Dear Friends,
It is increasingly clear that there is a campaign already ongoing in the United States to lay the ground for an eventual U.S.-Iranian military confrontation. This campaign is broadly similar to the multi-year effort that paved the way for America’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. Strikingly, the current campaign regarding Iran involves many of the same individuals, institutions, and rhetorical formulas as the pre-war build-up for Iraq.
In the years and months before the United States attacked Iraq, the response of most think tanks and “public intellectuals” to the false and fraudulent case for war was supine, to say the least . Standing up against what became the conventional wisdom about the Iraqi “threat” required a willingness, early in the process, to question the fundamental assumptions that were driving policy debates and actual policy making in Washington. But the vast majority of those who should have challenged the conventional wisdom about Iraq—in Congress, the media, policy research centers, etc—failed to do so. Instead, they largely bought into the conventional wisdom and, in some cases, even helped to manufacture it.
We saw this play out while we were still in government. After leaving government, and watching America’s Iran debate get steered on to the same bellicose trajectory, we determined that, this time around, there would be credible voices prepared to ask hard questions and challenge conventional wisdom. That is what www.RaceForIran.com is all about.
Among the things we’ve learned since we launched www.RaceForIran.com is that it is not easy to raise money for a project like this. If we only questioned conventional wisdom about the prospective need for U.S. military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets, there would be more funders out there willing to help us. But because we challenge the assumptions about the Islamic Republic that even many Americans opposed to U.S. military action Iran uncritically accept—e.g., the 2009 presidential election was stolen, the Iranian government is a deeply unpopular dictatorship at serious risk of collapse, the Islamic Republic is too ideologically warped and/or internally divided to take strategic decisions on grounds of national interest—superficially sympathetic funders decline to support us because, they say, they must be sensitive to the “political climate.”
Under these circumstances, we encourage our readers to make even a token donation to support www.RaceForIran.com to keep our work going. (A relatively large number of relatively small donations can actually help bolster our case for funding from some institutional donors. PLEASE NOTE THAT WE HAVE ADDED A $20 PAYPAL OPTION ON THE SIDEBAR OF WWW.RACEFORIRAN.COM FOR THOSE WHO CAN GIVE THAT AMOUNT. PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT $20 IS NOT A SMALL AMOUNT FOR MANY BUT IT IS WHAT WE CAN DO NOW WITH PAYPAL. WE ENCOURAGE AS MANY WHO CAN TO CONTRIBUTE SMALLER AMOUNTS BY CHECK. WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR ALL OF YOUR SUPPORT. At this time, we can only activate the $20 paypal button on the sidebar of www.RaceForIran.com ‘s main page, so please use that and not the ‘please donate’ link. Thank you, again, for your support.)
If you choose to donate, your tax-deductible contribution would go to the New America Foundation, not directly to the authors of the blog. Click the buttons on the sidebar of the main www.RaceForIran.com page to make a secure donation. Or, please send a check for any amount to: New America Foundation, Attention: Simone Frank (for RaceForIran), 1899 L Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC, 20036 (please write for RaceForIran.com on the memo line of your check).
As always, we are very grateful for our readers’ continuing attention and engagement with www.RaceForIran.com. We add our best wishes for a Happy New Year and a wonderful 2011.
Sincerely,
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Fiorangela, Thanks
The subject we are talking about is so vast, it is like a large heap of flowers, each with different size, color and shape. We can only discuss a single one or a couple of them at the time because of many obvious limitations.
One thing could make us understand each other better and better if only we can visualize and feel we are mentally and physically the other side. That is of course is, as the scientists can prove, an impossible proposition. However such an excise, depending on the power of our imagination can bring us closer towards understanding each other’s stands. Can I imagine I am an American (each time a different type of American)? Once I am born and raised somewhere in the Religious South, another time I am a Bostonian, then again I live and think like a Mid-Westerner etc, etc, etc
Can you Imagine you are an Iranian? Born and raised poor or rich, Persian Azeri or Kurd, leftist or religious, zealous or indifferent, deeply hurt and humiliated by how the country is ruled by imperial foreigners or how you are fighting in the fronts of Iran-Iraq war or you are being hurt in a SAVAK prison and so on?.
You see how hard and complicated is the full comprehension of each other?
This I think by no means alleviates the nice opportunity for us to have a civil, fruitful and academic style affinity for discussing all kind of subjects regardless of how far our world-views are apart. Even though I an atheist and I sense you are a Christian we shouldn’t forget we can both communicate in the same language…….and we have both two eyes and one heart.
I would always appreciate if you, with no hesitation, correct me or criticize my World-views.
Thanks again.
Rehmat,
Yes, the so-called “Samson option” is but one reason the entire world should work together to press Israel to sign the NPT and get rid of its nukes.
Golda Meir was a classmate of George Kennan at elementary school in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (if I recall correctly).
Pirouz,
My original point was the irony that this “less lethal” technology had been used to kill the Palestinian protester that Fiorangela had mentioned. I agree with you that I got a bit carried away from there, for the reasons M. Ali mentioned.
Pirouz, I understand Eric’s point. He is amused by the terminology, which always tickles me too.
It’s to me like calling it the “Defense Department”. Everywhere you look, there is a constant battle on people’s minds using advertising techniques, which is why I am distraught with a lot of discussions I have with people. People talk in slogans and PR keywords as punched in their brain by such concepts.
“Less-lethal” is an almost non-threatening word. But literally taken, every weapon in the world is less lethal. Just less lethal than something more lethal!
“I agree that differences in cultures and social norms help mould law. Your train example falls into this category,”
My train example shows that culture and social norms can be in conflict with “equality”. You can not have segmentation and/or segregation and claim it is equal.
The rest of you debate again falls on vague notions. Bring up specific things, “equality” like “freedom” is a term that is almost completely without any real substantial meaning. It is this joke of a concept that America proudly started its independance with “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” while owning slaves.
We have distinctions all around us, at all times, in all societies, like freedom, a concept such as complete equality does not mean anything really. Is a girl of 8 to be treated equally to a girl of 19? Obviously not, so we treat them differently, seperated by age.
The fact that Iran’s laws does not appeal to you is perfectly fine. No laws are ever suited for everyone in the nation. But people challenge the laws and there is a change in the law when the government feels that the reform in the law best meets the nation’s desire. Iran is great in this, as it has been a fluid nation in the last 32 years. There has been a constant change in laws. Shah’s error was that he was too busy trying to make his country the way HE wanted it (as he imagined the western model to be the perfect model). The new government, after its revolution, has been trying to constantly change.
This is your problem, you are always having broad attacks on the full Iranian system without offering anything specific. Iranian society does not believe in the non-distinction between man and woman, neither the men do, nor the women. If you believe in democracy, you should respect their wishes. And find which are the important changes as needed by the people, and try to highliht does, rather than saying “I believe that nothing should stand in the way of equality under the law”. This is meaningless, what do you want exactly? Iranians, for example, believe have the concept of Mehrieh. Almost all of the society, included the fashionable, western-oriented, north tehrani girls believe they should receive Mehrieh, and the government protects their right, and will take legal action against any men that is in conflict with this law. This is fine by me, its what the Iranians want, even I’ll be the first in line to get rid of this law due to “unequality” (but actually, just because I don’t want to pay the ridicolous Mehr demands that the girls today ask for!!)
Sometimes, this unequality as you perceive it, provides a better life for women in terms of the culture’s norms. Iran’s Islamic restrictions is in line with people’s perceptions of their expected life, so when they feel there is security for their daughters and sisters, there is less family restriction placed on them, so Iranian grils have entered college and work en masse after the revolution BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTIONS AND BECAUSE OF THE PERCEIVED “UNEQUALITY”. Be assured that if there was a western style of “freedom” in college and workforce, many families would feel uncomfortable in sending their daughters to Tehran and other cities for education.
I have typed all this to show you that it real life is much more complicated than standing on a podium and shouting “FREEDOM FOR ALL!! EQUALITY FOR ALL!!”.
“By the way, your divorce argument is flawed because you are empowering men in order to control divorce rates, and implying (among many other things) that divorce is the fault of the wife. ”
I did not imply that, you did.
“Right” not “Eight.”
Eight, Eric. But those are still less-lethal loads. You need to contrast such with more typical lethal loads such as AP, HE, HEAT, WP, etc.
Anyway, I’m unclear as to the point of this discussion. Are you saying you’re unimpressed by the less-lethal technology?
I will say this: after the heavy bruising inflicted upon persons by the use of rubber bullets, I haven’t heard of their repeated use by the city of Oakland (OPD). Here in San Francisco, we rely on sophisticated caging techniques, whereupon those contained are systematically contained, arrested, removed from the scene and placed into remote detention facilities. It’s more time consuming and expensive, but you don’t have the press publicizing those big purple bruises on persons unlucky enough to be hit.
Dear M.Ali,
I agree that differences in cultures and social norms help mould law. Your train example falls into this category, although there is a very thin line between ‘segmentation’ and ‘segregation’. Regardless, I believe that nothing should stand in the way of equality under the law. This applies to women, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, and so on. Currently in Iran, there is no equality for women under the law. The law has actually regressed since the revolution.
By the way, your divorce argument is flawed because you are empowering men in order to control divorce rates, and implying (among many other things) that divorce is the fault of the wife.
Equality under the law should not be viewed as an aspect of Western culture, rather it is a universal value.
Pak & Eric,
The way a country treats its female members of a society, like everything else we discuss, is difficult to understand, and should not be viewed only in western lenses.
At a previous debate, I tried to highlight an interesting factor of Iranian segmentation that is in conflict with “freedom” but is actually preferred by women. This was the example I used:
Trains are sort-of segmented in Iran. While I saw couples and a few women on the male section of the train, there was no men on the female section. I would guess that while police (and the people) might turn a blind eye on women being in the men section, they would not tolerate the men on the female section. So, while women are a sort of freedom to be part of either section, overwhelming majority went to the female section because they felt more comfortable. This included my young, modern girlfriend at the time.
So, what does this show? This shows that in Iran, sometimes less “freedom” in certain aspects is more desirable for the society. Why did I put freedom in brackets? Because freedom is almost always a completely useless word in debates and is only good for idealistic discussions, politicians, and PR propagandas. They have no substance in real debate.
In my example, there are two freedoms:
1) Men being free to be part of any section they want
2) Women wanting the freedom of having their own segregated section
Both these two freedoms are in conflict, so as there is no absolute freedom, we’ll put it aside in our discussions, and focus on whats best for the society.
For example, Iranian culture is family-oriented, therefore it is the task of the government to make sure that this is preserved. It is a challenge for the government and the society, because divorce rates are rising. The divorce rate in Iran is currently average of 1 per 7 marriages, and in Tehran 1 per 3. While this is still less than the west’s 50% divorce rate, it is moving towards it, and is a concern for the people, and this means, for the government that is in charge of providing for the people’s needs. They will have to find ways to discourage divorces and some of these methods might be considered as infringing on people’s “freedoms”. But I would argue that the society desires that for itself, and not just some western or western-oriented people.
There is no easy answer, because there is no real worldwide solution yet. If the west had found its answer, it would still not be applyable to Iran, because they have different cultures, but even if they were the same, the west HASN’T found the answer. The current norms they have is a recent development, barely even two-three decades old. For example, while the right to owning property for women is a new development in the west, it was practiced in Islamic countries for centuries (I don’t know if pre-Islam Iran had it too). The west is still finding its way, the collapse of the family structure, an overwhelming materialistic culture, and an increasingly ME mindset might not necessarily be the aim of the east.
Dear Eric,
“Pak, please. You know and I know that you don’t mean a word of this.”
May I ask why not? You are mistaken If you believe that I support Mousavi’s innocence. I was being subtle by saying that Mousavi should be put to trial (as I have conceded that Professor Sahimi will not change his mind), but I am adamant that he is actually guilty. I cannot see how a prime minister of a government that commits crimes against humanity is not guilty. But, as the foundations of any society should be built on civility and not blood, I want to see Mousavi put to a fair trial.
Regarding Khomeini: you are the lawyer, so you tell me whether a man can be put to trial after his death. Again, you are the lawyer, so you tell me whether the supreme leader in Iran has “executive” or “moral” authority (I am guessing he has both). If you are going to refer back to the constitution to determine the answer to this question, you should know that the constitution was amended one year after the mass executions, so refer back to the pre-amended version.
Regarding women’s rights in Iran: as I have already said, I do not have the expertise to debate such a topic. All I said before was that the law for women has regressed since the Pahlavi regime, which is true. Can you please provide evidence that women can become judges in Iran now?
Also, there must be a difference between constitution and legislation. You are the lawyer, so you tell me if there is any merit in referring to Iran’s constitution to determine whether women have equal rights under the law.
If you want to continue the debate, I suggest you contact one of the countless educated, motivated and fearless women’s rights activists in Iran.
Pak,
“This is not to say that Mousavi is guilty, but he is a suspect. And as all suspects of a crime are put to trial to determine their guilt, so too should Mousavi.”
Pak, please. You know and I know that you don’t mean a word of this.
The writer we both mentioned, and with whom you say you agree, stated unequivocally that Khomeini was guilty — without any “trial” being necessary:
“In my opinion, the criticism [of Khomeini] is justified on moral and historical grounds. There is no question that Khomeini was responsible for … the execution of thousands of political prisoners in the 1980s, as the ultimate authority at the time.”
As you know from the context of this statement (since you read the article), the writer was not saying that Khomeini had “execution” responsibility for any of those executions — simply that Khomeini was guilty because he was “the ultimate authority at the time.” That’s exactly what the writer described as mere “moral responsibility” – for which a person cannot fairly be held “accountable” – when he discussed Mousavi’s responsibility.
Do you think this writer was unfair to hold Khomeini responsible for these executions, without any “trial” having occurred? If not, do you think that Mousavi should also be held responsible for the very same reason, again with no trial?
Pak,
YOU WROTE:
“I am no expert in women’s rights in Iran and neither are you. You also refer to the constitution as if it actually means something in Iran. I will leave it up to the experts to refute your somewhat ridiculous argument that women are treated equally under the law in Iran, and your lazy (bigoted?) attempt to prove Iranian women’s rights campaigners wrong.”
COMMENT: I’m certainly no expert on women’s rights in Iran, Pak. I didn’t think you were either, but you’d written at such length on the subject that I thought you could explain the obvious contradictions I’d mentioned. I’ll wait for the “experts,” as you recommended.
In the meantime, I read the article you cited. You didn’t mention whether the author was one of the experts, but the article did report many things I hadn’t known:
QUOTATIONS FROM THE ARTICLE YOU CITED:
“[Any man] is capable of keeping [his wife] caged in the house… in case of illness can prevent her from getting treatment… can take her children away, and if he desires, torture and kill her. If he has a psychological problem and suspects his wife has cheated on him, he can kill her with ease of mind…Do you think the stories we’ve presented are unusual? Unfortunately, they are not.”
“The age of criminal responsibility for girls is 9 lunar years (8 years and nine months) and for boys is 15 lunar years (14 years and 6 months). Thus if a 9-year-old girl committed a crime, she will be treated just as an adult would be treated with all the penal laws (even execution) applicable to her.”
“Women can never inherit land.”
“Regarding intentional killing of children, according to the law, a father and paternal grandfather will not be held responsible.”
“In our constitution a woman is only recognised as a citizen once she is a mother (married), therefore she has no standing as an independent person in any law derived from our constitution.”
END OF QUOTATIONS FROM THE ARTICLE YOU CITED.
Though you’re no expert, Pak, do you know enough to say whether these assertions are correct?
Pak,
Keep on dreaming. The fact that so many people go to the streets to protect the political order in Iran (including most of those who voted for Mousavi), despite the enormous propaganda campaign against the country, says more than enough.
’’Prime Minister Golda Meir also told me, on-the-record during the course of an interview I did with her for the BBC’s Panorama programme, that in a doomsday situation Israel would be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it.” Alan Hart in ‘Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews’.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/pakistan-victim-of-ziofascism-not-islamic-extremism/
Dear Humanist, Thank you for your thoughtful words. I hope you understand that my words of “thanks” were intended as bitter irony. I’m not proud of what my people have done.
Your discussion of the mystical quality of Iranian culture and the Iranian people is very much appreciated; I will read and re-read your words to try to understand them fully. I mention too often my brief visit to Iran; I had many powerful experiences on that journey, experiences that more Americans should have — especially policymakers and lawmakers. Among the experiences that left a deep impression on me was to be in a caravansarie in the middle of an otherwise barren landscape. Such places were truly life-saving to the travelers who sought the shelter, security, and hospitality within their walls. A guide explained to us that people from all over the world shared water from the well in the caravansarie; rested their animals and themselves within the walls, and were able to store their goods in relative security as they rested. At night, travelers gathered in the courtyard, under the stars, and shared the stories, myths, poetry, and lore of all their diverse cultures.
In Shiraz I learned that “Iranians revere their poets more than their kings.”
I had perceived the “invisible Iranian mystical entity” in my Iranian friends in the US; I wanted to know where that ineffable quality came from. The caravansarie answered one part of the question; Shiraz and its poets — as well as Naishapur, as well as the shrine to Khayyam — filled in other parts. It struck me that Iran had never been strenuously “Christianized;” I thought that explained why Iranians did not seem to struggle with an inherent sense of guilt– no “original sin.” I had the good fortune to offer the hospitality of my home to an Iranian author whose expertise is the poetry of Rumi; the poem, “The Guest House,” exemplifies the “invisible Iranian mystical entity” that does NOT seek revenge or bear grievances.
Part of my attempt to “protect” Iran from conquest by the US and Israel is the deep, deep desire to preserve that unique mystical entity. Certainly Hillary Clinton would run roughshod over a quality so precious, even though it is so strong; she is incapable of recognizing the spiritual quality of Iranian culture. Others — like Patrick Clawson — would debase Iranian culture by turning it into one more American shopping center. The US needs to learn FROM Iran, rather than turn Iran into another outpost of consumer capitalism.
We were able to talk with many Iranian men and women — and children! — in Iran. They expressed their humble but firm pride in the spiritual essence of Iranian culture, and they expressed discontent with oppressive government, and with financial regulations that did not allow for as much free flow of capital as some would desire. The Iranian people are entitled to the freedom to work out their own solutions to their discontents, while preserving and protecting the soul of their culture to the extent that Iranians deem important.
James Canning – the breaking of Kurdistan among the four countries – was a sort of venegeance against for Kurd Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi by the western colonialists. They also divided Al-Sham (Syria) into Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine. It’s easy to subvert small states based on tribal loyalty. Iraq was occupied for the smae reasons. The Zionist plan is to split Iraq into three mini-states; Sunni Iraq, Kurd Iraq and Shia Iraq. There is a two-decade Zionist plan to break-up Pakistan into four parts – Pakhtoonistan to be merged with Afghanistan; Balochistan under USrael protection to destablize Baloch region of Iran; Sindh to India (it was part of Bombay state during British Raj).
Personally, I believe that like Iranian Kurdistan, the Kurd areas under Turkey, Iraq and Syria should be given autonomy first and later let the Kurds decide whether they want to unite within an independent state or stay where they’re now.
Regard the Kurd Jews – whether they’re practicing or non-practing Jewish – I will quote the Russian-Israeli born Jew, Israel Shamir – who said that even though he had converted to Christianity – under Jewish law (a race), he is still Jewish.
Gilad Atzmon: “Proud to be a self-hating Jew”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/gilad-atzmon-proud-to-be-a-self-hating-jew/
Fiorangela
I must have made a mistake, I thought I added the following paragraph to the END of my post. Somehow it appears in the wrong place. Please ignore it as the 2nd paragraph and read it as the very LAST part.
—-
There is another feature, though not quite relevant at this time yet worthy of bringing it up: The old advice is: “Whenever your partner gets agitated you MUST clam down and try to calm him/her down too, after the smiles and hugging only if it is necessary and only in the right time, tell your partner WHY he/she was wrong, then you will witness the magic of how thorns morph. to flowers”.
—-
Eric – regarding your second question, here is the article you are referring to:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/12/mousavi-karroubi-and-the-opposition-in-the-diaspora.html
Here is a comment I left on the same article:
Herein lies the problem: “Mousavi has been criticized and attacked more than the others by some of the opposition in the diaspora, simply because he was Iran’s prime minister for nearly eight years.”
Being Prime Minister is not ‘simple’. It is not a trivial position in government; it is both practically and symbolically prominent, even taking into consideration the context of that era.
This is not to say that Mousavi is guilty, but he is a suspect. And as all suspects of a crime are put to trial to determine their guilt, so too should Mousavi.
Otherwise, this is another very interesting article. I particularly enjoyed what Homayoun said. The fact that this regime is rotting from within cannot be understated, and for that reason we should be thankful to Mousavi, Karroubi and all the other insiders who are speaking out and paying for it. There is no real alternative anyway, other than organising a proper opposition in the diaspora (given the dynamics of the diaspora, this is unlikely), or forcing regime change on Iran with the use of foreign help (which, forgetting the disastrous consequences, is not even a long-term solution).
We can truly start criticising (in Iran) the revolution and its aftermath once the right democratic environment exists, through a free media, a free judiciary, education, and so on. Until then, we should let the Green Movement develop within the boundaries that exist, so that political development occurs at a natural pace and trajectory. Rejecting Mousavi and co. would be like killing a flower before it has the opportunity to blossom.
