or you do not share this US-centric advocacy. If not, tell us what you think the US policy should be ad will discuss it.
However, I must point out the current post’s topic is Syria.
Personally, I think folks get tired of unrepresentative types of presidents for life, and that’s what Bashar is facing today. Just imagine if we Americans were saddled with GW Bush for life, how that would go down. Whether Bashar stands or falls, Flynt is the resident expert. Unlike Iran, there is no popular election with term limits, and I don’t know of any credible public opinion polling taken of the type available for Iran. Anybody know any?
The Iran Fist,
If a majority of the people of Syria support the current government of the country, is it truly “democratic” to support overthrow of that government?
And are some of those seeking overthrow of the Syrian government, in fact trying to enable Israel to keep the Golan Heights?
Pirouz,
“And the primary advocacy espoused here is an improvement in relations advanced by the US toward Iran, in the interests of both Americans and Iranians. ”
And what have they accomplished in the past two years? Other than coming out strongly in defense of Iran’s domestic politics? The irony here being they are supporting the very people who strongly oppose normalization of relations between the two countries. So one has to wonder what their real agenda is.
Dear Pak,
No worries, I don’t plan on wasting too much time with people like Liz. There is no cure for Ignorance and hypocrisy.
James,
“Are you claiming that a majority of the people of Syria do not support the government of Bashar al-Assad?”
At this stage I’m not claiming anything. But my argument is you can’t be for democracy in one country and against it in another. In that Assad is not an elected official no one has any doubts. Like the Supreme Leader of Iran he has a tight grip on power and rules with an Iron fist. Which brings me to:
Iranian says:
“You have no respect for the will of the Iranian people. You are like western politicians who support democracy if t goes there way. Sad.”
I support democracy whichever way it goes. You on the other hand support dictatorships if they rule your way. Much like the government of Iran who is not even reporting on the events in Syria – even though Assad fits their own definition of an Arab dictator. That said, I would much rather be supporting a democracy that goes my way than a dictatorship that goes my way!
Pak,
You left out the most relevant “group” participating on this site: realists.
This site is based on U.S. policy advocacy, not Iran’s policies. And the primary advocacy espoused here is an improvement in relations advanced by the US toward Iran, in the interests of both Americans and Iranians.
Most of the issues you bring up are ones it is hoped will be advanced by this improvement in relations, or are of a secondary nature or less relevant to this level of advocacy.
That’s the problem with a few Iranians on this site: their failure to make dispassionate observations as Americans (those that are not American need to keep in mind at all times this is an American-centric site based on advocacy of American policy). Iranian-centric emotionalism, negative in nature, is not what this site is about. There are plenty of other sites that cater to such views espousing unrealistic Iranian-centric policy advocacy, overwhelmingly comprised of self-exiles and expats.
I’m not saying you have to be American to participate on this site; only that the orientation here is American-centric and this should be fully realized in putting forth discussion points.
Dear The Iran Fist,
Good luck engaging people here. They view everything from a geopolitical prism, so they do not understand that basic human rights, democracy, and dignity are universal values.
You will find an odd alliance of convenience here, between: former CIA/Bush administration/WINEP employees who are closely affiliated to the New America Foundation, and currently head a shady political risk (energy) consultancy called STRATEGA; disillusioned Western leftists; a token Marxist; Iranians residing in the West, and reaping the rewards of Western crimes, but ideologically/geopolitically invested in the regime (a bit like having one’s cake, and eating it too); Iranians who are genuinely invested in the regime, so much so that tyranny in the name of velayate faghih is acceptable/encouraged; and, finally, Liz, who is unique.
Regarding Flynt Leverett on Syria: I tend to agree with him, although he brushes aside the dictatorial/tyrannical aspect of events in Syria with far too much ease. Which brings into question the Leveretts’ insistence of engaging Iran based on its “democratic” government. Of course this is bull, so they might as well be honest, and stop feeding the egos of the people I just mentioned.
By the way, of course Flynt Leverett is promoting a book! You cannot not get any more American than that. I remember watching Fox News the last time I was across the pond, and this complete whacko was being interviewed, in which he promoted a book that promised ‘free money’. Slightly frightened, I proceeded to switch the channel, but, lo and behold, there he was again, promising ‘free money’.
I love America, the land of opportunity!
Saudi/US crimes against humanity
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_bahrain_crackdown;_ylt=Aiw5mAlMop.03E7SToU4tO4DW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTJxdDkwY3NoBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNDA5L21sX2JhaHJhaW5fY3JhY2tkb3duBHBvcwMxMARzZWMDeW5fYXJ0aWNsZV9zdW1tYXJ5X2xpc3QEc2xrA2JhaHJhaW5wb2xpYw–
The Iran Fist,
Are you claiming that a majority of the people of Syria do not support the government of Bashar al-Assad?
The Iran Fist
The Leveretts are correct. That’s the point that you miss. Even your name reminds one of the violent greens. You have no respect for the will of the Iranian people. You are like western politicians who support democracy if t goes there way. Sad.
:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpF1PRuOyP8&feature=player_embedded
At least this time you can’t accuse them of being rich out-of-touch Northern Tehranis!
Whatever happened to opposing tyrants and dictators? You can’t be FOR overthrow of dictatorships in one Arab country then AGAINST it in another. Which is it? Or are you of the belief that we have good dictators and bad dictators and if so do you believe Assad is a “good dictator?” Then would you have opposed overthrow of the Shah as some people also called him a good dictator that was good for Iran?
Don’t be a hypocrite.
Also – cite ONE article or appearance by the Leveretts in the past two years that deviates from the line the Islamic Republic has taken. Just ONE instance will do.
Only obsessed and irrational cowards make such accusations. The Leveretts have made good calls for almost 2 years now, while others have been dreaming fantasies. In any case, The Iran Fist, you sound like a Saudi/Israeli mouthpiece.
And what was Flynt’s relationship with WINEP again?!
Wake up folks – the Leveretts have become the mouthpiece of the Islamic Republic. They never stray away from the line Fars News takes on world events.
It is widely believed here that the Saudi and Jordanian regimes are behind the unrest.
WINEP is a neocon think tank which shares a common bed with Israel Lobby (AIPAC). There are over three dozens of such think tanks in the US, which propagate the Israeli interests at the cost of American interests. More and more people, even among America’s staunch allies, are voicing their displeasure with Washinton for being controlled by the tiny Jewish population.
One of the lastest among these people – is Greece’s famous composer Mikis Theodorakis – who claimed on Greek HIGH channel in February, that “everything (bad) that happens today in the world has to do with the Zionists.”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/theodorakis-i-am-anti-zionist/
I of course hope Flynt’s new book does well.
Flynt makes excellent point that many Syrians see the disasters that befell Lebanon and Iraq, and obviously do not want anything of the sort for their country.
And more than one million Iraqi refugees are in Syria today, thanks to idiotic US/UK invasion of Iraq.
I think many Syrians want to see Bashar al-Assad succeed in achieving the withdrawal of Israel from the Golan Heights, so the displaced Syrian families can return to their homes.
I very much agree with Flynt that it appears the al-Assad government in Syria retains the support of a majority of the population. And Syria is an extraordinary mosaic of cultures and religions.
Andrew Tabler, for WINEP, will be promoting regime change because WINEP promotes redrawing the borders of countries in the Middle East to benefit Israel.