-
Here is another comment I left on an earlier article about Mousavi, by Professor Sahimi, which is more relevant to the second part of your question:
There is no denying that Mousavi is an important figure in our quest for democracy. He has the revolutionary credentials to attract the conservative base while being pragmatic enough to enlist the support of the young and secular. The likes of Sazegara, Makhmalbaf and Rajavi are insults to the men and women who have fought on the front lines for this movement. I have more respect for Reza Pahlavi as he is putting a genuine effort in lobbying international powers to recognise and condemn the human rights abuses in Iran. However, like you have said yourself, he is disconnected from the realities of Iranian politics and could never lead such a movement. His future involvement is however another factor, which the Iranian people can decide for themselves.
What worries me greatly is that we could be making the same mistakes as before. 30 years ago, over 98% of our population voted for a Khomeini who promised democracy and other such freedoms, yet look where we are now. How can we be sure that Mousavi does not do a similar thing? He is a politician born out of the Islamic Republic. A leader should have a network of affiliates who can support him; Mousavi’s network of affiliates come from within the regime. His experiences, knowledge and ideology all also come from within the regime. Come on – it took him 6 months and a lot of bloodshed to finally drop the “ideals of the revolution” jargon! He continues to be very reluctant.
I can only imagine Mousavi as a figurehead of this movement rather than a leader as you claim. His statement is very prudent and well thought through, but it is only a reflection of the movement’s wider objectives and not his own. If he was a leader it would have been his own initiative to release such a statement (and probably many months ago) and not bow to the pressure coming from the movement. So by definition he is being led and not leading. When it comes to crunch time, where decisiveness is a must, Mousavi will wilt.
That is why I believe the Green movement is still leaderless. Good try for trying to identify one, but I believe we have a long time of searching ahead of us. As you say, this is a marathon and not a sprint.
Fiorangela
re: your Dec.30 8:36pm post
You write “btw, I must confess, I would probably favor a return of Shah. The community where I lived during the Shah’’s reign was almost completely dependent on contracts from Shah. We all built our homes, bought fine cars and consumer goods, started and raised families, all on Iranian contracts. So thanks. oh, ya, sorry about that SAVAK repression business, and the fact that while Americans benefited from Iranian wealth, many Iranians did not. And the arrogant and condescending way American corporate workers in Iran behaved toward Iranians? Well, things happen, you know; mistakes were made; let’s let bygones be bygones.”
There is another feature, though not quite relevant at this time yet worthy of bringing it up: The old advice is: “Whenever your partner gets agitated you MUST clam down and try to calm him/her down too, after the smiles and hugging only if it is necessary and only in the right time, tell your partner WHY he/she was wrong, then you will witness the magic of how thorns morph. to flowers”.
What an interesting paragraph. Maybe the impartial future historians can use your words to describe the attitudes of ordinary Americans to what I think was the truly tragic 23 years that US/UK/Israel were the real rulers of Iran. (from 1953 to 1976?)
Why was it truly tragic? I am not thinking about the ruthless plunder of Iran (as Kissinger told the reasons for 1979 uprising was “we went too far in Iran”), likewise I am not thinking about the extreme barbarism the best sons and daughter of Iran were subjected to (In mid 70s Amnesty International called Iran the worst violator of Human Rights in the World) rather I am thinking about the severe (or fatal) wounds the coup inflicted on an invisible Iranian mystical entity that existed there for a long long time. Was that entity killed? No one is sure since these days there is little sign of its existence in the present daily lives of Iranians.
Let me explain what that being was.
During many centuries, throughout tremulous and painful historical events a culture was gradually evolving in Iran which comprised of many wise, beautiful and humanistic features. It had a potential to become a major contributing part of a truly civilized future system for all. The concepts and doctrines which were shaping that culture were not only for achieving the ‘cooperative, ethical and peaceful coexistence of all tribes of the world’ but also sculpting individuals who were capable of feeling the pain of the others, something that is the key for civil constructive coexistence..
I am not ignoring quite a few backward and appalling features of pre-coup Iranian society. Identical to many feudal, monarchic and unjust developing countries of the time, Iran was in no ways an ideal place where one could live in complete peace, freedom and civility (compared to a few existing north Europeans states). Yet there were individuals who had inherited a way of life which was certainly very advanced no matter if that individual couldn’t read or write.
Probably among the Iranian diaspora there are numerous persons who know or have heard of old-time friends or relatives who were symbols of heart-warming, honesty, selflessness and unconditional love for everyone around them even towards the villains in the community.
I believe the driving force behind the behavior of those captivating individuals was the culture that had evolved during thousands of years of living and learning. That culture is what I called above as a “mystical entity”.
What the coup did, it badly crashed that entity, maybe fatally and that is, in my view, the most horrific crime of the coup planners. They didn’t know or couldn’t know the unprecedented vicious acts that occurred afterwards was, figuratively, like slowly killing one of the rare angels of ‘wisdom, compassion and peaceful living’, killing beings who very occasionally surface in the grand stage of humanity..
This crime in no way diminishes or belittles the enormity and significance of other crimes known to all. Just the ferocity of the 1979 revolution where the great majority of Iranians rose up so angrily using their nails and teeth to fight against foreign made guns and cannons tells it all.
It is relevant to adapt the following comment posted on payvand.com
START OF A SEGMENT FROM THE COMMENT
…..
Nothing on the militaristic realm can make Iranians proud. What they can boast about is the great cultural strides they have taken on the path of humanity, leaving the Western imperialists behind.
Iranians can take pride on their first Human Right Ordinance put in action many centuries ago, on their vast numbers of freethinkers who rejected violence for achieving “the illusive success” and advocated “oneness and affection” to enjoy this “short ambiguous life”.
They can feel deep sense of dignity reading a poem from Saadi inscribed on the Hall of Nations of UN telling the world:
If you don’t have sympathy for human pain
The name of human you can not retain.
The majesties of the words of Rumi sang 800 years ago can still thrill the souls of many when they read.
From the soul-less Solid I metamorphosed to Plant
I died from the Plant and became an Animal.
I perished from Animality, in my rebirth I was a Human.
Then why should I be afraid of death, I never became less from dying.
Next I will die from this Humanity
To new Head and Wing of an Angel.
Once more from an Angel I fly high
I become what is beyond any imagination.
What an amazing dream on Evolution, especially that of the beastly humans toward a true perfection!
Even the grandeur of Iranian culture has manifested itself in the recent dark days of history.
In the period of 1978-79 Revolution, Iranians could have “killed” 1000s of occupying Americans, yet they controlled their immense anger, only a few Americans (2 or 4?) were assassinated by MEK who are now ironically the Western/Israeli allies in terrorizing the Iranians. IMAGINE if it was the REVERSE situation, if Iran had done the same to US, imposing a monster regime on Americans, plundering their wealth, torturing their best sons and daughters etc…..and then revolting and getting rid of the Iranian imposed puppet regime? One could envision then Iran was here no more, it was “totally obliterated”.
That “mature control of rage” could now fill the soul of all Iranians with a grand sense of nobility forever.
Also during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran refused the offers of the foreign chemical arms-dealers for selling Iran the capability of manufacturing chemical weapons .The Iranians refused it maybe because of the influence of the culture or other convictions founded and strengthened during their never-ending cultural evolution. Remember the statement “we are not going to stoop low as these animals who are burning the lungs of our children with such heinous weapons”?.
That refusal could hold the heads of Iranians high for centuries to come…. and could fill their hearts with an insight of super-human integrity.
……….
END OF COMMENT
Am I bitter reading your lines of “We all built our homes, bought fine cars and consumer goods, started and raised families, all on Iranian contracts. So thanks. oh, ya, sorry about that SAVAK repression business, and the fact that while Americans benefited from Iranian wealth, many Iranians did not.”?
No way, I can never be like the people who find comfort in revenge. I believe we are each a part of the same humanity, by revenge we destroy each other while by understanding, forgiving and forgetting we build good life for all. I am like so many Iranians who will welcome you in their country regardless of you being sorry or not.
If you go to Iran and happen to see a sing of “Death to America” at the grave site of someone’s child who was killed in Iran-Iraq war then don’t get deceived by that sign. I am sure quite a few of those parents might even invite you for a tea or even for a dinner well knowing that you are an American. For most Iranians the accounts of Americans and their government are distinctly separate. (Unless the present terror campaigns of US and continuous threats or sadistic sanctions give a tool to anti-US Iranian groups for effectively indoctrinating the public)
I better stop explaining a story which required many many pages of explanation.
Since this still is the period of New Year holidays I end this with a proper ending:
One of the nice traditions of Nowruz (New Year) is the event to convert the hostilities and enmities to friendship. In the first 13 days of Nowruz celebrations both sides of the feuding parties are encouraged (by friends or relatives) to visit the home of their adversary as a gesture of making peace, forgetting the past and starting a new beginning. This in most cases works (after hugging and kissing cheeks while others cheer or applaud)
Dear Eric,
I am no expert in women’s rights in Iran and neither are you. You also refer to the constitution as if it actually means something in Iran.
I will leave it up to the experts to refute your somewhat ridiculous argument that women are treated equally under the law in Iran, and your lazy (bigoted?) attempt to prove Iranian women’s rights campaigners wrong. Here is an article from the website of the One Million Signatures campaign:
http://www.we-change.org/english/spip.php?article41
Happy New Year to those readers that want the well being of Iranian people.
For the rest (including most of (not all) Iran’s human rights advocate) advocating sanctions of any sort and war: F U
Rehmat,
My understanding is that many promoters of the “Greater Israel” programme think that changing the boundaries of many countries in the Middle East would help to camouflage further Israeli annexations – - and cause more instability and conflict among Arab and other countries.
The Kurds are an interesting subject area, and their origin is still in dispute. They seem not to have come from the same place, and are in fact an amalgam.
Are soem PKK leaders practicing Jews, or just of Jewish background?
Pirouz,
“Eric, you are aware the less-lethal loads fired from that CTS Venom launcher consists of either foam, rubber or wood loads, right?”
Those less-lethal “payloads” are indeed available for the CTS VENOM. As are these payloads, listed in the catalog under the subheading “Deployed in Iraq by the US Marine Corps:”
PAYLOAD OPTIONS
• Flash-Bang/Sting-Ball Combination Variable Ranges to 200 Meters
• Long Range Flash-Bang Ranges up to 700 Meters
• Smoke & Irritant
• Impact Munitions Variations
Scott,
I should mention that the same writer who emphasizes the critical distinction between “moral responsibility” and “executive responsibility” for the 1988 executions (when Mousavi was the prime minister) applies an entirely different standard to leaders he doesn’t like. For example, Khomeini gets no free pass:
“In my opinion, the criticism [of Khomeini] is justified on moral and historical grounds. There is no question that Khomeini was responsible for … the execution of thousands of political prisoners in the 1980s, as the ultimate authority at the time.”
In short, none of that wishy-washy “moral/executive” talk when the writer is judging Khomeini.
I wonder which of his two standards applies to Ahmadinejad.
Eric, you are aware the less-lethal loads fired from that CTS Venom launcher consists of either foam, rubber or wood loads, right? The general intent is to disperse, not kill. (Lethal loads usually consist of metal shells, bullets or BBs.)
Similar types of relatively large caliber rubber less-lethal loads were used in Oakland as recently as a few years ago. (They don’t kill or maim, but they do inflict large bruising and they sure smart a whole bunch!)
James Canning – Iraqi Kurd area was shown as part of Ertez Isreal. The western propagandist dn’t want the public to know that 13 of the top PKK leaders are Jewish Kurds and over 50,000 Kurd Jews live in the Zionist entity.
Kurds live in Islamic Iran (5 million), Iraq (6 million), Turkey (14 million), Syria, and Azerbaijan. Dr, Mordechai Zaken in his book Jewish Subjects and their Tribal Chieftains in Kurdistan documents the historical links between Kurds (in Iraq) and the Jews, which Israel plan to exploit if its relations with Turkey turn to worse. In September 2006, BBC reported that Israelis were giving military training to Kurd militia in northern Iraq.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/erdogan-reaches-out-to-kurd-minority/
Kooshy,
Happy new year to you as well.
I’m glad you also appreciate all the “less lethal” and “non-lethal” devices one can find on the Combined Systems website. I forgot to mention another peaceful use for CTS VENOM™ 30-barrel rocket launchers. They are “ideal as early warning signals for vehicle checkpoints.”
Who can doubt that? I can think of no better way to let a driver know that there may be a check point a half-mile up the road.
But however you choose to use your CTS VENOM™, always remember that it’s “most effective as a force multiplier.” As best I can tell, “force multiplier” means that a soldier who’s got a CTS VENOM™ is a lot more effective than one who does not.
Eric, firstly, happy New Year to you, secondly, just a suggestion, as a new year’s gift you might want to consider, to give Scott, a one day “Moral” brake. Again it’s just a suggestion.
Thirdly, really thanks for the link, looks like these equipments can come handy, if the employment can’t be fixed before the next election. As I noticed, that you are using the TM, along with the name of the product, I sure did like the fact, that this product is Trade Marked; so at least, it’s protected that no one else can still the name of this remarkable product.
Cheers to New Year
Fiorangela says:
January 2, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Thanks for reading, and thanks for the complement of calling my wish list an “analysis”.
A controversial British theoretical physicist has a theory about knowledge/information is like energy. It is indestructible and travels. One of his experiments was to show how newspaper word puzzles were easier to solve in the evening (when many people had already solved them) than in the morning (when few had).
I was hoping that if I try and think of a win-win-win solution to the west Asia puzzle, more and more people will start to see it in similar lines.
As to your question regarding rivalry over natural resources, I think because spoiling someone else’s gains is always easier than hording one’s own, all such rivalry will eventually find a path to equitable sharing as the optimal way of managing scarce resources.
“Moral panic” is a great way of explaining destructive narratives that have been with us (humanity) forever and seek to find selective affirmation to deny our common humanity. It gets dangerous, and achieves currency when there are social eddies and vortexes that form from time to time. E.g. society has not quite come to grips with homophobia, racism, but an African-American president gets vaulted into office and signs the end of DADT. The eddies in the wake of that rush acts as a boost to purveyors of moral hypocrisy. However, because such narratives are morally bankrupt and their policy application is practically unsustainable, their hour of limelight has always been short-lived.
BiBiJon,
Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria will continue to work together to ensure no independent Kurdistan is created. Delusional neocons will not get their wish for such a state to come into being (as part of concurrent “Greater Israel” scheme).
Kooshy,
The Combined Systems, Inc. website (http://www.less-lethal.com/) has some interesting stuff. Much of it is described as “non-lethal” – which I gather is even better than “less lethal.”
My favorite is the CTS VENOM™, a menacing device with 30 6-inch cylinders, each capable of firing a high-explosive rocket 1,000 meters.
Non-lethal? You bet. The CTS VENOM™ is recommended for entirely peaceful purposes, such as “determining the intent of approaching marine vessels.” Exactly how, a skeptic might ask, is a 30-barrel rocket launcher, capable of hitting targets from over a half-mile away, used to determine the “intent of approaching marine vessels?”
The website page that describes the CTS VENOM does not answer this question. I don’t know the answer either, but I’m confident of this:
If one of those 30 rockets happens to hit its target from 1,000 meters away, the “intent” of that “approaching marine vessel” won’t matter much any more.
If you care enough about this question to explore the matter further, you can fill out the form on the website page titled “Request a Demo.”
@BiBijon
Reasonable assessment , why not , except one point :
“”…Israel will adopt a non-aggression constitution and remove the stain of apartheid from Palestine…”"
This will never happen : ” TOBEYEH GORG , MARGEH ! “
So, one day our beloved Mulla Nassrodin came home with great excitement and enthusiasm. He reported to his wife that a very wise, knowledgeable, and prophetic stragner had just arrived. Intrigued but skeptical, Mulla’s wife asked him to tell her about the stranger’s knowledge and skills. Mulla went on and on about how the stranger’s power to see exactly what goes on in a given street at a given time in cities and far away places. He told that the stranger could provide vivid details with such clarity of these unseen places that it seems as if he were right there present on the scene. Mulla’s wife became increasingly suspicious but seeing how excited Mulla was, she chose to keep her suspicion to herself. She asked Mulla, however, to invite the stranger along with notable people of the town to dinner one night. Mulla thought it to be a great idea. Next day, he invited the stranger and quite a few of “rish-sefidan” (the elders) from the community to dinner for the following night.
Mulla’s wife prepared “chelo morgh” (rice and chicken) which used to be a special dish back when people ate meat only on special occasions. Meanwhile, all guests, including the stranger, arrived and sat around the room and began listening to the pearls of wisdom rolling out of the stranger’s mouth. Mulla’s wife was quietly observing things from behind the curtain. Suddenly, the wise man paused for a moment, gestured his right hand into the air and uttered: “Chekheh! Checkeh!” (a gesture to shoo a dog). He then explained to the fascinated crowd that in Balkh, a street dog was approaching to grab a piece of chicken from the hands of a poor woman who had obtained the chicken with hardship and was taking it home to cook and feed her hungry children. So, he saw it as his duty to intervene, from thousands of “farsangs” away (let’s say thousands of miles away) to ensure that the rights of that poor woman and her children are not trampled upon by the dog. That’s why he was shooing the dog. Naturally, everyone was at awe with this man’s abilities and ethics. That is everyone except for Mulla’s wife who now was convinced of what she needed to do next.
She began preparing every dinner plate behind the curtain in the kitchen. For Mulla and all the guests, she put the rice in the plates first and put a decent piece of “beryani” chicken right on the top. For the noble stranger, however, she put the largest and most premium piece of chicken first and then covered it with some rice. She then called on Mulla to take the plates to the guests and distribute them per her instructions. Once the food was distributed, the stranger looked at his own plate and looked around at everyone else’s plate and started frowning. He was visibly and completely offended. He then turned to Mulla and mockingly and with visible anger said, “it’s our tradition that guests should get the best food. How is it that you have given everyone pieces of chicken and for me you’ve served some dry rice?” The elders, too, began in chorus to object to this rudeness of Mulla. They claimed that with this action, he had shamed not only himself but the whole community. As the oppositional voices escalated and poor Mulla didn’t know what to say, Mulla’s wife from behind the curtain asked rather respectfully, “Oh, our dearest guest, it’s quite a wonder that you could see so vividly and intervene when a stray dog in Balkh is taking away a piece of chicken belonging to a poor woman, but you cannot see the chicken under the pile of rice in the plate that is in front of your face?”
What’s up with that?
Scott,
Rather than sidestep my questions entirely, you can, if you like, conveniently weave together, in a single post, your thoughts on Nima’s article I cited and your thoughts on the “moral/executive” distinction being drawn recently by supporters of Mousavi when assessing his responsibility, if any, for the 1988 executions in Iran.
Nima WROTE (IN HIS SEP. 2009 WIDE ASLEEP IN AMERICA ARTICLE):
“In contrast [to US government behavior he'd just described], after reports of torture at Iran’s Kahrizak prison surfaced [in 2009], the Iranian government moved swiftly to close the facility because it “lacked the standards” to maintain “rights of detainees” and launched an investigation into the allegations. Around the same time, 140 detainees were released from Tehran’s Evin Prison at the urging of the head of the Judiciary and Majlis ministers.
Additionally, according to a Financial Times report from June 25, 2009 and featured only as an insert in the print edition, several students who had been arrested during the post-election protests, rallies, and riots, were freed in order to join 1.3 million other young Iranians in taking the national university entrance exam.
In December 2009, Iranian authorities announced that twelve prison officials from Kahrizak had been arrested and charged with murder and other crimes, including abuse, negligence and deprivation of prisoners’ legal rights. This past June, courts passed down prison sentences and other punishment to those accused and two prison guards were convicted of murder and “intentional assault and battery” and were sentenced to death. It was reported this week that the death sentences have been rescinded at the request of the families of the victims.
Of course, human rights abuses in Iran are indeed serious and deserve condemnation.
END OF QUOTATION FROM NIMA ARTICLE.
First, Scott, you’ll notice that I’ve not deleted the final sentence from this long quotation, which would have been easy enough to do – not even an ellipse would have been required. I am certainly do not argue that the Iranian government is innocent of human rights abuses.
But the point here is a narrower one: Even if one concludes that a government official was on the good side of the moral/executive responsibility line when police or military personnel committed some abuse (meaning that one can wag his finger at the official, but he’s nonetheless not “accountable”), the guilt-line indisputably shifts after the abuse becomes known, eventually incriminating the official himself if he does not punish the wrong-doers and take corrective action to reduce the chance that the abuse will happen again.
You might respond that the corrective actions Nima describes here were rare, or publicity stunts – or perhaps that Nima or others just made up these stories entirely. Maybe those responses would be valid; I don’t know. In any case, it remains worth inquiring whether similar punitive and corrective actions were ordered by Mousavi and other government officials once it became known to them that 4,500 people were executed in 1988 by government employees over whom they had authority.
If one were to look into that and find that Mousavi, the prime minister at the time, took no action, would you conclude that he had ended up on the “accountable” side of the moral/executive line?
BiBiJon, how will the massive oil and gas resources off the Lebanon-N Israel/Gaza coast factor into your analysis of Israel-US war against Iran?
It has long been my belief that a significant part of Israel’s anti-Iran sentiment has been strictly economic: Israel wishes to enjoy revenue streams produced by sales of oil/gas to Europe. Sanctions targeting Iran’s oil and gas sectors are a ‘tell’ that Israel’s target is NOT Iran’s nuclear posture but Iran’s competitive petroleum posture.
The other part of Israel’s anti-Iran sentiment is psychological; or maybe, “Iranophobia” is induced in Israelis by their government (in the language of “moral panic” theory, by “moral entrepreneurs”) whose underlying purpose is economic resource dominance and who need to keep the citizens in a heightened state of fear and instability in order to wage “the long war.”
Here is my prediction for “what comes next.”
US-Iran war is not going to happen. The net of forces pro and against war will continue to favor an enduring standoff. Whether it is internal dissent (NIE 2007), or Russia rushing to fuel Bushier reactor to deny Israel a potential symbolic target, or Iran’s own non-trivial defensive capacity, etc. will continue to forestall a breakout out of the current box.
RHS’ argument that in the next 20 years US will attack somebody somewhere is an irrefutable statement which according to Karl Popper is devoid of value in informing policy.
Iran’s reform movement will recover from the shenanigans of saboteurs and their cheer leaders (Lucas, et al) and will once again achieve grass root support, and in their minority status act as a “moral” compass to the majority’s “executive” prerogatives.
India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan will be enmeshed in inter and intra ethnic, sectarian conflicts to China’s benefit. All three will blame the US for their troubles.
Iran, Turkey, Syria, Armenia, Iraq, Lebanon, Qatar, … and Oman will make significant strides in a common-wealth/ Schengen style of immigration and economic ties. This will pull post-succession Egypt and Saudi Arabia into its expanding sphere of influence and give birth to a Luxemburg-like Kurdistan. Iran-US issues will dissolve into this regional movement and the US will wind up being the ‘protector’ of this post-colonial paradigm in the same way US was an indispensible guarantor in post-WWII Europe. Iran-US relations will start to resemble US-de-Gaulle situation and will be managed by occasional infantile snickering and little else more serious.
Yukiya Amano will resign from the IAEA after publication of additional wikileaks cables.
Israel will adopt a non-aggression constitution and remove the stain of apartheid from Palestine.
Obama will decide not to run for a second term.
Scott Lucas says:
January 2, 2011 at 11:24 am
O.K. there are 2 distinct questions. Why don’t you have a stab at answering both.
BiBiJon,
“Have you considered writing a handbook on how to dodge difficult questions, until easier ones pop up?”
I’ll leave that for RFI. I’m happy to consider Nima’s well-written article but one should be clear that there are two very distinct issues involved — I’m certain Eric knows that so want to be sure I address the specific points he wishes to consider.
S.
From the vast repertoire of Ayaat_e Elahi, let’s see what relevant lessons could be drawn.
Antibiotics –literally meaning “that which is against life”—are chemicals that are used to weaken and destroy what people believe to be disease-causing bacteria and pathogens. Antibiotics are designed to “kill life”. The general idea behind antibiotics use is that you kill the bacterial lives sooner and in higher numbers than you would kill the healthy living cells. Once the “battle” is over, the living cells could then regenerate. In reality, however, it turns out that over time the antibiotics kill the local healthy cells (the use “mild” phrases like “tissue irritation” to describe this phenomenon), kill the friendly useful bacteria (called normal flora) one whose job is to prevent the growth of harmful bacteria, weaken the body’s own immune system (especially cell-mediated immunity) and reduce its own ability to deal with even very ordinary infections. At the same time as more resistant forms of pathogens are produced.
We now have a resurgence of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria and various disease agents. In fact, infectious diseases that we thought were eradicated a while back are now coming back stronger and more resistant than ever before. In response, our short-sighted and profit-driven solutions has entailed manufacturing and use of stronger and more lethal forms of antibiotics. As a result, new generations of various pathogenic bacteria have emerged that are resistant to even the more lethal forms of antibiotics. The whole approach has caused an escalating feedback loop that is spiraling out of control.
Scott Lucas says:
January 2, 2011 at 6:48 am
“Re Nima’s thoughts on the US Government presentation of “human rights” or re Nima’s thoughts on the situation inside Iran?”
Have you considered writing a handbook on how to dodge difficult questions, until easier ones pop up?
Scott Lucas – What you think of torture of 9,000 Palestinians and Lebanese in Israeli prison – “moral” or “executive”?
How about the jailing of a Jewish American traitor Joanthan Pollard in the US in 1987 – was it a “moral” or a “executive” punishment?
But then, since the Iranian Islamists claim to be the “Choen People” – world should only scriutinize Iranians, right!
Here is a moral lesson….
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/newsweek-talmud-is-a-business-guide-in-china/
Eric,
“I’ve recently noticed a distinction being drawn by certain writers between ‘moral’ and ‘executive’ responsibility for torture and executions by the Iranian government.”
I’ll leave others to debate moral responsibility. My focus in covering events is on executive and even systematic handling of political and legal issues.
S.
Eric,
“I am curious to hear your views on another piece Nima wrote three months ago”
Re Nima’s thoughts on the US Government presentation of “human rights” or re Nima’s thoughts on the situation inside Iran?
S.
Eric:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lethal_weapon
excerpt:
Non-lethal weapons, also called less-lethal weapons, less-than-lethal weapons, non-deadly weapons, pain-inducing weapons or, more recently, compliance weapons are weapons intended to be less likely to kill a living target than are conventional weapons. These various terms are meant to describe the intended result of applying these technologies, techniques and procedures; accidental, incidental, and correlative casualties are possible and are an understood and accepted risk wherever force is applied. Non-lethal weapons are used in combat situations to limit the escalation of conflict or where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable or where rules of engagement require minimum casualties or policy restricts the use of conventional force. Non-lethal weapons may be used by conventional military in a range of missions across the force continuum. Non-lethal weapons may also be utilized by military police, by United Nations forces, and by occupation forces for peacekeeping and stability operations. Non-lethal weapons may be used to channelize a battlefield or control the movement of civilian populations or limit civilian access to restricted areas (as they were utilized by the U.S.M.C.’s 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Somalia in 1995). When used by police forces domestically, similar weapons, tactics, techniques and procedures are often called “less lethal” or “less than lethal” and are employed in riot control, prisoner control, crowd control, refugee control, and self-defense.
Fiorangela wrote:
“On Apr 17 2009 Palestinian peace activist Bassem Abu Rahmah was killed when a tear gas canister fired by IDF soldiers struck him in the chest. The tear gas canisters are manufactured in Jamestown, Pennsylvania, by Combined Systems, Inc. … Bassem Abu Rahmah was leading a peaceful protest of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land at Bil’in.”
Ironic choice of Web domain name for Combined Systems, Inc.:
http://www.less-lethal.com/
On Apr 17 2009 Palestinian peace activist Bassem Abu Rahmah was killed when a tear gas canister fired by IDF soldiers struck him in the chest. The tear gas canisters are manufactured in Jamestown, Pennsylvania, by Combined Systems, Inc. The canisters are not intended for use against persons in open-air situations; they are intended to penetrate indoor barricades. Bassem Abu Rahmah was leading a peaceful protest of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land at Bil’in.
This morning, Jawaher Abu Rahmah, Bassem Abu Rahmah’s widow, was laid to rest after succumbing to tear gas asphyxiation. Mrs. Abu Rahmah had also been engaged in a peaceful protest against Israeli settlements at Bil’in when she was repeatedly targeted with tear gas canisters by Israeli military forces. http://alexbkane.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/ny-times-isabel-kershner-wasnt-at-bilin-demo-but-still-wrongly-reports-on-it/
Scott and Pak,
I’ve recently noticed a distinction being drawn by certain writers between “moral” and “executive” responsibility for torture and executions by the Iranian government.
To be more precise, I haven’t actually come across any mention at all of this distinction in connection with the current situation, but I do see it more and more often when supporters of Mousavi discuss his responsibility, if any, for the 1988 executions of 4,500 Iranians when Mousavi was Iran’s prime minister.
Consider, for example, this passage in an article that recently appeared on another prominent Iran-focused website. I’ve put “MORAL” and “EXECUTIVE” in all caps because that distinction was emphasized by the writer himself, and his emphasis might otherwise not be obvious from this short passage:
START OF QUOTATION:
The entire leadership of the time, including Mousavi, Karroubi, and Khatami … has MORAL responsibility for the [1988] executions. In addition, those in the leadership who were directly involved in the executions also bear EXECUTIVE responsibility and must some day defend themselves in open court. … If it eventually turns out that Mousavi, Karroubi, and other political figures that support or lead the Green Movement had EXECUTIVE responsibility for the executions, they must thus be held accountable, though, of course, allowed to defend themselves in a fair trial. …
Note that the distinction between MORAL and EXECUTIVE responsibility is not my invention. The concept has been recognized and invoked since at least World War II in many major trials involving large-scale political killings and mass murders.
END OF QUOTATION.
What do you think of this distinction – in particular, what do you understand is required for an official to be “directly” involved, and thus “accountable?” How, if at all, do you think this distinction is relevant to the current situation?
Bibi: Release Pollard, or else!
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/bibi-release-pollard-or-else/
Nima
Great work and I hope you will continue to update as new false predications are reported, never less you have compiled a master piece on western media’s false alarms of Iran’s nuclear program going back to early 1980s.
I hope someone soon, hopefully yourself, since you already have gathered the data, will compiled a short list of the media companies, individuals and the intuitions involved with date and number of false analysis and predictions made, a well researched and compiled short list, would be a great asset in future debates and arguments, on this subject.
Let’s say when a new David Sanger article appears in the NYT, someone can leave a comment and write, based on a new research made, the NYT and reporter David Sanger since 2003, have continually published articles, reporting on false and never realized predications and alarms by various institutions and individuals on the Iranian nuclear program, His articles published in NYT have continually predicted that Iran will be able to make a nuclear bomb by next year.
Scott Lucas,
I am curious to hear your views on another piece Nima wrote three months ago on his Wide Asleep in America website, concerning human rights abuses in various countries:
http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2010/09/international-flaw-with-new-iran.html
Pak,
“Khomeini opposed the Shah’s White Revolution, because it gave women the right to vote and become judges. of the law. Compare that to the Iranian government now, and you will see how women are definitely not equal in the eyes of the law.”
I don’t claim to know how well or ill women are practically treated in Iran, but at least “on paper” what you say is incorrect, and so I’d appreciate some elaboration. Certainly you must know, for example, that Iranian women have the right to vote and become judges; very many of them do vote, and I understand that more and more women each year are becoming judges.
At least on paper (an important paper, at that), women appear to have been granted equal rights. From the preamble of the Iranian constitution:
“As a part of this process, it is only natural that women should benefit from a particularly large augmentation of their rights, because of the greater oppression that they suffered under the old regime.”
Article 3(14) states the following as an explicit goal of the state:
“securing the multifarious rights of all citizens, both women and men, and providing legal protection for all, as well as the equality of all before the law.”
Article 20 adds this:
“All citizens of the country, both men and women, equally enjoy the protection of the law and enjoy all human, political, economic, social, and cultural rights….”
Article 21, entitled “Women’s Rights,” sets forth various specific rights of women.
I’ve also read that more women than men attend college (and far more than attended college during the Shah’s day), and my understanding is that women participate in government and business more extensively than was true during the Shah’s day.
Obviously you believe none or little of this has worked out in real life. But since what you’ve written is the opposite of what the constitution claims to be the case, and different from what I’ve heard in some respects, I’d like to hear some more details.
To Nima
Every now and then we read a book or an article or watch a video when out of daze our impressions go beyond “wow !” or “bravo !”, they fill a void inside our psyche making us feel a sensation of melancholiac satisfaction and make us hear an echo of “we are not alone in this vast world of insanity or barbarism”. That is how I felt after discovering you.
I won’t put in my resume “Opinionated egoist” since I believe no one is anything but egoist or opinionated or I’ll never refer to old-time [great] thinkers like Hobbes since I see our time drastically different from what it was before but I’ll keep your descriptive words like “[secular] humanist, skeptical, optimist and idealist”.
In the last two days I have been browsing WideAsleepInAmerica reading as many articles as I could. I agree with great majority of your thoughts. I also find your writings exquisite since they radiate your heart-felt humanism, something that is a rare commodity in our present day consumer society. How many non-Arab world citizenry cares about the historical pains of the Palestinians? Not too many but you are among those who selflessly shine in defending of the defenseless
In my view you are a profound asset to the ever-growing antiwar community .
I don’t agree with R.S.Hack that “[your] write up won’t matter a whit”. RSH might be right if your article is just read by a few (hundred) antiwar analysts and then set aside or forgotten. That then metaphorically is like a whitening cry of help in the middle of a dark vast ocean. However the article might make a dent (or at least act as the straw that breaks the back of the beast) if it is enthusiastically printed and circulated to all, to corrupt (and a few not so corrupt) elected members of the Congress and Senate, to all influential Administration officials, to all embassies, to all media outlets and so on. If by then it, along the works of Leveretts and other influential campaigners makes no measurable impact at all then I’ll accept that we are doomed, that we must be living in a real mad Kafkaesque self-destructing world.
Write more, enlighten us more, I am sure you are also envisioning, on the gloomy horizons, another unnecessary heinous war, the ferocious bombs flying and exploding in thousands over houses, factories etc. I am sure you are visualizing, as the bombs drop the countless limbs and body-parts severing, the blood soaked beloved ones dying in arms of their parents, relatives or friends and so on, and so on.
So glad finding you. Eagerly waiting to hear more from you.
Rd.,
Warmongering neocons and idiot “liberal” Democrats cannot proceed with a US war with Iran at this time because it is too clear that any attack would be illegal under international law. While they could rely on their stooges and wh*res in major US news media to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq and for subsequent protection, the situation with Iran is much more dangerous for them.
The Stockhold International Peace Research Institute says US armaments manufacturers took 54% of total arms sales in the Middle East 2005-2009.
Happy new year RSH and RFI.
Richard Steven Hack says:
“Wars start because the ruling elites ignore the obstacles that are obvious to rational people.”
In other words, the ruling elites, simply put, are idiots, according to above.
“The US will attack Iran, as they say, “when the time is right.” This could be sooner or later.”
In other words, the time not being right is an obstacle, so the above referenced idiots realize it is not rational to take such under takings at this very moment.
This paints an interesting reality. Perhaps, just perhaps, the IRI FP, soft power, mil planning, along with Chinese and Russian, other opposing rising powers, policies have been such that to promote such obstacles (even indirectly) so some of those idiots can rationalize the fallacy of their wet dreams.
Just pointing out that you are correct in your concerns and arguments. However, despite the MSM influence in this country, there is a word out there that lives and thinks on its own. Even though they may seem to be in a dis-advantage in certain regards, they are “thinking” to out maneuver the privileged. Such is the reality of life!
You might also consider the words of Gen Shelton (ret), when he comments in public, it was a mistake to start the Iraq war before finishing the Afghan war (not an exact quote).
Rehmat: I read today the dispute between Iran and India over oil payments has been resolved.
Iran-India Oil Dispute Resolved
http://uskowioniran.blogspot.com/2010/12/iran-india-oil-dispute-resolved.html
BiBiJon: “First off, Happy New year and best wishes for 2011.”
And to you! And everyone here at RFI, especially our hosts!
“There is an air of inevitability about the way you predict the future conflict.”
Indeed. That’s how I see it.
“That inevitability causes a c’est la vie type of cognitive dissonance in me.”
Which, as I suggest about most people who doubt the possibility, is precisely why people are resistant to the notion.
“A little like absolutely certain predictions of a massive earth quake would not figure in my decision to move to San Francisco.”
Well, unlike in many countries like Italy or Turkey, it’s less likely that a large San Fran earthquake will really kill all that many people. I went through the 1989 Loma Prieta and the toll there was minimal in comparison to 5,000 here and 10,000 there in other countries. The area spends a lot of money on earthquake damage abatement. Also, it’s a fait accompli. In this country earthquakes tend to do less damage than floods or hurricanes or tornados but short of abandoning the state of California, there’s not much one can do about them.
War remains inevitable in human behavior.
“It is a question of how seriously they might perceive a threat to themselves.”
It’s also a question of how much the US is a threat to them if they act militarily or too economically aggressively against the US. The US spends 47% of the world’s military spending – China spends 6%, Russia 3.5%. They can do the math.
“I suspect they may be capable of shooting down a few satellites, helping Iran sink a few navy ships, and if need be threaten the US with ICBMs if that is what it takes to convince the US to cease and desist.”
Never happen. The most China will do is sell more advanced anti-ship missiles to Iran. Russia might help out covertly with some signals intelligence. That’s about all they can without facing a direct threat from the US.
Now in addition to that, both China and Russia can be more aggressive in refusing to go along with US demands about things like US debt in China and missile defense in Europe. The US ruling elite has to weigh such things. But in the end, as long as those kinds of costs don’t weigh more than the profits of war, war will happen.
If some one can give me a real dollar figure on how much an Iran war would cost the ruling elites in the US – not the US taxpayer, not the general US consumer economy, I’m talking about the cost to the RULING ELITES ONLY – because they don’t care about any other costs – and prove that such costs are higher than any possible profits they could make in the military-industrial complex or the oil industry, then I might reconsider. I don’t think anyone can make such a case in any detail.
And THAT cost-benefit is the only one that matters – not any others.
Tehran stops oil sale to India
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/tehran-stops-oil-sale-to-india/
Richard Steven Hack says:
December 31, 2010 at 11:25 pm
First off, Happy New year and best wishes for 2011.
There is an air of inevitability about the way you predict the future conflict. That inevitability causes a c’est la vie type of cognitive dissonance in me. A little like absolutely certain predictions of a massive earth quake would not figure in my decision to move to San Francisco.
On China and Russia I cannot believe they are as helpless as you portray them. It is a question of how seriously they might perceive a threat to themselves. If China decides having their own continent’s energy sources locked down by US and Russia is an existential threat, then I suspect they may be capable of shooting down a few satellites, helping Iran sink a few navy ships, and if need be threaten the US with ICBMs if that is what it takes to convince the US to cease and desist.
Same for Russia.
“We are saying that no Caspian nation should offer its territory to third powers for use of force or military aggression against any Caspian state,” Putin told reporters.
,http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/17/world/fg-putin17
Putin orders resumption of strategic bomber flights
,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/17/russia.usa
None of this is to deny that there are folks who are working feverishly to start up a war. But, not everything that is dearly wished for and diligently worked for necessarily comes to fruition.
BiBiJon: “I suggested China may dislike that scenario enough to resist it.”
Other than a supposed ability by China to retaliate by dumping the US dollar (which would hurt China’s own economy), China really has no means to resist any unilateral action by the US against Iran. The US has already explicitly stated it will not abide by any UN resolution which prevents such an attack so China and Russia’s presence on the Security Council will be irrelevant.
“I was also suggesting Russia might regard Iran as ‘personal space’ and not feel entirely comfortable with US/NATO right up the Caspian.”
Not likely in my view. In any event, Russia probably expects the US to lose such a war and be unable to dominate Iran in that manner any more than it has dominated Iraq. Therefore Russia would be unlikely to attempt any more resistance to such an attack than China, except possibly covertly along the lines of supplying Iran with SIGINT and the like.
“I also pointed out some legal, proliferation risk, and cost/benefit issues.”
Which as I’ve said are not obstacles to the people running the US. This is the main issue every critic of the war scenario ignores: ALL these obstacles exist for Iraq, Afghanistan and every other war in history. Wars start because the ruling elites ignore the obstacles that are obvious to rational people.
“Do you think all of these points are wishful thinking and just as soon as the US has available bandwidth she will launch an attack?”
The US will attack Iran, as they say, “when the time is right.” This could be sooner or later. Without being privy to the actual interplay of the considerations of the ruling elites it’s not reasonable to try to predict exact timing. The ruling elites don’t just hand down edicts requesting an attack. Nonetheless the overall intent is to attack, just as the intent was to attack Afghanistan before 9/11 and the intent to attack Iraq, Iran and Syria was in the PNAC documents well before 9/11. The collapse of the Iraq war obviously derailed the immediate intent to attack Iran which the neocons assured Israel would occur once the Iraq “cakewalk” was over. And then Afghanistan, which was mostly ignored in the rush to attack Iraq, turned into a disaster. All this has forced the ruling elites to deal with these matters with the resources available and expend more time and effort to manipulate public opinion against Iran more slowly so as not to be seen as rushing willy-nilly into more disasters like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Therefore it does not surprise me that the US has not yet attacked Iran. These things don’t happen on a fixed schedule. But they are intended and once the ruling elites figure that things are mostly in favor they will attack on whatever pretext can be drummed up if the existing ones are insufficient. Look at how Bush was considering having a U2 shot down over Iraq to justify an attack if the WMD argument didn’t pan out. Is there any doubt there was fully the intent to attack Iraq regardless of the alleged justification? The same process is fully in place for Iran. That should be obvious to every one but apparently most people are still fixated on the notion that Obama is some sort of “peace President”. Which is irrelevant because he’s likely to be a one-term President and the next President may well be some sort of nutcase Republican on a par with McCain who will not hesitate to push the US into an Iran war.
You’ve been asking “what next” since you’ve clearly seen that this whole facade cannot be continued forever and the US (and Israel) is in no position to simply back down and accept Iranian enrichment. Well, the end result of that process in the past has in every case been war. Why assume Iran is different? Iran absolutely does not have the military ability to prevent the US from attacking it more or less successfully. What Iran does have is the ability to prevent the US from controlling it and thus Iran has the ability to “win” the war eventually, just as Iraq and the Taliban will win. But that will not stop the war from happening because the ruling elites do not care if the US “wins” – although they would be happy if it did. They just care that they make money from the war. If the US loses, they make money. If the US wins, they make money by controlling the defeated country, “rebuilding” the defeated country, etc. It’s a win-win for them no matter what happens – unless peace happens. That is disaster for them and that is why the US has not been at peace for long in decades and will never be at peace again. The US is built on a war economy and this situation has been getting worse for forty years or more.
If there is no war in Iran, then look out – because then the war will be someplace even worse like Pakistan or North Korea. But there will be war because the US is built on and maintained by war on some level at all times.
Rehmat says: December 31, 2010 at 11:18 pm
I fail to understand why you are addressing me in this regard.
fyi – India don’t need China as enemy when it has Israel as a “friend”!
The “Little Israel” in India!
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/the-little-israel-in-india/
Ha, ha, ha, ha ……
BiBiJon says: December 31, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Fear of the rise of China is the only explanation that I can find for India’s behavior.
That polity is internally weak, for example Karnataka and Maharashta are 2 antagonistic states that could have been at war several times with each other had they not been part of India.
This is to be contrasted with the racialist unity of the Han people in China and the All-China Communist Party that provides the governing structure for that country.
I personally do not see much benefot to India in trying to be part of a hypothetical anti-China containment regime – what is in it for her? Some nuclear goodies perhaps?
I think you are under-estimating the antipathy of Hindus to Islam in general in India. And also the degree to which they have bought into the myth of Israel. That they have burnt their bridiges with Iran there is no doubt.
They, the Indian leaders, imagine that the US-Iran confrontation will end on US terms and thus a prostrate Iran will be very glad indeed for whatever India will be offering Iran at that time. I think that is their strategic calculation.
I agree that it is all a long-shot for them but better informed people hava also made mistakes of even greater magnitude.
India as a counter-weight to China is laugable in that India cannot even win a proxy war in Afghanistan – where her Patron is the dominant military power – against Pakistan.
By the way, I do not think Military-Industrial Complex explains anything. In 1990s US was dismantling much of her Armed Forces as well as down-sizing her armaments industry.
Richard Steven Hack says:
December 31, 2010 at 8:13 pm
I’d be happy to extend the time for testing the hypothesis to 20 years.
Just to be clear, I was suggesting the reason a war has not happened yet is becuse for a defeated Iran to become a client of state of US, would complete the circle of such client states around the Perian Gulf. I suggested China may dislike that scenario enough to resist it.
I was also suggesting Russia might regard Iran as ‘personal space’ and not feel entirely comfortable with US/NATO right up the Caspian.
I also pointed out some legal, proliferation risk, and cost/benefit issues.
Do you think all of these points are wishful thinking and just as soon as the US has available bandwidth she will launch an attack?
Anyone who doesn’t believe that the US is an incipient fascist state needs only to consult the latest assault on civil liberty by Fox News (sic). Instead of informing citizens, Fox News (sic) informs on citizens. Jason Ditz reports (antiwar.com Dec. 28) that Fox News (sic) “no longer content to simply shill for a growing police state,” turned in a grandmother to the Department of Homeland Security for making “anti-American comments.”
The media have segued into the police attitude, which regards insistence on civil liberties and references to the Constitution as signs of extremism, especially when the Constitution is invoked in defense of dissent or privacy or placarded on a bumper sticker. President George W. Bush set the scene when he declared: “you are with us or against us.”
Bush’s words demonstrate a frightening decline in our government’s respect for dissent since the presidency of John F. Kennedy. In a speech to the Newspaper Publishers Association in 1961, President Kennedy said:
“No president should fear public scrutiny of his program, for from that scrutiny comes understanding, and from that understanding comes support or opposition; and both are necessary. . . . Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed, and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law makers once decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment.”
The press is not protected, Kennedy told the newspaper publishers, in order that it can amuse and entertain, emphasize the trivial, or simply tell the public what it wants to hear. The press is protected so that it can find and report facts and, thus, inform, arouse “and sometimes even anger public opinion.”
In a statement unlikely to be repeated by an American president, Kennedy told the newspaper publishers: “I’m not asking your newspapers to support an administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people, for I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.”
The America of Kennedy’s day and the America of today are two different worlds. In America today the media are expected to lie for the government in order to prevent the people from finding out what the government is up to. If polls can be believed, Americans brainwashed and programmed by O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh want Bradley Manning and Julian Assange torn limb from limb for informing Americans of the criminal acts of their government. Politicians and journalists are screeching for their execution.
President Kennedy told the Newspaper Publishers Association that “it is to the printing press, the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news, that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: Free and Independent.” Who can imagine a Bill Clinton, a George W. Bush, or a Barack Obama saying such a thing today?
Today the press is a propaganda ministry for the government. Any member who departs from his duty to lie and spin the news is expelled from the fraternity. A public increasingly unemployed, broke and homeless is told that they have vast enemies plotting to destroy them in the absence of annual trillion dollar expenditures for the military/security complex, wars lasting decades, no-fly lists, unlimited spying and collecting of dossiers on citizens supplemented by neighbors reporting on neighbors, full body scanners at airports, shopping centers, metro and train stations, traffic checks, and the equivalence of treason with the uttering of a truth.
Two years ago when he came into office President Obama admitted that no one knew what the military mission was in Afghanistan, including the president himself, but that he would find a mission and define it. On his recent trip to Afghanistan, Obama came up with the mission: to make the families of the troops safe in America, his version of Bush’s “we have to kill them over there before they kill us over here.”
No one snorted with derision or even mildly giggled. Neither the New York Times nor Fox News (sic) dared to wonder if perhaps, maybe, murdering and displacing large numbers of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen and US support for Israel’s similar treatment of Lebanese and Palestinians might be creating a hostile environment that could breed terrorists. If there still is such a thing as the Newspaper Publishers Association, its members are incapable of such an unpatriotic thought.
Today no one believes that our country’s success depends on an informed public and a free press. America’s success depends on its financial and military hegemony over the world. Any information inconsistent with the indispensable people’s god-given right to dominate the world must be suppressed and the messenger discredited and destroyed.
Now that the press has voluntarily shed its First Amendment rights, the government is working to redefine free speech as a privilege limited to the media, not a right of citizens. Thus, the insistence that WikiLeaks is not a media organization and Fox News (sic) turning in a citizen for exercising free speech. Washington’s assault on Assange and WikiLeaks is an assault on what remains of the US Constitution. When we cheer for WikiLeaks’ demise, we are cheering for our own.
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/101229_america.htm
BiBiJon: May I suggest your confusion over “what comes next” has more to do with your analysis of why war with Iran is not feasible than anything else. Please take note of the fact that the ruling elites in the US have no problems that can’t be solved with some other persons money or bodies. Therefore what you see as major obstacles to a war are basically like dust to them. These obstacles are problems for someone else to solve (or not, it doesn’t matter as long as the problems cause profits to flow in the right direction.)
The idea that war is unlikely because of the fact that the war hasn’t started yet is, as I’ve argued before, not really much of an argument. It’s more wishful thinking than anything else. Right now the US is engaged in a major war in Afghanistan and it would seem the ruling elites are more interested in expanding that war into Pakistan than attacking Iran at the moment. And the Iran situation has only heated up in the last eight years or so. It takes some time to set the conditions for war. If in another 20 years the US hasn’t attacked Iran I would be more receptive to the argument that since it hasn’t happened it isn’t likely to.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the foolish Republican who will take charge of the House foreign affairs committee in January, is unhappy Obama is sending an American ambassador to Damascus (after a nearly six-year hiatus). I, however, think Robert Ford was a good choice. Israel argued that the US was “rewarding” bad behavior by Syria. Absurd.
BiBiJon,
Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran all share an interest in preventing the creation of an independent Kurdistan, and in economic development and promotion of an increasingly free trade among themselves. Another shared interest is Israel/Palestine.
Will do.
@empty
Dear empty,
if you allow me one last comment to ‘close’ this issue and this should by no means be considered as an offense.
With all my true and honest humbleness ( Tavazo & Ekhlass ) , I see some significant differences in attitude comparing the Iranian commentators who are writing from the US and those who live permanently in Iran. I do not want to dig further into this point , however I urge my fellow countrymen , who are not living in Iran to pay extra attention to the events in Iran and to the ‘ real ‘ realities ( without judgment ). However there should never be a ‘ WE ‘ and ‘ THEM ‘ , on the contrary we rather should complement and learn from each other. No matter where we live and who we are : He who knows and knows that he knows is wise—follow him.” …
In this sense , I wish ALL of you a happy, healthy and prosperous NEW YEAR 2011 , which already started in Iran 1 hour and 24 minutes ago.
fyi says:
December 31, 2010 at 3:37 pm
I’d like to explore India a bit further.
I don’t by Israeli influence idea, as indeed I don’t buy the “lobby” influence in the US. I don’t deny that AIPAC has some influence, but I think all influence is a mental construct, a myth imposed on the ‘influenced’. They actively exaggerate what influence they have in order to have any influence at all.
If the nutty Zionists, supremacist WASPs and evangelical Christians are given a seat at the table, it is because they carry water for the MIC. If they dared talk ‘world peace and prosperity’, card-carrying Zionist or not, they’d be booted off the policy table.
Is India so worried about China? If so, how does burning bridges with Iran help? Or,, for that matter, why would India align herself with a power who forces binary choices on her?
Has India decided, once the dust settles, there will be only US in the region? If their calculations are sound, perhaps Iran ought to start practicing genuflexing.
fyi,
RE: “Which is what Jesus stated: ‘It is written [in the Quran al Akbar], that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’ …That is what the Principle of Unitarity of Revelation leads us to.”
I know what you mean. I have come to understand “la elaha ell-allah” (rejecting the toxic existences at the same time as letting in that which is Good) a lot differently, too.
Voice of Tehran,
RE: “Now I wonder , whether you address any special person or group in this valuable forum. Although I cannot mention each and every one , besides SL , whose ‘ GHOST ‘ ( in the sense of Goethe ) and his 2 companions we have called ourselves , else I see excellent and ‘ brave ‘ commentators expressing themselves here. Kindly be more specific.”
I was generalizing to the public outside of this forum and it was not about just the issue of war with Iran. As for a few people whose post may be intended to divert attention and redirect the discussions, I think, a) there is a good give and take from both sides, b) “adoo sabab_e kheir shavad agar khoda khahad” at minimum, it they have any ill intent (I have no evidence to believe that PAK and Binam do), then what they say motivates others to be more vigilant keep mentally “in shape”. I personally do not mind them.
@empty
Nice excursion and very well expressed . Now I wonder , whether you address any special person or group in this valuable forum. Although I cannot mention each and every one , besides SL , whose ‘ GHOST ‘ ( in the sense of Goethe ) and his 2 companions we have called ourselves , else I see excellent and ‘ brave ‘ commentators expressing themselves here. Kindly be more specific.
If you are speaking about the general situation in the US , then you are absolutely right of course. The US Empire only existed in our minds and on paper. The grandeur to ‘ manage’ the world never ever existed in the US leadership , neither in their intellectuals , people etc.
The US was a Pseudo- Empire by pure coincidence . The God-given ‘ FETRAT ‘ of human beings is in complete contrast of what the US-Empire wanted to impose on the world.
BiBiJon says: December 31, 2010 at 2:40 pm
There are more than 200 Million Muslims in India.
The strategic community in India has decided to assume the role of Junior Partner to US strategically. I suppose against China.
Those who run the show in India are Hindus with deep anti-pathy to Islam. The anti-pathy to Islam permeates all strata of the India society. Even the concept of charity (the fundamental idea behind socialism) they owe to Islam and yet they will never admit that much.
Furthermore, these same people are very much in awe of Israelis. The Hindus have projected and conflated their wars with Pakistan and in Kashmir to Israel and Palestine.
Looking at the map, I fail to see how India can offer any strategic value to US. India is hemmed in by the Himalayas, by the Rajesthan desert, and by Bengaladash.
She is going to throw her weight around against who exactly?
She has burnt her bridges to Iran and the future would tell if that was a wise move for that country.
Empty says: December 31, 2010 at 1:51 pm
You wrote: “…just as our body needs to consume proper nutritious food free of pesticides and toxins to remain healthy, so, too, our collective and individual minds need healthy servings of knowledge, words,…”
Which is what Jesus stated: “It is written [in the Quran al Akbar], that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”
That is what the Principle of Unitarity of Revelation leads us to.
BiBiJon says: December 31, 2010 at 1:01 pm
I do not have any data to gauge the likelihood of revolution among the Arab states.
My study of previous indigenous revolutions has led me to the observation that the revolutions are preceded with rising expectations among the populace.
Moreover, the life-time of the new revolutionary state seems to be 2, at most 3 generations (20 years for each generation).
Which nicley fits Ibn Khaldun’s empirical observations for the duration of ruling-houses in North Africa of his time period.
In North African Arab states, change will come from Sunni Islam – the intelligensia of Maghreb is so thoroughly French that no intellectual leadership can be expected from them that the population will find convincing.
Moroco and Tunisia are creole civilizations – if you travel there you can see it.
If I were a Morocan or Tunisian leader I would go to US embassy and ask help in order to fight the nefarious Shia subversives that are inspired by Iran (there are no Shia there). Washington is sure to give them a lot of money.
I have no idea about CIA’s analytical capabilities and their crystal-ball(s) – if any.
Iranian,
A تکذیبیه was added to the piece in Tabnak later on.
It’s extremely biased.
irshad,
With all do respect the book is useless.
James Canning says:
December 31, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I think you have touched on critical element that will shape the future course of regional politics: cooperative partnerships among countries for manifest economic Possibly security) self interests.
I used to think of India in that category particularly because of the lattitude Mottaki (graduate of Indian university) was being given to strengthen Iran-India relations despite set backs vis-a-vis India’s vote against Iran in IAEA.
Recent events with ACU and India’s central bank is making me wonder if however India was encouraged to go against Iran could not be replicated to isolate Iran from other nations.
Anotherwords, what is special about Turky/Syria/Iran/Iraq that excludes India (100+ million muslim population, not to mention the Parsi’s of Mumbai)?
I hope others were as pleased as I am, that Obama took advantage of the break to send a UN ambassador to Damascus. Foolish Republican Senators had been obstructing confirmation. No US ambassador in Syria for five years! Sheer idiocy, unworthy of a great country. And sheer idiocy brought about by: ISRAEL LOBBY! What a surprise.
BiBiJon,
Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran are working together in their joint best interests, despite all the anti-Iran ranting published in US newspapers, etc etc etc.
In the past few days, there has been a plea for funding for this site. One of the most compelling reasons provided for support has been that the site presents views and perspective about the U.S. foreign policy toward Iran that are not getting a fair and balanced exposure and consideration both by the decision makers and by the U.S. public at large. This has provided a good opportunity, at least for me, to reflect a bit about the concept of free speech, what it means, and the rights and responsibilities that go with it.
Many posts have either directly discussed or alluded to free speech in one form or another. Some have argued how free speech is lacking in Iran. Others have pointed to cases that show otherwise. A few people have even discussed the lack of free speech in the U.S. and various forms that it takes. Some speeches are censored by aggressive smear campaigns, others are drowned in the sea of rhetoric and trumpeted out of hearing range; some are curbed by deliberate underfunding, others are obscured by selective reporting; some are diverted and hi-jacked by specific groups and individuals, others are willfully mis-interpreted and words twisted to convey completely different meaning that was originally meant. But what does it really mean to have the right to speak? To free speech? Are there limits? Are there guidelines? Should there be limits? Should there be guidelines? If yes, based on what rationale should those guidelines be set? Or, should people be able to say anything at any time? If so, what would be the consequences of this? All these questions dance in my head as I try to figure out what to say and what not to say; how to say something and when to say something, or should I support a space for one perspective or another. As I read the posts, I realize that many people get into back-and-forth discussions based on assumptions, by all sides, that are left unexamined. This makes a lot of posts rather contradictory. Perhaps this time is as good as any time, to share these thoughts with you. Perhaps it is helpful in making decisions whether to contribute or not.
I find myself having a really hard time accepting any right decoupled and alienated from the responsibilities that go with that right. I cannot, for example, think that I have the right to life in a society separate and independent of the responsibilities that goes with that life: responsibilities to myself, to my family and friends, to people in my community, and to people all over the world (current and future generations). If I think I have the right to gain a particular knowledge or skill, then I must also think that I have an obligation and responsibility to use that knowledge and skill to better my own life, the life of those around me, and all other people. I also think that I have the responsibility to apply that knowledge and skill carefully, thoughtfully, and reflectively so that I do not do more harm than good. I think this is not easy though. It does require great wisdom that is not easy to gain and maintain. Once I have gained that wisdom, how do I exercise courage to actually practice it? By all accounts, I do not find these things easy. I am willing, however, to give it try. Because ultimately, my intention is to contribute to achieving a healthy world and all that it entails physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and more. I also think that I have an obligation to try to be just to the extent that is possible. That means, for instance, that I would not disproportionately invest my energy and resources in my physical health such that I completely neglect my spiritual health as these are so interconnected. Similarly, I do not advocate for investing in one individual, one group, one nation, and one generation such that another individual, another group, another nation, and another generation are completely neglected and “screwed” so to speak. I, for example, do not believe that the Iranian people should, in one or two generation, guzzle up the oil and the gas and all natural resources at the expense of all generations to come. So, I welcome designations of a year called “eslahe olgooye masraf” (Reforming the Patterns of Consumption) in Iran that are then followed up with policies and actions in subsequent years. Are they perfect? Of course not. Could they be better? Of course. They are, by all accounts, steps in the right direction to illustrate that the right to “oil” is so entirely linked to very critical responsibilities about how, when, where, and why or why not to use this critical resource. I contrast that with the U.S. policies that I see. Anyone who has any understanding of the U.S. also knows that energy wastes, un-regulated consumption, mindless borrowing, un-wise productions of items that are absolutely toxic to our health, life, and planet are at their highest. Yet, what was the advice Bush the Lesser gave to the American public right after Sept. 11th? Be patriotic. Go shopping. And what gift Obama, the champion of pocket ‘change’, has to give? Another few trillion dollars added to the Empire of Borrowed Wealth. These “rights” that are decoupled and alienated from responsibilities.
Now, what have any of these to do with free speech? I think, just as our body needs to consume proper nutritious food free of pesticides and toxins to remain healthy, so, too, our collective and individual minds need healthy servings of knowledge, words, ethics, and the like on a regular basis to remain healthy. Bodies that run on empty calories, toxic foods, trans-fatty acids, processed sugars and the like are fertile grounds for heart attacks, diabetes, cancers, and all the ills that follow. In addition, when the body gets too busy working on a non-nutritious “food”, for example, it postpones/delays all other vital activities (including immune systems functions) till it’s done with digestion and elimination of this “food”. Similarly, when individual and collective minds of a society are bombarded relentlessly by nonsense, junk information, malicious utterances, and the like, those minds cannot process what is truly needed for them to flourish, excel, and evolve. I grew up hearing from my parents that one is given two ears and one mouth so it means the ratio of one’s listening to one’s speaking should be 2:1. It may not look like (at least from the posts I do on this site) that I have listened to my parents’ advice. But I surely try. I do see also, that under the banner of free speech, toxic information, informational spams, empty speeches are given a wide latitude to grow but useful, constructive, and healthy information and speeches are silenced under the banner of anti-defamation this and that, character assassinations, and false labels in the U.S. Alarmingly and vary painfully, I also observe that people in the U.S. are increasingly indoctrinated (through various means including the media) to have a sense of entitlement to say absolutely anything at any time and any where about anything, a bad case of verbal diarrhea of a sort, and expect absolutely no consequences and no responsibility about what they say so long as they stick to junk-speeches.
I also see that very deep discourses are happening in Iran about these very concepts of rights to speech and deeds that are either linked or de-linked from responsibilities that go with those rights within Iran. They are being played out in films, trials, blogs, websites, newspapers, the seminaries in Qom, TV and radio programs, and conferences and seminars. I personally believe in dialectical approaches to illustrate differences between critical speeches and “verbal diarrhea” rather than coercive measures to the degree that is possible as the former approach raises the public’s consciousness and the latter approach is only a short-cut. I am also hopeful and see early signs that these discourses are heading the right direction and would progress should there be no threat of war.
What does this mean for the contribution plea, well, it all depends on what anyone thinks what his/her responsibilities are.
Pak, Pirouz
I have read “Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah” by Baqer Moin.
It was a very informative and descriptive book on the life of Imam Khomeini and would recommend it to all.
@Iranian
Here a couple of intersting books in German language :
http://www.muslim-markt.de/Bibliothek/biblio-titel.htm
Titel Autor
ABC des Islam Allamah Tabatab’i
Abu Huraira – Ursache und Wirkung seiner Überlieferungen Sayyid Abdul Hussain Scharafuddin Musawi
Al-Muradscha´at – Die Konsultation – Dialog zwischen Sunniten und Schiiten Sayyid Abdalhussain Scharufuddin Musawi
Antworten auf Rechtsfragen Imam Seyyid Ali Khamene’i
Antworten auf Rechtsfragen Teil 2 Imam Seyyid Ali Khamene’i
… auf daß Liebe und Freundschaft zwischen euch sei! Ibrahim Amini
Auf dem Weg zum Weltbürger und einer menschlichen Welt M. Razavi Rad
Aufruf zum Ein-Gott-Bekennen – Brief Imam Khomeinis an Michael Gorbatschow Imam Khomeini
Aus den Gebeten der Mevlevi (Evrad-i Scherif) Rumi, Dschalaleddin (Mevlana)
Auszüge aus Gedichten (mehrsprachig) Omar Khayyam
Bibel, Koran und Wissenschaft Maurice Bucaille
Charta der Freiheit Imam Khamene’i
Dem stillen Dialog verpflichtet Annemarie Schimmel
Die Makamen des Hariri Hariri
Die Regeln der Qur’an-Rezitation Abdullah Frank Bubenheim, Nadem Elyaz
Die Spirituelle Dimension des Islam Allamah Tabatab’i
Ein- und Einzigkeit Gottes Ghazali, Abu Hamid ibn Muhammed
Ende des Darwinismus Harun Yahya …….
fyi says:
December 31, 2010 at 12:35 pm
“More of the same with no resolution.”
I can see the “more” part, but not the “same” part, because economies, military power, threat perception, etc. are not constants. In particular, risks are ever changing. E.g. Saudi Arabia and Egypt will undergo leadership changes. The risks of associated upheaval are not zero. Unlikely places, e.g. Morocco, may start flaming with revolution. Who would like to bet on the likelihood of that being assessed correctly by CIA?
Fiorangela says: December 31, 2010 at 11:52 am
To be accurate to Pak, there is a current and persistent evil in the Iranian polity that is practiced against women. That is Honor Killing – where woman is murdered by her relatives if she is suspected of having compromised the Honor of her family.
Iranian society shares that with every single Muslim society that you care to mention.
One recent case in Dezful: a man beheaded her 7-year old daughter since he suspected her uncle to have molested her.
There are many many sickening cases like that; they were there at the time of the Shah and they are here now.
Lower class women are subject to more of this form of violence. There is no doubt.
BiBiJon says: December 31, 2010 at 12:30 pm
More of the same with no resolution.
Resolution is not possible; US cannot internally deliver on any promises that she makes to Iran.
Just would like to repeat a teaser for discussing “what comes next?”
Where are current trajectories that seem to be defining Iran-US rivalry in the region leading to?
Is war a serious option? I personally doubt it. Russia and China are extremely unlikely to endorse a use of force resolution in UNSC. Turkey’s objections will create a serious fissure within NATO, and any unilateral move seems utterly pointless, if not downright counterproductive.
Sanctions can only last so long. Supply and demand, easy money making opportunities, etc. will surely make any sanction regime over time to leak like a sieve. Any maritime blockade to enforce the sanctions is of course an act of war, but even if a future Sara Palin went that rout, it does not address Iran’s land borders.
Continued, and escalating threats, covert actions, and media Iran bashing have already brought Turkey, Iran, Syria, Iraq, etc. closer together, and will likely cement those relationships even tighter.
I am at a loss. Just as two parallel lines never meet, nor does the dual track approach yield a tangible point in the future for the ships of various states to sale towards.
Thanks Iranian, I’ll check it out.
It’s funny, about ten days ago I was searching for an objective biography on Khomeini. I checked my public library system and came up with zilch. Surprising.
We have one recent biography on Ahmadinejad but it is heavily biased and I put it down about 1/4 the way through.
There’s virtually nothing on Khamenei.
Fiorangela says: December 31, 2010 at 11:52 am
Thank you for your comments.
Indeed, in USSR, they followed the Feminist Revolution to the bitter end.
Thus, when USSR collapsed, young women truned to becoming international prostitutes; a phenomenon that we are observing in US where thousands of young and comely women – over decades – became whores since that was an easy way of making money – an not because of financial stress.
You see, in the Western society, a woman is everything between 15 to 35 – after that she is a hag. She might as well take advantage of it and sell her charms to the highest bidder to make money; the supreme value of their society.
American men are not militarized; they are bewildered. A young man in America has nothing: he has no money and his access to the things of good-life is limited. Those who are in universities and are otherwise pursuing serious courses of study have to give-up on partying etc. to build their credentials. The loosers are stuck in low-level clerical or menial positions with no chance of advancement (cemetery care taker).
And all the while, the young women are exploiting their sexual power to the hilt; bestowing their favors whimsically here and there on a young man that they find feminized enough and silly enough to not be a threat.
fyi, pak, the West’s bid to reform Iran’s oppressive treatment of women frequently amuses me. Younger women in the US — Sarah Palin’s cohort — came of age in a much different world from that of their mothers and even elder sisters. American women older than Palin could NOT own property in their own name; could not obtain a mortgage in their own name; could not hold their own bank account. Sarah Palin’s mother’s generation of American women would have been denied employment because “a man should have the job;” it was permissible for an employer to question a female candidate for employment about her plans to marry and to produce children, and to withhold employment on those bases. The presence of Sarah Palin’s female elders in professional schools and advanced degree programs was the exception, not the rule.
As for dress codes, at my (Catholic) university, women were required to wear skirts/dresses, no pants/slacks, and jeans were beyond the pale. Iran, today, looks very much like a college campus from the early 1960s in the US.
Sarah Palin and her cohort may be unaware of the realities of life for women whose adult options were to enter nursing, teaching, or stay-at-home motherhood. Women in teaching professions were not infrequently required to remain unmarried — when my older sister, a teacher, announced that she was engaged to be married, her employer gave her the option of terminating her plan to marry or her teaching career.
In the US, women have come a long way in a relatively short time. Our daughters are not as attuned to the road that has been traveled, and the tolls that have been paid. Today, American families are fractured and dysfunctional. It’s difficult for me to avoid a connection between the de-feminization of American women and the hyper-militarization of American men. Maybe feminism has gone too far?
American women who may be aware of the full scope of American female liberation may be more eager to mind their own business and let Iranian women chart their own path.
Pak says: December 31, 2010 at 12:04 am
I used to be critical of the concept of Supreme Jurisprudent.
But I have come to respect the Office as Mr. Khamenei’s execution of that office’s duties and privileges have prevented both chaos and dictatorship to re-emerge in Iran.
I do not, on a personal level, trust any of the existing factions; I find them to be singularly agenda-driven and dis-respectful of Law and Order. They would do anything, in other words, to gain power and to hold it; up to and including assassinations and usurpation of power.
This is a characteristic of Iran (and perhaps all Muslim polities) which was seen during 1905-1921 period. The political chaos that aided Reza Khan’s ascendancy to power as the Law and Order leader.
Same thing happened in Syria in the 1950s when that country was a representative democracy; coup, assassinations, etc. until the Alawaites took control of the state.
Go no further than Iraq to see what I mean.
That it is a new concept is actually quite pleasing as it goes against the grain of the Islamic conservatism’s abhorrence of “innovation”, bid’a.
Rd. says: December 31, 2010 at 10:01 am
I doubt that there is a US hand behind the recognition of Palestine by the South American states.
I do not believe that US is capable of playing such a deep hand; if she could, she would not have been where she is today in Palestine.
I think there are Palestinian and Arab immigrants in South America that could be influencing the local scene.
I also think this is a cheap and cost-free way for these states to play a role in the World affairs; it is an exercise of soft-power.
I supsect that the recognition of the Palestinian state by these South American states is an indication of pateince running out with US and her pet in Palestine.
Pak says: December 31, 2010 at 12:04 am
Bigoted views on women are not shared across the Iranian population.
The 10 % that I mentioned earlier; those who try to treat their sons and daughters equitably, certainly are not bigoted the way I think you intended in using that word.
Furthermore, bigotry is relative: compared to whom? The Afghans? The Turks? The Arabs?
Iranians and in fact many non-Western people, have well-defined opinions and ideas about the role of men and women and their position in society. One of them, for example, is the idea of male space and female space – sharfed by Iranians, Chinese, and many others. A manifestation of that idea is in England: where football stadia are a male exclusive domain, just like Iran. In fact, to my knowledge, US is the only country in the world in which women freely go to sport arenas.
Which brings me to this: the Western people, in their post-Christian phase, have assaulted the traditional notions of man/woman relationship that I have alluded to. They have weakened the role of man/masculine in their societies and have done their best to deny – on the intellectual level – the qualitative differences between men and women. They have tried to expand female space (no issue there) by eliminating men space and by attacking masculinity.
Therefore, I do not beleive that you can base your judgement on the status women in Iran on the example of the late 20-th century/early 21-th century US-EU Axis.
Marriage used to be a badge of honor in US-EU Axis states; now it is a form of bondage. Notice how these states encourage and aide any form of sexual deviancy and yet have a very confrontational legal attitude towards male sexuality?
In this case of status of women in Iran, reform must start with the existing Laws.
West, which denies now that the nature of woman is Love, cannot serve as template.
Poll: Americans worry for Iranian threat to Israel
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/poll-americans-worry-for-iranian-threat-to-israel/
Bibijon wrote:
“Flynt Leverett has said many times that such a war would be on the grounds that Iran is enriching uranium. Given Iran’s rights under NPT, this would not only be illegal, but a dangerous NPT shredding move. In that context, whatever national security justification is usurped for that aggression, it would be instantly negated by making acquisition of nuclear deterrent a top priority for all nations on the planet.”
Well put, and worth repeating.
Pak
Your understanding of both the Shah and Imam Khomeini is upside down, indeed.
Scott Lucas:
More bad news for you:
http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/139498/بخاطر-اهل-بیتع-و-اصل-ولایت-فقیه-در-مراسم-شرکت-کردم
Pirouz:
There is little on Imam Khomeini worth reading in English. Professor Hamed Algar has written a couple of good books though.
fyi ”However, there will be no progress on any front for US in the Middle East over the next 2 years; not in Palestine, not in the Levant, not in Iraq, and certainly not in Iran.”
Agree with your comments, but curious what your thoughts are about the following, considering Bosnia will be taking the presidency of SC. Would US abstain? even so, there won’t be peace in Palestine, but has the potential to keep the Israelis busy/distracted for a while. Also, with Brazil pushing for this and specially with Abbas, is there a US hand behind this?
“The Palestinians and Arabs will shortly bring a draft resolution before the UN Security Council calling on Israel to halt Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories and Jerusalem”
http://snuffysmithsblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/arabs-to-go-to-un-against-jewish.html
Richard Steven Hack says:
December 31, 2010 at 5:58 am
Thanks for your reply. Personally I feel there are 3 things we may wait for in perpetuity, in futility: Beckett’s Godot, US-Iran rapprochement, and war.
I discount possibility of war because despite many opportunities to start one, no one has.
Flynt Leverett has said many times that such a war would be on the grounds that Iran is enriching uranium. Given Iran’s rights under NPT, this would not only be illegal, but a dangerous NPT shredding move. In that context, whatever national security justification is usurped for that aggression, it would be instantly negated by making acquisition of nuclear deterrent a top priority for all nations on the planet.
Secondly, I guess Iran’s geographic size, and nationalistic cohesion is forcing military planners to think before they act. Similarly, if reports I read about Iranian capacity to retaliate (even if short lived) are at all realistic, then Iran can wreak havoc with the world economy — another food for thought.
Third, looking at the map, Iran is the only Persian Gulf littoral state that has independence from western hegemony. If China lets Iran go, where would China find alternative sources of energy other than from Russia or from US controlled Persian Gulf?
Fourth, for decades, if not centuries, Russia’s sensitivity to the security of her soft underbelly has been instrumental in creating a space for Iran to be ‘independent.’ No matter how much the US bribes Russia, I doubt that the US can feel secure that Russia will stay ‘completely’ out of the fight rather than avenge the 80′s Afghanistan.
Pak,
If you haven’t read anything, you have no evidence.
And Israel is still wrong on their estimate after twenty five years:
Broken Record: Israeli official says 3 years to stop Iran
http://www.lobelog.com/broken-record-israeli-official-says-3-years-to-stop-iran/
BiBiJon says: “Assuming the US policy will stay on the animosity track (forever), and assuming Iran will not capitulate (ever), then what next?”
You know my answer to that: war. It’s virtually inevitable. The US will attack Iran at some point and Iran will be beaten down badly, but ultimately the US will lose the war just as it lost the war in Iraq and is losing the war even more badly in Afghanistan.
At this point in my mind, the only question is whether the US is more intent on expanding the war in Afghanistan into Pakistan more than it is intent on attacking Iran. I am beginning to suspect that the US ruling elites are seeing the current profits from AfPack as being more enticing than the future profits from the Iran war. This may delay the Iran war for some more years. So it will be important to watch the progress of the efforts to expand the war into Pakistan. If they seem to be making headway and the alleged “withdrawal” is dumped by the wayside in the next two years, then an Iran war may be delayed. A war with Pakistan – or an indefinite bog down in Pakistan “assisting” the Pakistani military in fighting the militants – would be as profitable to the US ruling elites as a war with Iran.
But it won’t make Israel as happy.
Eric: I agree that Nima’s write up won’t matter a whit. It’s just nice to have it as a resource all in one place.
This site isn’t going to matter a whit in the end either. It’s just nice to have one (more) place to get decent analysis and news.
Eric: “Are they not hypocritical to condemn Wikileaks when they publish the cables (and, with one or a very few exceptions) Wikileaks does not publish any of them until the newspapers have done so?”
I’d say so. But then I recognize that the media are hypocritical in their essence. They claim to be an “estate” intended to deliver truth to their audience when in fact they are and always have been beholden to the state and corporate agencies and only rarely confront those agents and only when it is profitable for them to do so – and only to the degree that they do not sever their relations with those agencies.
The advantage Wikileaks has is that it does not have relations with states or corporate agencies, and if there is any problem in the way these cables are being released, it is in that Wikileaks appears to be forging links with the media which in the end will compromise that independence. This doesn’t surprise me since Assange has emerged as Wikileaks public face. He has been “co-opted” by media celebrity status and this almost always works to the disadvantage of truth. He should have remained more hidden and less available and allowed Wikileaks to act in a more “underground” manner.
But this is not really a problem. The more Wikileaks becomes compromised by Assange’s behavior and the media’s manipulated perceptions of him, others will surface to take its place. To some degree, the conflicts within Wikileaks and the apparent emergence of alternatives demonstrate that this is already taking place. It will be a couple years before any alternatives can establish themselves as Wikileaks has, but it will happen. What an organization like Wikileaks can do has been established and others will wish to participate for their own reasons.
Scott: “It is safe to appreciate there are at least four errors in that sentence”
None of which are demonstrated by your words on this site. Actions speak louder than words and actual posts speak louder than declarations of innocence.
You ARE clearly hostile to Iran and considerably more so than any other Middle East country on this Web site. Whereas I am completely indifferent to Iran and every other country in the Middle East, with the possible exception of Israel since it is the source of at least half the US’s problems in that region (the US being itself responsible for everything else.)
Pak,
I regard Abbas Milani as something of an Iranian expat version of Charles Krauthammer.
Personally speaking, I haven’t come across a satisfactory biography of Khomeini, Khamenei or Ahmadinejad in the English language, so if someone has a suggestion to offer, I too am interested.
Have you seen this documentary on YouTube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCZ-jmDbjmQ&playnext=1&list=PL7802C973C63A2C06&index=1
Nima Shirazi’s fine essay has been posted on the Mondoweiss forum:
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/12/the-phantom-menace-fantasies-falsehoods-and-fear-mongering-about-irans-nuclear-program.html
Dear Eric,
“In any case, though, the comparison is easy to the Iranian government that had come before. One needs only to repeat here the Shah’s jaw-dropping description of women reported by Empty…”
Draw-dropping indeed, because despite his bigotry, the Shah recognised that women are “equal in the eyes of the law”. Compare that to the Iranian government now, and you will see how women are definitely not equal in the eyes of the law. Khomeini opposed the Shah’s White Revolution, because it gave women the right to vote and become judges. After the revolution, Khomeini repealed the Shah’s Family Protection Law, which had delegated the right to divorce and custody of children to the courts, set the minimum age of marriage to 18, and heavily regulated polygamy.
Dear Iranian,
I am always interested to know more, especially about Khomeini. While I am aware of the impact he had, the words he spoke, and the actions he took, I am totally unaware of the philosophy that drove his thinking. I generally judge everything by tangible evidence, which is why I maintain that he is a lying, murderous tyrant. But, as with most revolutionaries who have blood on their hands, he must have been a complex and interesting man. Please let me know of any books that describe his philosophical underpinnings. English would be preferable, but Farsi is fine too.
Regarding velayate faghih, I neither proclaim any expertise nor am I religious. Again, I judge by tangible evidence, and evidence suggests that velayate faghih is simply a complex excuse for dictatorship. So long as government is not secular or democratic, I am not interested. I am not saying that religion has no role in society; far from it. But religion has no role in governance, and laws should be civil, not religious.
Pak,
“I was talking about bigoted views on women. Prove me wrong.”
I offer no opinion on the current Iran government’s view of women (though I will note, as many others have, that the number of women attending college has jumped since the Shah was overthrown). In any case, though, the comparison is easy to the Iranian government that had come before. One needs only to repeat here the Shah’s jaw-dropping description of women reported by Empty in his post of December 30 at 8:13 PM:
“Nobody can influence me, nobody. Still less a woman. Women are important in a man’s life only if they’re beautiful and charming and keep their femininity and….This business of feminism, for instance. What do feminists want? What do you want? You say equality. Oh! I don’t want to seem rude, but…You’re equal in the eyes of the law but not, excuse my saying so, in ability……You’ve never produced a Michelangelo or a Bach. You’ve never even produced a great chef. And if you talk to me about opportunity, all I can say is, are you joking? Have you ever lacked the opportunity to give history a great chef? You’ve produced nothing great, nothing! Tell me, how many women capable of governing have you met in the course of your interviews?…..All I can say is that women, when they govern, are much harsher than men. Much crueler. Much more bloodthirsty. I’m citing facts, not opinion. You’re heartless when you have power.”
Pak
Your understanding of Welayate Fagheeh is flawed and the same is true about your knowledge on Imam Khomeini. If you wish, I can introduce books about both for you to read.
Eerie coincidence, given what I was talking about earlier:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/29/the_shahs_atomic_dreams?page=full
Dear fyi,
You forget to mention that Iran is still host to one of the largest refugee populations in the world (the Afghans).
I was talking about bigoted views on women. Prove me wrong. Also, Iran may be religious, but many of the current religious concepts in Iran (such as velayate faghih) are very recent in creation, and disputed.
Pak says: December 30, 2010 at 11:15 pm
For 3000 years the Iranian mindset has been about and of Religion.
It was the same bigotted people that offered a refuge to the Armenians escaping genocide in Eastern Ottoman Empire.
It was the same bigotted people who accepted more refugees during 1980s than any other country in the world – both in absolute and in relative terms.
Bigotism exists everywhere in the world; like everything else, it is relative.
Pak – How “the level of oppression being witnessed now is unparalleled”. Is it because the Shah’s secret service SAWAK was lead by Israeli military officials or because Shah’s jeweler was a Jew whose son played a major part in the bankruptcy of Iceland?
Just because, Tehran doesn’t differentiate between the pro-Israel protesters and the other protester – as is the case in the US, Britain, France and Germnay?
Hey, I have no right to stop some professional hasbara fool – but the truth always prevails.
Iran on Israel Hasbara Radar
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/more-anti-iran-hasbara-conferences/
Dear Castellio, Fiorangela and fyi,
I did not mention anything about the Shah’s domestic policies, other than saying that they failed, especially regarding political freedoms. That being said, the level of oppression being witnessed now is unparalleled.
The Shah did pass many progressive laws in favour of women, but he failed to change the Iranian mindset, which is unfortunately quite bigoted (as Empty has correctly identified). Just look at Khomeini’s reaction to the White Revolution, or the fact that people defend the law that diminishes a women’s testimony to half that of a man’s. Khomeini argued that the Shah actually oppressed women by encouraging them to work. What gave him – a man – the right to judge what a women should and should not do?
Despite the regressive nature of the current regime’s domestic policies, the greatest gift the revolution has given to Iran is to open up education to the masses, especially to women. That is why Iran now has a powerful women’s rights movement, a powerful civil rights movement, a powerful labour movement, a powerful student movement, etc, because education is the key to progress. That is also why the Green Movement does not want a revolution and does not pursue violent insurrection, because progress cannot blossom out of blood and violence. That is why the movement has instead adopted debate and critique, despite the unprecedented level of oppression (both verbal and physical) that has been inflicted upon it.
As I said previously, ideology is the final hurdle that needs to be overcome. Ideology is a cancer that infects everyone, including educated people. The regime in Iran is an ideology, because it is a cause. That is why the supreme leader is Rahbare Enghelab (leader of the revolution) and not leader of Iran.
Pak says: December 30, 2010 at 7:03 pm
The Shah had no authority to govern, only to reign – under the Constitution of 1905, amended in 1925.
Thus, his usurpation of power to govern was an illegal act. Since the Constitution of 1905 provided no mechanism to redress grievances against violation of that Constitution (a Constitutional Court) popular revolt was the only mechanism left.
I also do not think it feasible for you to inveigh against the “Islamic Republic” because you will inevitably be led to question Islam and its legitimacy – in politic as well as in other domains of life – which, as Americans say, will be a non-starter.
Reform in Iran must start with the Rule of Law: public and equal application of publicly formulated laws.
Eric A. Brill says: December 30, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Israelis either have been told or else have surmised that they cannot have the US-Iran War during the next 2 years.
So, conveniently (dutifully, perhaps), they have revised their estimate to help out Mr. Obama’s sanction policy.
Mr. Obama’s sanction policy, on the other hand, is intended on kicking the can down the road; so to speak.
The Israeli statement buys more diplomatic time for Mr. Obama.
However, there will be no progress on any front for US in the Middle East over the next 2 years; not in Palestine, not in the Levant, not in Iraq, and certainly not in Iran.
May be US can continue to protect UAE, whose citizens celeberated for days the 9/11/2001 attacks.
I wonder sometime how US leaders and planners justify this to themselves. I mean, do they go home and tell their wives: “Honey, you recall how I told you that coeds would come to class in UAE colleges gigling about the 9/11 attacks? Well, I am so proud that we are going to defend them against those bastard iranians.”
I was just listening to an archive of a program on NPR that had Jeffrey Goldberg on as a guest (I know, get a life moment here). During the conversation the host mentioned that the Leveretts were seeking a US rapprochement with Iran. Jeffrey snapped, they [the Leveretts] are outliers. I thought, no, they are not outliers, they are outing liars. If you can evoke that kind of reaction from JG, you must be doing something right.
Leveretts,
Keep up the good work! Check is in the mail, err PayPal.
Pak – how would you compare the civil freedoms of Iranians under Shah, keeping in mind the policies and actions of SAVAK, with civil freedoms of Iranians today, under unshaven and poorly dressed IRI and IRGC?
btw, I must confess, I would probably favor a return of Shah. The community where I lived during the Shah’s reign was almost completely dependent on contracts from Shah. We all built our homes, bought fine cars and consumer goods, started and raised families, all on Iranian contracts. So thanks. oh, ya, sorry about that SAVAK repression business, and the fact that while Americans benefited from Iranian wealth, many Iranians did not. And the arrogant and condescending way American corporate workers in Iran behaved toward Iranians? Well, things happen, you know; mistakes were made; let’s let bygones be bygones.
Eric A. Brill says:
December 30, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Nima Shirazi is a meticulous researcher, with a very accessible style of writing. You should check out his other posts in WideAsleepInAmerica.
His exhaustive list of false alarms about a nuclear Iran serves to highlight a larger point for me: the certifiable obsession with Iran. That obsession has been leading the US policy makers astray from their duty in safeguarding national interests for some 57 years. As lists of missteps and blowbacks from boneheaded policies have gotten longer over these decades, observers such as Nima or the Leveretts are reduced to repeating themselves as they point out the follies to a forgetful electorate.
I would be very interested in reading predictions about the future. Assume Iraq was not a snafu. As Iranians say: ‘out of this bottle will only flow the wine within.’ Assuming the US policy will stay on the animosity track (forever), and assuming Iran will not capitulate (ever), then what next?
“…Nobody can influence me, nobody. Still less a woman. Women are important in a man’s life only if they’re beautiful and charming and keep their femininity and….This business of feminism, for instance. What do feminists want? What do you want? You say equality. Oh! I don’t want to seem rude, but…You’re equal in the eyes of the law but not, excuse my saying so, in ability……You’ve never produced a Michelangelo or a Bach. You’ve never even produced a great chef. And if you talk to me about opportunity, all I can say is, are you joking? Have you ever lacked the opportunity to give history a great chef? You’ve produced nothing great, nothing! Tell me, how many women capable of governing have you met in the course of your interviews?…..All I can say is that women, when they govern, are much harsher than men. Much crueler. Much more bloodthirsty. I’m citing facts, not opinion. You’re heartless when you have power.”
—Interview with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi from “Interview with History” by Oriana Fallaci,
Pak writes “I have said this before, but the fact that he and his officials spoke many languages, were always clean shaven and well presented, makes a huge difference to people’s perceptions of Iran.”
Did members of SAVAK shave, too? Oh, how nice!
Dear Arnold,
Thank you for asking a question that is not loaded with hate and anger. Firstly, I would like to point out that I never lived under the Pahlavi regime, so I do not want you to think that I am one of those Iranians who reminisces about ‘the good old days’. My exposure to the Islamic regime has also been on and off (more recently confined to off, given the current political climate). As a result, I do not represent anyone but myself, and I am not pursuing any particular agenda other than to strengthen and develop my country and people. As you will see from this post, I am happy to critique Iran’s entire modern history, because I base my judgements on facts and not ideology.
You cannot reduce a vastly complex topic to the simple question of choosing between the monarchy and the theocracy. I will very briefly outline what my perspective is on both eras’ foreign policy:
1. The monarchy:
Given the modern context of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s rule, I will only focus on him. The Shah wanted to modernise and strengthen Iran. Given the extreme lack of expertise within Iran (as the Pahlavi’s ruled over a backward, illiterate nation), he had to look abroad. This obviously made him dependent on foreign powers, but in return he received all the money and expertise he dreamt of. Oil output was huge, the military was powerful, and a nuclear program was being developed. The Shah kept Iraq at bay, and had enough clout in OPEC to almost double the price of oil. I do not know much about his policy on Israel, other than he recognised them and we shared large trade relations. I also know that he openly spoke about the Jewish lobby’s control of US politics, and the negative impact they had/have.
The Shah’s foreign policy was ultimately driven by nationalistic intentions. His foreign relations were generally all positive, and he always portrayed Iran in a way that I agree with (cultured, proud, intelligent and modern). I have said this before, but the fact that he and his officials spoke many languages, were always clean shaven and well presented, makes a huge difference to people’s perceptions of Iran.
Regarding his dependence on the US, I speculate that he wanted to take the same path that Turkey is taking now: dependence until one is powerful enough to pursue independence. But, due to naivety and inexperience, he gave the Americans far too many concessions. This relationship also empowered him too much domestically, to the point that he destroyed any legitimate opposition in Iran, leaving behind a power vacuum in which a lying, murderous mullah profited from the people’s dissatisfaction.
2. The Islamic Republic
The Islamic Republic’s foreign policy is spearheaded by the policy of ‘neither East nor West’, although the rejection of the West has led to a dependence on the East. But still, this policy effectively envisages self-sufficiency. I have not gauged just how self-sufficient the regime wants Iran to be, considering there is a disparity between words and actions. For example, Ahmadinejad in particular derides capitalism and globalisation, but the regime pushed to join the WTO, and they also obviously oppose the sanctions, despite the fact that sanctions should only enhance their indigenisation policy. They also despise the US, but most elements of the regime are pushing for a normalisation of relations.
The regime’s foreign policy is ideologically driven more than anything else, although as time goes by it is becoming more rational (the wikileaks cable I linked to earlier suggests this too). This has led to an extreme Israel policy, which has only fed an extreme Israeli Iran policy. This has also led to the support of other ideologically driven states, such as Venezuela, Zimbabwe and North Korea, which are useless and expensive alliances. The regime has generally completely mishandled diplomacy, and portrays Iranians in a way that I disagree with. Diplomats are unshaven, wear shoddy suits, speak undiplomatically, and make many rookie errors (such as sending letters that are full of spelling mistakes). If their attire reflected a national dress, then I would be fine with it. But even their attire is ideologically driven.
The regime’s foreign policy is also developed by the notion of an Islamic world. Many months ago, kooshy introduced me to a school of thought that basically says that Iran’s attempt at pan-nationalism has failed, because religion is the key to gaining influence and support. I am sceptical of the long-term success of this policy, but for now it is working, because Iran has tapped into the discontent of the injustices inflicted upon the Islamic world by non-Islamic powers. I might be biased, but I also believe that Iran is culturally the strongest nation in the Islamic world, given our role in the development of the religion itself. I know it will be a pain to read, but please take a look at this article by Abbas Milani to understand how I perceive Iran’s future role in the Islamic world: http://www.tnr.com/article/world/the-greening-islam
All in all, I generally support the regime’s policy of independence, although I wholeheartedly reject self-sufficiency. Iran has a right to many things, such as an indigenous nuclear program, and the right not to be singled-out by a supposedly global UN. But, I believe that the regime has completely mishandled their foreign policy, because it is ideologically driven, not pragmatic and naive. Iran cannot simply jump to superpower status by hollow words and reckless actions. It is not like Pirouz_2’s philosophy of ‘I think hard therefore I am’. I have my own theories about the regime’s future trajectory under Ahmadinejad, but generally I believe that they have finally understood that ‘neither East nor West’ will never work.
To conclude, I cannot answer your question. I believe that the Shah’s dependence on the West was to an extent necessary, but this led to a failure in domestic politics. I also agree with the Shah’s world view and how he wanted Iran to be perceived in this world. In theory, I agree with the regime’s policy of independence, but I believe that they have made a complete mess of it, because they are stupid, aggressive and ideologically driven. We live in a globalised world where information is instant, where nothing can be hidden from public view, where isolation is incredibly costly, and where interdependence is the ultimate goal. If the regime does not understand this, then we will only continue to see threats, isolation and a lack of development.
Quickly, in response to your second point, of course I know that policies will always have opposition. The point is that a nation is supposed to have a functioning civil society where this opposition can be voiced and challenged, not crushed and brushed aside. This function of democracy naturally moderates policy, which Iran definitely needs at the moment. The US needs it too, given the state of its monopolised media. That is why people who say that Iran is a democracy are lying, because if you actually know what democracy is, you will realise that it is not simply elections. It is embracing opposition and criticism through free media, free judiciary, freedom to be politically active, etc etc.
The only reason people believe that Professor Lucas’ work is inciting revolution is because they do not believe in opposition, and because they are also incredibly paranoid. This is actually why any opposition instantly becomes revolutionary, because the regime knows nothing else. This is why M.Ali will painstakingly sieve through articles to identify negative words about Iran, such as “unrest”. This is why many believe that Professor Lucas’ work only focuses on Iran, when it does not. This is why Press TV portrays Iran as heaven on earth. Ultimately, this is why the Green Movement was crushed on the streets. (The claims that the movement is violent and radical are a joke, because if it was actually violent and radical we would still be seeing violence and radicalism today. It is not that hard to step outside and set a building alight, or buy a few weapons on the black market and create an armed opposition. And please do not claim that the regime has succeeded in crushing the movement; it has only crushed protests. If you follow Iranian politics, you will see that the regime still mentions the Green Movement on a daily basis, and proclaims success while at the same time conceding its existence and influence.)
Nima and others,
Impressive a job as Nima’s write-up was, I don’t think it will have much effect. Skeptical readers will draw one of two conclusions:
1. How do we know all those bomb-predictors weren’t correct — all the way back to the first one in 1984? Maybe Iran indeed has had a bomb all these years.
2. If all past bomb-predictors have been wrong so far, that may cast some doubt on the credibility of the current bomb-predictors, but not enough to assume they are wrong simply because the earlier ones were.
Richard and Arnold,
Thanks for the updated information on Wikileaks, though, as you both note, fairly little is known. With the (possible) exception of the one cable Arnold mentioned, I see no reason so far to conclude that Wikileaks has actually “published” any cables (though Richard notes that it does so after a news organization has already published the cable).
This does strike me as an important distinction. If the newspapers had no effective choice but to publish all cables delivered to them by Wikileaks, the distinction would be practically meaningless. But I’ve not heard of any such threat, and I suspect that Wikileaks would have carried out the threat by now if it had made it. (It seems likely to me that the newspapers have decided not to publish at least a few of the cables that Wikileaks has delivered to them.)
One can argue, of course, that delivering secret cables to newspapers amounts to publishing them, even if, as occurred here, the delivering party knows, and explicitly accepts, that the receivers will consult privately with the US government before publishing. Nonetheless, setting aside Wikileaks’ responsibility, what about the newspapers? Are they not hypocritical to condemn Wikileaks when they publish the cables (and, with one or a very few exceptions) Wikileaks does not publish any of them until the newspapers have done so?
*US priorities being challenged in the region
Arnold,
“It is safe to understand that the reason you are more hostile to Iran than to Egypt is that Iran challenges US priorities in the region – especially the US commitment to ensuring Israel’s security – more than Egypt does.”
It is safe to appreciate there are at least four errors in that sentence: 1) I am not “hostile to Iran” as a country; 2) I am not hostile to Egypt as a country; 3) I do not object to US priorities being challenging in the region; 4) I do not put any priority on the US commitment to Israel.
I would go further but — as the authors of RFI are appealing for money — I do not think it is productive to divert the topic of the thread.
Happy New Year!
S.
Humanist,
How amazing that Americans in that poll dislike Iran even more than they dislike North Korea! Graphic confirmation of astounding ignorance and stupidity that is so pervasive in the American public – - thanks to relentless propaganda of Israel lobby and its numerous stooges in US Congress.
rd., re Shimon Peres declaration that israel cannot survive without its US patron:
David Makovsky of WINEP led a delegation of WINEP trustees who are also New York City bankers and venture capitalists, on a trip to Israel last October. He discusses that trip here. In the course of that report, Barbara Slavin asked him if Israel would press the US Senate to sign a formal treaty, allying US and Israel.
Makovsky answered, Maybe yes, maybe no: zionists are loathe to ally with anybody that might cramp their freedom of movement and self-determination. otoh, a treaty with US would provide a defensive shield against Iran.
But the broader point is, an alliance is in the air. Barbara Slavin does not say these things just to hear herself talk; she is laying the groundwork for something.
The number of Jewish-led interest groups that is popping us is also worrisome — I mentioned David Frum’[s “no labels” group earlier today; former White House functionary and “former” friend of Helen Thomas, Lanny Davis, is forming a consultancy with a former AIPAC staffer http://mondoweiss.net/2010/12/this-is-funny-lanny-davis-called-himself-a-super-lawyer.html
J Street, the supposed-”liberal” answer to AIPAC, is only one or two years old but already has a budget in the tens of millions, and is planning a very high-profile conference in Washington this February.
today on another blog, an Israeli person commented, “what good is wealth when Jews have suffered persecution for all these years.”
Wealth buys access, that’s what good wealth is. Ask Haim Saban “what good wealth is.”
in conclusion: CONTRIBUTE TO RACE FOR IRAN!!!
Richard Steven Hack says: December 30, 2010 at 2:31 pm
There are also on-going plans and constructions of alternative pipelines to by-pass sthe Straits of Hormuz.
Abu Dhabi is plannong on building underground storage tanks for water.
Missile defenses are being deployed in Ras Al Tanur and elsewhere for contingency reasons.
Military hardware from US is being bought and pre-positioned.
I personally think for the Southern Persian Gulf Arabs and for US it is better and chepaer to cut a deal with the Iranians than to continue with their current course.
None of these oil-wells-with-flags state will survive a 4 year US-Iran War.
In my opinion, the real threat to these ruling houses is the demographic time-bomb (excepting Abu Dhabi but then she might feel the heat from a neighbouring revolutionary state).
Given the track record of US policy makers since the Iranian Revolution, I fully expect these types of efforts to blow in their faces as well.
What would Americans do if the government of any of these states is overthrown by a Military Junta?
Iranian says: December 30, 2010 at 2:27 pm
I am not disputing that very many Iranians are not unhappy with the Islamic Republic.
My point is that harrasment of people by the moral police and the disenfrachisement of sectors of the population based on their outward appearance must be stopped.
Only God can Judge who is a True Believer or not.
The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is intefereing with natural rights of Muslims that are granted to them by God.
Rehmat says: December 30, 2010 at 3:19 pm
I really do not care about that Garrison Judaism that has pirated the ancient and noble name of Israel and applied it to itself.
The facts that I have recounted in my post remain salient shortcomings of an order that calls itself Islamic; it must bring people together not alienate them from both religion and the state.
Is young women wearing boots against religion? If so why?
Is riding bicylces forbidden to women in Islam? [They rode horses, donkeys, and mules before.] If so why?
Is women and men in a mixed social setting in private homes any of the business of the state?
Can you judge the hearts of men because they are wearing a 2-day old beard – or not?
I hope you will agree with me that both Summayah and Hamzah were Muslims. But there were no Sharia at that time to tell them how to wipe their ass when defecating.
And if Abu Sofyan can be a Muslim, I do not understand why the Election Law of Iran essentially brands many Iranian Muslims as “non-Muslim”.
Only God can Judge what is in the hearts of men.
And as Prophet Jesus stated: “Judge not lest ye be Judged.”
And please, in the future, when you are continuing with your life, remember that you heard all these things from me at this site for the first time.
“…select what is the best speech..”
So Pak,
If the source is an unnamed “Iran watcher” in a State Department embassy cable, it’s gotta be true, right?
from zikileaks: US Spies on Iran from Turkey
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/200994
By the way, the “cablegate.wikileaks.org” link cited in the Newsweek piece no longer exists courtesy of various statist and commercial entity efforts to shut down Wikileaks. Currently Wikileaks cables are here:
http://213.251.145.96/cablegate.html
edit
Perhaps they sofer from ADD.
Perhaps they suffer from ADD.
Eric: It depends on your definition of “publishing” vs “releasing”. The new organizations are “publishing” the documents to the public after they were “released” by Wikileaks to those organizations.
Wikileaks is itself “publishing” them as they are “published” by the media.
This might help people:
How To Search The Wikileak Cable Dump
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/29/how-to-search-the-wikileaks-documents.html
Unfortunately I can’t see any way on the Wikileaks site to distinguish between cables they “released” themselves vs cables they are “publishing” after having been “released” by the news organizations. I’m not sure it would useful information in any case absent any details about how or why the cables, if any, were selected for that treatment.
I view Arnold’s notion that Assange is withholding information for some ulterior motive or some agreement with whoever to be speculative at best. Wikileaks has said why they are doing it this way – to allow time for contemplation of the material in small amounts rather than an unworkable – for the news media apparently – single “dump”. The downside of granting this “contemplative time” to the news media is that, as Arnold correctly notes, the US government is capable of “managing” the impact of each release. On the other hand, there isn’t much the US government can do – so far at least – to prevent any further revelations.
Perhaps the government hopes that given the slow nature of the release, it can somehow gain control of the entire process and take out Assange and Wikileaks itself in the process. I find this unlikely even if they manage to find some way to charge Assange and/or members of Wikileaks which the violation of some US law. Given the nature of the Internet and hackers, all that would mean is that someone else would take over the process using an even more distributed and covert means of releasing submitted material to the “above ground world”.
If you can’t stop file sharing, you can’t stop covert release of secret documents. By definition, these documents are coming from insiders and no matter how many get put in jail, there will be others. And if that doesn’t work, there’s always the army of Chinese hackers who probably would be happy to find and release this sort of thing themselves and who are quite capable of doing so. There really is no such thing as “computer security” even at the DOD level, let alone “security against terrorists”, as I frequently argue on Bruce Schneier’s IT security Web site.
So the US had better limit itself to “managing” the spin in the mainstream media about the documents rather than trying to cut off the flow because they will have no more success at that than NATO has in closing the AfPack border to the Taliban.
A New Alliance for Israel
“We cannot exist alone.” Israel’s national security axiom was acknowledged by President Shimon Peres during an address in November. “For our existence we need the friendship of the United States of America,” he stressed, adding: “It doesn’t sound easy, but this is the truth.” It’s not easy for a client-state to admit that its own survival depends on a global patron.
“It seems, however, that Israeli leaders continue to operate under the illusion that the U.S. remains the paramount power.”
Perhaps they sofer from ADD.
http://snuffysmithsblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-alliance-for-israel-by-leon-hadar.html
fyi – You must be thinking about the US Israel where millions of people are not allowed to participate in general elections – based on their color and religion. Islamic Republic is the only country in the world which have conducted elections every 4 years even during the 8-year western imposed war.
Can you tell us how many Muslim members are in Knesset based on their 1.2 million population or in Congress based on their popolation of 8-11 million? In comparison, the 30,000 Iranian Jews have one representative in the Majlis since 1980.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/zionists-chutzpah-and-ahmadinejad/
Nima Shirazi: Nice work on that article. I’ve mentioned the point before that the war mongers have been touting Iran actually physically HAVING nuclear weapons for the last twenty five years.
This is why I believe the issue has to be resolved before much longer because it will become increasingly ridiculous to believe Iran has a nuclear weapons program when, year after year stretching into decades, THERE IS NO BOMB to be seen. So there is a time limit on the US-Israel propaganda campaign. They have to fish or cut bait especially now that they are actively pursuing the issue and not just issuing general warnings about it. They cannot keep this up another ten or twenty five years and they cannot back down on their claims.
Meanwhile, the long range plans for war with Iran continue to be developed, this time by the UK which plans to actively help the UAE repel any Iranian attacks which might “damage Western interests in the region”. “This includes regular patrolling of Royal Navy warships across the Persian Gulf and their presence at UAE ports.”
UK planning to evacuate expats from the Persian Gulf region in the event of war with Iran
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/11180
Fiorangela,
You make a good case for concluding there exists an organized effort for an intentional frightening of the Israeli public, about a currently non-existent Iranian “threat”, so that they pressure Jews in the US to put pressure on foolish American politicians.
fyi
It’s pretty clear that the vast majority of Iranians are satisfied with an Islamic Republic. The only people who are facing severe difficulty are those who planned or participated in riots and who tried to steal the election with western support.
Nima,
Your Wide Asleep in America piece is by far the most thorough review of all the “any day now” predictions of an Iranian bomb – so thorough, ironically, that you’ve now become obligated to update with new predictions as they come along. Keep up the good work.
Eric, wikileaks is being very secretive about its release process. One thing I’ve noticed is that nobody is asking questions. Meaning Assange finds himself still under attack for releasing too much when from my point of view, wikileaks (including the newpapers) has essentially released nothing at all from the diplomatic cables.
There was an interview with Al Jazeerah where he responded to criticisms that nothing has been released that might embarrass Israel. His response was
1) More will be released in the next six months
2) He has 2700 documents originating in Israel even though the cablegate website shows over 5000 documents originating in Israel.
But we have seen no explanation from wikileaks about the degree of coordination with the Obama administration taken by wikileaks and the newspapers, what the process of wikileaks coordination with the newspapers or what wikileaks releases on its own, and through what process, if any.
My explanation is still that wikileaks stepped out of its league and has been massively outplayed in this case by the US team tasked with preventing any damage to US diplomatic interests with the cable release.
Wikileaks has come to some agreements that it rightly is not proud of and now has a release process for these cables that it does not want to be publicly understood.
For anyone looking for an outside view of the US diplomatic process, the cablegate release is of no value.
I’m led to believe but I don’t think I’ve seen stated directly, that wikileaks released the list of sensitive locations to US security. That is the one document that I’ve even heard a hint that wikileaks released itself. On the other hand, I’m following it much less closely now than when I thought it might have value.
Iranian@Iran, Liz, Iranian:
In spite of these crowds and these photographs, the fact remains that there are millions of people who are prevented, by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, from participating in the political life of their country.
Furthermore, in Tehran, you are dealing with people whose religiosity and social mores are not the same of the rest of Iran. In fact, the rest of Iran, with a time lag, emulates Tehran.
Moreover, there are people like them all over Iran.
This disaffected population cannot be changed to conform to the religiosity and to social and cultural mores of the rest of Iran.
Iranian authorities are best advised to accomodate this population. To wit, the Election Law to the Majlis ought to be changed and the moral police disbanded.
Otherwise, the political weakness that this population poses to the Islamic Republic will persist.
Scott,
A few weeks back, you referred on your website to some reports that the woman involved in the stoning case was to be released, and to later reports that this had not occurred after all.
Can you update us on her status? In particular, I’m curious about the sources of the reports that she was to be released.
Thank you.
Arnold asks, December 30, 2010 at 9:51 am
Perfect
Arnold,
You reported in an earlier thread that Wikileaks had directly published at least one State Department cable. Do you (or anyone else) know where I can find a list of the cables actually published by Wikileaks itself — as distinguished from the cables published by one or more of the newspapers to whom Wikileaks forwarded the cables that Pfc. Bradley Manning had provided to Wikileaks? Even though Wikileaks is almost universally blamed (or credited, depending on one’s view) with publishing the cables, it appears to me so far that Wikileaks did not publish much at all, nor that it threatened to publish the cables if the newspapers declined to do so. It appears instead that virtually all of the publishing has been done by the newspapers.
Arnold, maybe you’re reading too much into this.
Scott appears to neatly conform to VEVAK’s explanation of a foreign directed soft power war being directed at it by foreigners intent on fomenting sedition in the Islamic Republic of Iran. I mean, Scott is a foreigner and he does direct a dedicated staff of expat Iranian seditionists. This particular operation goes by the pretense “EA IRAN.”
Perhaps it’s as easily explained as that.
Scott
“Of course, neither the geopolitical and human rights situations are “easy” to resolve: if only it could be so, we could relax and take some time off from making comments!”
Scott, Thanks you for your reply, I say yes I understand, but I am not convinced about “we”
Regards
Scott Lucas,
What a load of garbage. Your obsession with Iran is clear to everyone.
Scott:
I’ve looked over your website. There is no way you can claim you’re as hostile to the Egyptian dictatorship are you are against Iran’s government. Is that what you’re claiming? Because if you’re claiming that, you’re lying and we can stop this discussion now.
There is something about Iran that you don’t like that goes way beyond how it treats its citizens.
Until you provide an alternative explanation, it is safe to understand that the reason you are more hostile to Iran than to Egypt is that Iran challenges US priorities in the region – especially the US’ commitment to ensuring Israel’s security – more than Egypt does.
So do you admit that Iran’s foreign policies motivate your hostility against it more than its treatment of its people, or can you provide an alternate explanation?
I think you might as well just admit it and try to justify it rather than continue to insult the intelligence of everyone who reads anything you write.
Angus Reid Poll: Most Americans believe Iran has a nuclear (weapon) program. Also Majority are against war with Iran.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/12/29/Most-in-US-think-Iran-has-nuke-program/UPI-47471293661320/
Arnold,
“It is impossible to escape the conclusion that your hostility against Iran stems from its not having a pro-Zionist dictatorship the way the countries in the region that you accept better do.”
When you have read anything I’ve written/edited about Egypt, Tunisia, Israel, Palestine, Turkey, the US, etc., get back to me on your concept of “impossible”.
S.
Video: Former Senator says ‘(Iran) Sanctions are ridiculous, blames AIPAC
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/157754.html
Race for Iran comes at a crucial time to stop the AIPAC/Neocon insanity of unnecessary war against Iran! As the Leveretts and others wrote many times, the current U.S led sanctions against the Islamic Republic are counter productive, the sanctions will not result in a ” regime change ” nor will they stop Iran`s growing regional influence.It is therefore in the interest of anyone who opposes a war against Iran to counter this AIPAC/Neocon hype, a hype that may lead to distruction and death around the world ( including the U.S of course! ).I hope those who can will make a donation to raceforiran.com, the time is ticking to stop the AIPAC/Neocon insanity!!
Ps- I find myself in a small dilemma,I want to make a donation but I don`t want to use paypal! I have boycotted paypal because of paypal`s boycott on Wikileaks! Any solutions on how to make a donation from United Kingdom without using paypal?
A question for the Leveretts:
If you could choose between Egypt being ruled by Sadat/Mubarak – the first of which you’ve both spoken so approvingly of – or by a democratic leader who could well be as hostile to Israel as Ahmadinejad, which would you choose?
If you choose Sadat/Mubarak, then is your opposition to attempting regime change in Iran solely on the basis that such a regime change is implausible? If Iran could be destabilized to the point that the US could impose a leader like Sadat or Mubarak is feasible, would you then support that?
Pak:
Just out of curiosity – if your only choices were the current Islamic republic or the Shah, which would you choose?
There are some Iranians who would choose the Shah. I wonder if you are one of them.
I forget which one, but it was not you, there was a commenter here who believed Iran would be better off if its foreign policy were implemented by a pro-American dictator the way it is in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and UAE. Do you agree with that?
This question is not an accusation. I’ll believe you if you say you prefer the current regime to the Shah or to Mubarak while you still passionately believe in replacing the current regime with something better. But it is a request for clarification because if you think the Shah or Mubarak are or would be better, then I will see your writings in an entirely different light.
Another point I’d like to raise though, is that any Iranian government that reflects the will of the Iranian people will have domestic opposition. Even if it is a government that meets all of your criteria.
The US, as well as people like Scott, will support Iran’s opposition not to bring about or improve democracy but to destabilize the country and in hopes of ultimately imposing a Shah or a Mubarak.
How would you feel about Iranians working with Scott to overthrow an Iranian government that you support?
Sorry. The post below is directed at Scott, while it quotes Iranian.
Iranian:
[To Scott] I agree. Your government’s human rights violations are so extensive at home and abroad that discussing them would take up all of our time.
That is a good point from Iranian. You still have not explained your hostility towards Iran, which has far fewer human rights violations and deviations from uniformly applied rule of law than Egypt or than Israel with respect especially to its subject Palestinian population.
For example, Israel just detained another Hamas Parliament member.
It is impossible to escape the conclusion that your hostility against Iran stems from its not having a pro-Zionist dictatorship the way the countries in the region that you accept better do. Those countries being the US colonies of Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudia Arabia and UAE – as well as Israel for whose sake the US maintains this colonial relationship.
You’ve said before that you would not favor Iran being restored to control by the pro-American Shah. Your selective denigration of Iran’s independent regime makes it impossible to believe that.
contribute to RACE FOR IRAN!! Do it Now!
here’s what Flynt and Hillary Leverett are up against: David “Axis of Evil” Frum and William Glaston were on C Span Washington Journal this morning to wave the banner for their new political “movement” — “No Labels.” They plan to “organize” at the “grassroots level” in all 435 congressional districts, with the feel-good soporific message of, “C’mon folks, can’t we all just get along. Let’s not divide on Democrat-Republican lines; let’s find common ground, let’s not demonize, blah blah blah.”
Frum emphasized that his new organization was really really poor, that the 1000 people that came to the group’s kick-off event in New York City “paid their own way”, and Galston followed up to say that he and Frum “paid their own transportation” to speaking events in various cities, and that the organization had spent only about a million dollars in its first, start-up, year.
I don’t know about you; in my household, a million dollars/year is serious money.
And what Frum failed to say about those sacrificing people who “paid their own way to New York City” is that many of them are billionaires, like David Morin, co-inventor of Facebook — check it out. http://nolabels.org/about-us/founding-leaders/?page=1
One caller to the Frum-Galston C Span event this morning reminded the listening public of the ironic fact that Frum was the author of the “Axis of Evil” LABEL that plunged the US into a very dangerous situation and cost tremendous amounts of blood and treasure. Frum’s response was a cat in a litterbox, kicking sand over the dirt of his Axis of Evil output and making it smell good and disappear.
Cranking Frum’s past actions into the statements he made about his new organization and its agenda, it’s not hard to figure out that the Israel lobby that is Frum’s first concern is anxious about the gathering strength of Independents, probably also Ron Paul. Having gained control of both the Republican and Democratic parties, the Israel lobby is concerned that someone like Ron Paul, who is not sympathetic to either the Federal Reserve system or to Israel, might cause an erosion in Israeli power in the US.
Humanist, thank you for reading my garbled thoughts on a concept that I think is extremely important; namely, the structural basis in Israeli culture of the compulsion to have someone to demonize — Haggai Ram’s words.
You can read “Iranophobia: The Logic of an Israeli The Logic of an Israeli Obsession,” online at http://www.scribd.com/Iranophobia/d/24277607
بیا تا گل بر افشانیم و می در ساغر اندازیم……فلک را سقف بشکافیم و طرحی نو در اندازیم
اگر غم لشکر انگیزد که خون عاشقان ریزد…..من و ساقی به هم تازیم و بنیادش بر اندازیم
–شیخ حافظ شیرازی
Let’s scatter flowers and the Wine,
Let’s fill the cups with spirits of Divine,
Let’s open the heavens and the skies,
Let’s write another destiny blissful in design.
When the armies of despair gather storm,
To spill the lovers’ blood en masse or alone,
Let’s abet the saghi, Let’s unite and combine,
Let’s root out ignorance and let the Truth shine.
p.s. All translations are, by design, interpretations.
p.s.s. This is one interpretation of Sheykh Hafez Shirazi’s poem.
p.s.s.s. In the spirit of full disclosure, translating “if” as “when” was deliberate.
Thank you for the excellent website and congratulations for basically being the only American source for accurate information on Iran. With the passage of time, all of your articles over the past year and a half have been proven to be correct and your antagonists have shown themselves as having little knowledge and no credibility.
I’m certain your courage will bear fruit.
Big day. Congrats to all.
http://www.irna.ir/Show.aspx?SD=0&NID=30157623&PID=841828
Today is the anniversary of the defeat of the US government and its green allies and mercenaries in Iran.
http://alef.ir/1388/content/view/61666/
Last year today when the backs of the green thugs were broken on the streets of Tehran:
http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/139289/تصاویرمرور-خاطرات-9دی،خروش-انقلابی-مردم
Nima Shirazi
I read your piece and it is really excellent.
Scott Lucas
I agree. Your government’s human rights violations are so extensive at home and abroad that discussing them would take up all of our time.
kooshy,
Re: “the subject of Iran’s geopolitics is and easier issue to discuss and address, then the Iran’s human rights subject”
I initially wrote this with reference to the authors of RFI, who have a demonstrated expertise in analysis of the geopolitical and regional situation, drawing from their experience and usually backed with information.
Of course, neither the geopolitical and human rights situations are “easy” to resolve: if only it could be so, we could relax and take some time off from making comments!
S.
Thank you, Flynt and Hillary, for your amazing work this year. Everyone who regularly reads RaceForIran should contribute (at least) a little something – if not out of obligation, then surely out of appreciation.
RFI remains one of the very few sites that is committed to telling the truth about Iran and the deficiencies of US foreign policy relating to the Islamic Republic. The Leveretts’ voices are not only valuable, but vital.
Here’s to a peaceful New Year, full of truth and justice…and not just wishful thinking.
*****
P.S. Readers of RFI may be interested in this year-ending piece on Wide Asleep in America, outlining three decades of lies that continue to this very day:
The Phantom Menace: Fantasies, Falsehoods, and Fear-Mongering about Iran’s Nuclear Program
http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2010/12/phantom-menace-fantasies-falsehoods-and.html
here is one solution. The Leveretts can put 2-3 links for the advertisement in the right hand side of their website. this is better than asking those who don’t want to disclose their identity (even for the Leveretts) here. our locations are known though.
https://www.google.com/adsense/www/en_US/tour/
US military attache in Israel, Lt. Col. Rick Burgess in his farewell address reassures the reporter that the strained relations between the Obama administration and Israel’s government are like those of “husband and wife”.
Lt. Col. Rick Burgess also confirmed who rules United States in the real sense. He called Iranian President Dr. Ahmadinejad to Adolph Hitler and claimed that Israel and the world were now facing a time like the 1930s when the Nazis came to power.
“Ahmadinejad returns us to a scenario of the little guy with the moustache of the 1930s”.
I bet, in order to please his Zionist masters – Burgess ignored the fact that it were 150,000 German Jews who served in the Nazi Army and not the Iranians.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/us-and-israel-are-like-husband-and-wife/
Fiorangela
You quoted “The Salem Witch trials can be defined as a ‘moral panic.’”
I don’t remember the name of history book where the author believed the Salem Witch Trials were about stealing lands of the victims by greedy landowners.
On NIE, I am convinced Iran didn’t stop its nuclear weapon program in 2003 but as the Iranian embassador (Khazai) told Charlie Rose “never had such a program”. I remember reading quite a few articles on how the White House (Cheney) delayed the publication of NIE for months until a compromise was agreed where the intelligence agencies threw in lines implying the nuclear weapon program was there but stopped in 2003.
It seems Hillary Mann Leverett also thinks Iran might not be after building any type of WMD. In Amy Goodman’s interview she said:
“ ….when we look at Iran…how Iran behaved during Iran-Iraq war in 1980′s…an eight year war where more than half a million Iranians were killed in part because Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons against them…..the Iranians decided…..took a decision……we actually know…..there is archival material ……that it shows some of the debate within the Iranian leadership…..they took a decision not to use chemical weapons back against the Iraqis……so we have actually some sense of an ability by Iranians to take some pretty severe hits and to not go first use some unconventional weapons….option to use even against its archest foe in 1980s…”.
From the Farsi sources I also know about half a dozen other ‘circumstantial’ clues that Iran is (was) not after any kind of WMD. In one of them I got the idea they rather copy the demeanor of Imam Hossein (the grandson of Mohammad) who fought a large army only with 70 men on his side (dying honorably instead of winning villainously) and adhering to ideas that glorifies ‘martyrdom’ especially when one is facing an ‘evil’ enemy.
It is interesting Obama in his 2009 Novruz message to Iranians ignored USA’s own NIE and indirectly repeated the Israeli line He arrogantly in a lecturing tone implied Iran cannot achieve legitimacy through “..terror and arms…”. Everyone knows by “terror” he meant the support of Hezbollah and Hammas who are only resistant groups fighting a foreign occupation. And by “arms” he obviously didn’t mean the conventional defensive arsenal but the Tel-Aviv neo-con trumpeted “ Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions”.
Anyhow, your commentary was interesting and I learned a few things from it. Thanks.
From a wikileak cable regarding an upcoming meeting between the Egyptian Foreign Minister and Sec of State Clinton. The briefing is about Iran and Iraq, among other subjects:
“President Mubarak enjoys recounting for visiting members of Congress how he warned former President Bush against invading Iraq, ending with, “I told you so!” and a wag of his finger. In addition, there are Egyptian misgivings about Nuri Al-Maliki and Shia majority rule in Iraq. Egypt therefore will need additional prodding to continue to take steps to help rehabilitate Iraq into the greater Arab world. You should ask Aboul Gheit when he plans to fully open the Egyptian embassy in Baghdad and exchange accredited ambassadors with Iraq (the first Egyptian ambassador to post-Saddam Iraq was assassinated). As for Iran, Mubarak has a visceral hatred for the Islamic Republic, referring repeatedly to Iranians as “liars,” and denouncing them for seeking to destabilize Egypt and the region. He sees the Syrians and Qataris as sycophants to Tehran and liars themselves. There is no doubt that Egypt sees Iran and its greatest long-term threat, both as it develops a nuclear capability and as it seeks to export its “Shia revolution.” Nonetheless, Mubarak told Mitchell pointedly that he did not oppose the U.S. speaking to the Iranians, as long as we did not “believe a single word they say.” Aboul Gheit will be keen to hear your description of U.S. intentions towards Iran. In his conversation with Senator Mitchell, Aboul Gheit carefully noting he was speaking personally, expressed more interest into bringing the Syrians into negotiations again; President Mubarak was not enthusiastic about dealing with the Syrians at this time.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/191130
Pirouz_2
Thanks for the links, and have a safe trip
Scott Lucas
“To the contrary, I write about geopolitical and regional matters and US foreign policy every day and would be pleased to chat with you about any specific topic you would like to raise.’
Scott thanks a bunch for your reply, I thought my original question to you was clear, maybe I should be clearer, here we go, I asked, if you can expand on your insertion and explain, why you think that the subject of Iran’s geopolitics is and easier issue to discuss and address, then the Iran’s human rights subject, that clearly you are more interested on, and if true, then why the US for nearly thirty two years has failed to effectively contain Iran’s regional soft power gains.
I belive this is a good and fair opening question for kind of discussions, that this site is setup to address, and who better then you to start this discussion, maybe we all can learn on why and how US policies on Iran since the revolution of 79 have continually failed, and what would make sense looking forward.
Regards
http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2007/08/07LONDON3175.html
Here is confirmation – straight from the horse’s mouth – of a couple of rumours that are often aggressively refuted by regime apologists:
“An open acknowledgment by xxxxxxxxxxxx that the IRGC is present and operating in both Afghanistan and Iraq…”
“[Yahya Rahim Safavi] stressed that, unlike “a few years ago, under Khatami,” the IRGC plays a central and preeminent role in the Iranian government…”
Several days ago Rehmat mentioned Haggai Ram’s “Iranophobia,” and posted a link to an article by Ira Chernus (iirc) that discussed Ram’s thesis. The Chernus article was adequate but did not do justice to the complexity of Haggai Ram’s very important book.
The first two of the three reviews of “Iranophobia” that can be found on Amazon are much better than the Chernus article.
I’ve been struggling to grasp the main thread of “Iranophobia” and read much of the book at least twice. Things finally fell into place when I did background research on “moral panic,” one of the key sociological theories employed by Prof. Ram, a professor in the social sciences at Ben Gurion University.
“Moral panic” is a theory developed by British social scientist Stanley Cohen, who devised the concept in Great Britain in 1972 as a way to understand the behavior of British “rockers” and protesters. http://www.kgsepg.com/project-id/1805-folk-devils-and-moral-panics
“moral panic occurs when “[a] condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests.”
Those who start the panic when they fear a threat to prevailing social or cultural values are known by researchers as “moral entrepreneurs”, while people who supposedly threaten the social order have been described as “folk devils.”
The Salem Witch trials can be defined as a “moral panic.”
The young girls caught frolicking in the woods embody the “threat” to the righteous norms of societal values. They become labelled as “folk devils,” also to be understood as scapegoats, for they will be punished to cleanse the society of the insult to its “righteousness.”
“Moral entrepreneurs” are “knowledge producers” who drive the discourse that expresses the outrage and labels the folk devil.
_____
Norman Finkelstein has written and spoken quite forcefully on the paradox of the situation in which the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran was NOT attempting to build a nuclear weapon, and every state in the world reacted with relief, except for Israel. Haggai Ram expands on Finkelstein’s observation, reporting that just as the 2007 NIE was released, Israel mailed to its Jewish citizens extensive instructions on how to protect themselves against an attack. In addition, Ram notes the response to the NIE of Israel’s Channel 10 television news political correspondent Chico Menahem:
“We did not imagine that the blow [on Israel] would be so severe and so painful.”
Ram explains the seeming absurdity of this reaction by recounting that in Israel, Iran is likened to an armed rapist who is observed climbing the eaves toward a young girl on the third floor. “But they’re still not sure, and are careful to remark that it is certainly possible he is climbing up to suntan on the roof.”
_____
In this (lengthy) passage from the postscript to “Iranophobia,” (pp. 122-124), Prof. Ram connects the purpose of his book, and core concepts of “moral panic” as it applies to the perception of post-1979 Iran in the minds of Israeli Jews:
The debate over Iran’s nuclear program has certainly not run its course, and it does not seem likely that it will in the foreseeable future. And yet this book has not engaged directly with the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat. Rather, this book has been primarily concerned with the ways in which Israel’s obsession with Iran can help in deciphering the inner dynamics of Israeli society, culture, and politics. As I have demonstrated in this book, this obsession is not simply a product of “objective” security concerns or of a strategic rivalry between these two states. Nor is it purely a derivative of perceived cultural differences between Iran and Israel. . . .[I]t is most prominently linked to Israeli defensive mechanisms of the home in view of the peril of the Jewish state becoming foreign and unrecognizable to itself. At the same time, this obsession should be examined within the context of Israel’s repertoires of violence in the post-9/11 world.
“Paradoxically, . . .the articulation of danger is ‘not a threat to the state’s identity or existence; it is its condition of possibility.’ The articulation of danger is therefore essential for the maintenance and preservation of state hegemony. This explains, in part, why the Jewish state has gone out of its way to blow up the extent of Iran’s threat to its existence. However, in this book I have not limited myself to describing the rhetorical construction of Iran as a threat. Rather, my main goal has been to penetrate these rhetorical utterances and thereby to lay bare the conceptual mainstays of Israel’s construction of Iran as a ‘known rapist.’
“Indeed, the evolution of Israel’s attitudes toward pre- and post-1979 Iran was tightly linked to values and constructs that were neither invented nor controlled by the state’s decision makers. Iran was not instantaneously accessible to the latter. To “create” Iran, to render her meaningful to Israelis, it was first of all necessary for these decision makers to draw on a prior repertoire of domestic images . . .Although monarchical and Islamic republican Iran have held pride of place in Israel’s foreign policy considerations, these considerations were first and foremost reliant on a complex and multilayered system of images and representations that imbued Iran and its peoples with particular meanings and which resonated with the commonsense world of many an Israeli Jew.
“Nor were these meanings produced as part of a malevolent scheme of one sort or another. Moral panic is not necessarily the product of conspiratorial designs. It does not require a coordinating center, and it is organized and carried out by different social agents such as the state, elites, and the media, as well as by the spontaneous activity of grassroots movements. ** In addition, moral panic is almost invariably joined by academic and non-academic experts who, by providing commentaries and forecasts, play a key role in the incitement of hostility toward particular groups. It is a spontaneous and disorderly process that, althoug rooted in prior structures, is . . .neither objectively determined nor a product of free will. In the final analysis, moral panic is induced through various sets of texts, each with its own links and biases, that interlace with and transform each other in ways that, though unpremeditated, are never wholly arbitrary. . . .
“To present as thick a description as possible of the complex process in which Iran was singled out as an alien ‘folk devil,’ I included in a single analytic framework the positions of a plethora of knowledge-producers (or ‘moral entrepreneurs’) in the Israeli public sphere — from statesmen and politicians through appointed officials, state emissaries, and various experts to representatives from the media and the cultural field. Even though such a motley group can hardly be assimilated into one category, it is evidence that in their understandings of Iran (and of themselves) they shared a “lifeworld” of “culturally transmitted and linguistically organized stock of interpretative patterns.” This lifeworld–or “shared mythological horizon”–was rooted in the “epistemological imperialism of the West,” which meant that they continued to carry the conceptual impositions and exactions of colonialism.”
**In my opinion, Ram’s understanding of the coordination among the “plethora” of “moral entrepreneurs” of moral panic is underdeveloped. As I am typing this long, long comment, an episode of TV series “NCIS” is in the background. The “bad guy” is a Muslim/Arab/Middle Eastern terrorist who is being lectured on the evil of his ways and of the “72 virgins” motivation by red-blooded American he-men and he-women. Ram needs to form a relationship between propaganda/hasbara and moral panic. btw, are you aware that the United States has created a unit that produces television series for Afghanis constructed around the standard team of good cops. The purpose is persuade Afghanis to trust and cooperate with the police that US is training to control Afghani society. This is no “disorderly and spontaneous process,” Prof. Ram.
Finally, the elements of moral panic are not exclusive to Israel, they dominate US foreign policy “moral entrepreneurs” as well. Yesterday, one such moral entrepreneur, Michael Auslin, Japan specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, discussed US policy toward North Korea. Count the number of times Auslin says “punish,” and see if you recognize this template: “We know best;” “China needs to get with the program;” “N. Korea needs to change its behavior;” “N Korea can have a better future if . . .” :http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PeninsulaTe
What three American writers, Jeff Gates, Gordon Duff and John Perkins, have in common? They all fear the assassination of President Barack Obama unless he keeps dancing on the orders of the groups which hold strings of power in the so-called “world’s model democray”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/does-obama-fear-assassination/
Fior – - Jeff Goldberg apparently now sees that Israel is on the wrong course. (Good story on HuffingtonPost today.)
Fiorangela,
I think at least 13 European coutnries will be uprgrading the status of the Palestinians diplomatic missions they host.
Happy New Year to all!
Fiorangela,
Latin American countries that pressure Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights are doing the Israelis a favor. Even if many Jewish fanatics fail to comprehend this. That various countries have the maturity to see that the US is incapable of acting in its own best interests, due to power of Israel lobby, is something to celebrate.
fascinating information on Mondoweiss:
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/12/u-s-has-lost-the-football.html
- Abbas has been practicing diplomacy with EU and Great Britain, in preparation for declaration in United Nations of an independent Palestinian state;
-Great Britain has upgraded its ambassador from Palestine
-Brazil is almost entire pro-Palestinian,
-key South American States have formed alliances one with another and with Cuba leans leftward, Palestinian-ward, and away from US influence:
São Paolo forum, a group established jointly by Lula and Cuba’s Fidel Castro in order to advance a “consensual unity of action” among Latin American countries. Founded in 1990, the Forum has exercised an inordinate influence on the current crop of leaders; most of those now in power are, in fact, Forum alumni. The views inculcated by its teachings, inherently anti-Western and essentially unsympathetic to Israel’s cause, make it all but inevitable that when it comes to a conflict between the dictates of traditional international law and sovereignty on the one hand, and the wishes of the Palestinians on the other, the latter will win the nod.
Can the US try a Hail Mary pass if it does not have the football?
The corporate media: WSJ, NYT etc..are essentially business operations – charging subscription, as well as hefty fees for advertising. RFI does neither. It survives only because its readers want it to stay online. If you want a good source of news on Iran, and related issues, you need to do your part to maintain it.
But if you prefer reading Roger Cohen’s “expert” analysis…stick with the Times.
The Israel lobby had a great deal to do with setting up the illegal invasion of Iraq and in suppressing any effective investigation of the catastrophic error of judgment (to be kind).
Hardblogger
http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/22/5697982-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-fits-in-us-narrative-?threadId=1157213&commentId=20245418#c20245418
You can also put in a request over at Hardblogger. Ask Matthews or his team to have Flynt Leverett on his program. I am also pushing for Prof Cole to be on his program.
Richard Engel was really pushing the idea that Arab leaders really want the U.S. to attack Iran. Zogby really nailed it at the end of the Chris Matthews, Engel, Zogby interview.
@ Eric A. Brill,
sorry Eric , I did not intend to bother anyone with my ‘ problem ‘.
To donate $ 250 is a very small part I can do to contribute to this valuable Blog .
As mentioned I can get any amount of brand new US dollar bills at any money exghanger in Tehran and there are hundreds of them here , it is a matter of a few minutes. Transferring the money to the US is the main problem and I am afraid it is impoossible from here , since about 4 years ( I think when the US imposed the first round of sanciton on us ).
In any case , I will transfer the moeny next time I am abroad.
Thank you in deed for your anticipation.
Mona El-Ghobashy looks into “The Liquidation of Egypt’s Illiberal
Experiment,” now in Middle East Report Online:
http://www.merip.org/mero/mero122910.html
“The winter 2010 Egyptian parliamentary elections defied expectations,
not because President Husni Mubarak’s party will once again dominate
the national assembly, but because of the lengths to which the regime
was willing to go to ensure its monopoly. Ballot boxes were stuffed,
polling places barricaded and voters denied entry — all in a return
to the shameless, flagrant cheating of yore. If British colonial
officials ended Egypt’s “liberal experiment” in 1936, one might say
the Mubarak cabal has halted the illiberal experiment, a second, less
substantive venture into parliamentary politics. The main questions
are two: Why did the regime dispense with its image-enhancing smidgen
of legislative opposition? And where does this turn of events leave
the opposition, as the country undergoes aggressive economic
transformation and much of Egyptian society rebels?”
To say I don’t appreciate the hypocrisy of our Western government’s portrayal of Egypt is a vast understatement. Once again, it is important to understand the historical role of the ‘liberal experiment’ to properly recognize the Islamist movement which replaced it.
kooshy says: December 29, 2010 at 11:02 am
Mr. Hill is behind times.
No Iran-US settlement is possible.
Look for Iran to sanction Afdghanistan and make life more difficult for the NATO states there.
More of the same propaganda:
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/where-the-bin-ladens-call-home-4640
Let’s see how westerners who claim to care so much about human rights, do about this:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/157747.html
Hi all,
Just out of curiosity, what are your running costs for your project?
The “Please Contribute” link at the homepage goes to a contribution page that does NOT include the $20 paypal button.
Please fix that.
Ah, I just saw the details for a check option. I’ll get that out right after the 1st of the month.
And thanks again for publishing Race For Iran.
MHF,
I get the impression you don’t agree with the Leveretts’ point of view but that you find their website valuable. You ought to consider contributing for that very reason.
Dear Leveretts-
First, I appreciate your “Race for Iran” writings– how else would I learn of what Ahmadinejad is up to; he lies all the time himself.
However, I am surprised that you are looking for donations from people at large. Since you are dining and meeting with your loved Ahmadinejad and Company (in between his hangings, when he has a few minutes) why don’t you ask him to increase his payments from petro-dollars to you just a bit– he is wasting Iranian people’s money on you (and Hezbollah, and Hammas, and even top Afghan politicians, among many others) already, why not a few million more to keep your life style going for a bit longer? Do not worry about out-of-work and hungry poor souls in Iran– they would be kept in jails and under torture, or hanged!
Paul,
Your comment is excellent: undoubtedly there are many people who read and support this website but can’t afford to give even $20 (or less). I’ve been in that situation during some periods of my life, and so understand entirely. I can afford to help now and have contributed (twice now) to Race for Iran, partly because I understand others who would like to do so can’t afford to.
But readers should bear in mind the point made by Flynt and Hillary about the benefits of expanding the list of an organization’s donors. One of the first questions any institutional funder will ask is “Do people really care about what you’re doing? Why should I give you money if nobody pays attention to you in the first place?” If the Leveretts can show a long list of people who care, and who care enough to give something, the funders are likely to be impressed. Ironically, they may be even more impressed if the donations are small (though numerous). They may concluded, as they properly should: “It looks like a lot of people indeed do care about this organization, and the small size of their donations suggests that the organization could use our help.”
So even if it’s $5, or just a token dollar, it will help.
In case anyone wonders, this post is entirely unsolicited by the Leveretts. These are just my own thoughts, nothing more.
To Flynt and Hillary,
Voice of Tehran’s difficulties make me think it might be worth your while to figure out some creative solution for contributors from Iran. Doing so would probably land you on some US government “watch list,” of course, but you’re probably already on that list anyway.
That reminds me of a story that appeared in the Cleveland, Ohio newspapers (my original home town) shortly after Richard Nixon’s “enemies list” was revealed. A local attorney, Hugh Calkins, was on the list and was asked by a reporter how he felt about that. He replied: “That’s OK. Nixon has been on my list for a long time.”
Voice of Tehran,
“How is the procedure to donate money if someone lives in Iran like myself? Getting cash US Dollars is not a problem at all here, transferring it to US is quite difficult due to the US sanctions. Anybody there with a solution?”
I don’t have a solution, though I hope you’ll try and wish you luck. This is just an example of how free expression in the US works in real life: put in place as many restrictions as possible behind the scenes, deny institutional funding to anyone who doesn’t stick within the narrow confines of Washington cocktail-party conversation, and then remind people that they live in the land of the free and are welcome to say or write whatever is on their minds.
Talking about the “Threatening Storm” – Two of Israel’s Chief Rabbis has claimed that abortion among the Israeli Jews is DELAYING the arrival of the “Promised Jewish Messiah” who will bring victories over enemies of Israel (Islamic Iran)!!
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/rabbis-abortion-delays-the-coming-of-jewish-messiah/
US must rethink its policy on Iran
Sanctions should be an element of diplomacy, not a substitute for it
By Christopher Hill, Special to Gulf News, Project Syndicate, 2010
December 27, 2010
Throughout 2010, the pattern for negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme held to form. Diplomatic efforts focused on sanctions — and on what mix of them would be needed to bring Iran to heal. With just about every diplomatic approach having failed, a renewed focus on economic sanctions could turn out to be a bad idea whose time comes around again in 2011.
But sanctions, of course, have a dismal record in achieving their aims. So it might be useful to step back and take a hard look at our disagreeable negotiating partner — Iran — to see what should, and should not, be emphasised diplomatically.
There is nothing easy about negotiating with Iran. It is one of the oldest states in the broader Middle East. It has a deep culture. Despite its leaders’ grim public image, Iran has a sense of humanism, as any Kurd who fled from Saddam Hussain’s chemical warfare attacks along the Iranian border can attest. Bending, much less breaking, will not come naturally to such a country.
Iran also doesn’t “play well with others.” Most Americans remember it as the country that kidnapped US diplomats soon after its Islamic revolution in 1979, holding them for no apparent purpose for 444 days. No American diplomat has been stationed there since. American attitudes toward Iran are probably far more conditioned by that episode than people realise.
Iran is also divided. Its clerics bicker constantly, seeming to reflect the country’s broader divisions. Iran’s civilian authorities seem to have limited control over the military and the dreaded security services, which seem to answer to no one else but themselves.
Iran’s Islamic Revolution, moreover, has run into a familiar contradiction: it cannot further its aims without accepting Westernisation and modernisation. Iran’s youthful population — a product of the massive post-revolution baby boom — is increasingly frustrated and depressed; not surprisingly, young Iranians are having fewer children than ever. As the June 2009 election protests showed, Iran’s urban youth desperately want to end the country’s isolation, but they have increasingly found that the only way out of isolation is to study or work abroad — and never come back.
Iran does not live in a great neighbourhood, either. Turkey can be a good neighbour, but otherwise Iran is bordered by inhospitable states to the east and the north.
Iran has virtually no friends among the Arab states. As the world recently learned from the WikiLeaks release of US diplomatic cables, Arab leaders are no more tolerant of an Iranian nuclear bomb than is the US or its allies. Iran’s only friends, it seems, are those — like the Chinese — who are more interested in its natural resources than its people.
While sanctions may deepen Iran’s predicament, they are unlikely to break the diplomatic impasse on nuclear weapons. But, given the Iranian government’s increasingly unhelpful reactions to diplomatic overtures, there is unlikely to be any interest in toning down sanctions. Indeed, just the opposite response is likely — efforts to tighten sanctions still further.
Yet, just as the US adopted a “bomb and talk” approach with the Serbs during the denouement of the Bosnian war, America must be willing to “sanction and talk” when it comes to Iran, thereby creating greater space for an eventual diplomatic strategy.
First, the US should consider establishing diplomatic relations with Iran and putting diplomats on the ground. This would not be an easy process, and could well meet considerable Iranian resistance. But the Iranians have diplomatic relations with other members of its main interlocutor in talks on its nuclear programme, the sanctions-minded P-5+1 Group (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the US), and restoring Iran-US diplomatic ties would shorten lines of communications and close the 444-day chapter of 1979-1981.
Second, even if a stronger bilateral mechanism is forged, it should not be allowed to displace the P-5 approach. The ability of this group to work together is critical to resolving this and future crises.
Action by neighbours
Third, the US should continue its efforts to encourage action by Iran’s neighbours. While Turkey’s lurch into the fray in 2010 may have been unwelcome, its interest in calming a situation involving an immediate neighbour is understandable. More problematically, the neighbouring states should also give more serious thought to addressing the situation, and should seek to reconcile their private and public postures.
Iran, after all, is not building an Islamic bomb. It is building an Iranian bomb that Arab leaders must take seriously. Private expressions of deep concern do not compensate for public nonchalance, and are hardly a basis for a successful policy toward a country whose nuclear ambitions could have a catastrophic impact on the region.
Finally, the Chinese and the Russians have been brought along principally by the US to a more robust policy, yet they remain reluctant. They need to convey through their own bilateral approaches to Iran a sense of urgency — and perhaps even express a little anger — at Iran’s unwillingness to negotiate seriously.
Sanctions should be an element of diplomacy, not a substitute for it. Even as we look to tighten sanctions on Iran in 2011, we must strengthen our efforts to establish a strong political and diplomatic track.
— Christopher Hill is former US Ambassador to Iraq
This is an excellent plea. But please be aware that for many people, even 20$ is far from a token amount. As example, consider that 20$ is a full(er) gas tank, and that is a lifeline for many people who are barely making it from week to week. For every supporter who gives $20, there may be many who can only give ten or five or one or none at all, but who do support what you are doing.
Obama administration knows for fact that Iran under Islamic regime poses no threat to US security even if Tehran acquire a couple of hundreds of crude nuclear bombs nor the rest of G5+1 stupid enough to fear Iran. It’s the Zionist-regime which is exploiting this issue to keep Washington developing a friendly relations with Tehran.
https://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/israel-behind-us-iran-nuclear-conflict/
someone posted a comment on the Mondoweiss forum that encouraged people to contribute to raceforIran. (Comments on Mondoweiss are moderated, so the hosts of the site, Phil Weiss and Adam Horowitz, must have approved the message).
That’s a good idea: take the message of RaceforIran to other websites and invite the participation of like-minded persons.
Could you include a paypal button for $20. That way, those of us on a fixed income can donate a token amount.
Given that what Dan Cooper writes can only be agreed with, I would like to encourage the Leveretts to bring their campaign up a step. Unfortunately the truths they speak fall like a drop in the ocean of American media, reaching only a fraction of a fraction of a percent of American public. I invite the Leveretts, or other readers of this site, if anything concrete is to be achieved, to start considering bringing people to court for deceiving the public. I am not American, but I believe that somewhere in your laws there are provisions and limits to what a journalist (sic), opinionist or other can say to deceive and sway the public. Thoroughly publicized legal action against few, selected, high profile targets (double sic!) on the mentioned grounds could be a winning strategy if the discourse is to be steered away from the brink of precipice and set boundaries that can only benefit American society on this and other issues. I am sure that a campaign to defend truth and discredit lies and liars could be quite attractive for several sponsors.
Regards
Dear Leveretts,
how is the procedure to donate money if someone lives in Iran like myself ? Getting cash US Dollars is not a problem at all here , transferring it to US is quite difficult due to the US sanctions.
Anybody there with a solution ?
The year 2011 will bring Americans a larger and more intrusive police state, more unemployment and home foreclosures, no economic recovery, more disregard by the U.S. government of U.S. law, international law, the Constitution, and truth, more suspicion and distrust from allies, more hostility from the rest of the world, and new heights of media sycophancy.
2011 is shaping up as the terminal year for American democracy. The Republican Party has degenerated into a party of Brownshirts, and voter frustrations with the worsening economic crisis and military occupations gone awry are likely to bring Republicans to power in 2012. With them would come their doctrines of executive primacy over Congress, the judiciary, law, and the Constitution and America’s rightful hegemony over the world.
If not already obvious, 2010 has made clear that the U.S. government does not care a whit for the opinions of citizens. The TSA is unequivocal that it will reach no accommodation with Americans other than the violations of their persons that it imposes by its unaccountable power. As for public opposition to war, the Associated Press reported on December 16 that “Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the U.S. can’t let public opinion sway its commitment to Afghanistan.” Gates stated bluntly what has been known for some time: the idea is passe that government in a democracy serves the will of the people. If this quaint notion is still found in civics books, it will soon be edited out.
In Gag Rule, a masterful account of the suppression of dissent and the stifling of democracy, Lewis H. Lapham writes that candor is a necessary virtue if democracies are to survive their follies and crimes. But where in America today can candor be found? Certainly not in the councils of government. Attorney General John Ashcroft complained of candor-mongers to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Americans who insist on speaking their minds, Ashcroft declared, “scare people with phantoms of lost liberty,” “aid terrorists,” diminish our resolve,” and “give ammunition to America’s enemies.”
As the Department of Justice (sic) sees it, when the ACLU defends habeas corpus it is defending the ability of terrorists to blow up Americans, and when the ACLU defends the First Amendment it is defending exposures of the lies and deceptions that are the necessary scaffolding for the government’s pretense that it is doing God’s will while Satan speaks through the voices of dissent.
Neither is candor a trait in which the American media finds comfort. The neoconservative press functions as propaganda ministry for hegemonic American empire, and the “liberal” New York Times serves the same master. It was the New York Times that gave credence to the Bush regime’s lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and it was the New York Times that guaranteed Bush’s re-election by spiking the story that Bush was committing felonies by spying on Americans without obtaining warrants. Conservatives rant about the “liberal media” as if it were a vast subversive force, but they owe their beloved wars and cover-ups of the Bush regime’s crimes to the New York Times.
With truth the declared enemy of the fantasy world in which the government, media, and public reside, the nation has turned on whistleblowers. Bradley Manning, who allegedly provided the media with the video made by U.S. troops of their wanton, fun-filled slaughter of newsmen and civilians, has been abused in solitary confinement for six months. Murdering civilians is a war crime, and as General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the National Press Club on February 17, 2006, “It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral” and to make such orders known. If Manning is the source of the leak, he has been wrongfully imprisoned for meeting his military responsibility. The media have yet to make the point that the person who reported the crime, not the persons who committed it, is the one who has been imprisoned, and without a trial.
The lawlessness of the U.S. government, which has been creeping up on us for decades, broke into a full gallop in the years of the Bush/Cheney/Obama regimes. Today the government operates above the law, yet maintains that it is a democracy bringing the same to Muslims by force of arms, only briefly being sidetracked by sponsoring a military coup against democracy in Honduras and attempting to overthrow the democratic government in Venezuela.
As 2011 dawns, public discourse in America has the country primed for a fascist dictatorship.The situation will be worse by 2012. The most uncomfortable truth that emerges from the WikiLeaks saga is that American public discourse consists of cries for revenge against those who tell us truths.
The vicious mendacity of the U.S. government knows no restraint. Whether or not international law can save Julian Assange from the clutches of the Americans or death by a government black ops unit, both executive and legislative branches are working assiduously to establish the National Security State as the highest value and truth as its greatest enemy.
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/101227_2011.htm